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,…

The proof of this Assertion, lies first on the Testimony of St. Paul, and then on the acknowledgement of Protestants; First, Good St. Paul, he says, amply testifies this in his Epistle to the Romans. This, what I pray? That the then Roman Church was a Mother Church: not a word in all the Epistle of any such matter. Nay, as I observed before, though he greatly commends the faith and holiness of many Believers, Jews and Gentiles, that were at Rome; yet he makes mention of no Church there, but only of a little Assembly that used to meet at Aquila's house; nor doth St. Paul give any Testimony at all to the Roman Church in the latter sense of that expression. Is there ⟨p. 62⟩any thing in his Epistle of the Pope, Cardinals, Patriarchs, &c? any thing of their power, and rule over other Churches, or Christians, not living at Rome? Is there any one word in that Epistle about that which the Papists make the principal ingredient in their definition of the Church, namely, subjection to the Pope? What then is the This that good St. Paul so amply testifies unto, in his Epistle to the Romans? Why this and this only; that, when he wrote this Epistle to Rome, there were then living in that City, sundry good, and holy men, believing in Christ Jesus, according to the Gospel, and making profession of the faith that is in him; but, that these men should live there to the end of the world, he says not, nor do we find that they do. The acknowledgement of Protestants, is next, to as little purpose, insisted on. They acknowledge a pure and flourishing Church to have been once at Rome, as they maintain there was at Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Smyrna, Laodicea, Alexandria, Babylon, &c. that in all these places, such Churches do still continue, they deny, and particularly ⟨p. 63⟩at Rome. For that Church which then was, they deny it to be the same that now is; at least, any more then Argo was the same ship as when first built, after there was not one plank or pin of its first structure remaining. That the Church of Rome, in the latter sense, was ever a pure flourishing Church, never any Protestant acknowledged; the most of them deny it ever to have been in that sense, any Church at all; and those that grant it, to retain the Essential constituting Principals of a Church; yet aver, that as it is, so it ever was, since it had a being, very far from a pure and flourishing Church.

The proof of this Assertion, lies first on the Testimony of St. Paul, and then on the acknowledgement of Protestants; First, Good St. Paul, he says, amply testifies this in his Epistle to the Romans. This, what I pray? That the then Roman Church was a Mother Church: not a word in all the Epistle of any such matter. Nay, as I observed before, thogh he greatly commends the faith and holiness of many Believers, Jews and Gentiles, that were at Rome; yet he makes mention of no Church there, but only of a little Assembly that used to meet at Aquila's house; nor doth St. Paul give any Testimony at all to the Roman Church in the latter sense of that expression. Is there