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 formal reason of Heresy, in the usual acceptation of the word, ariseth from its deviation from the Scripture as such, which is the Rule of the Churches Doctrine, and of the Opinions that are contrary unto it. Nor yet is every private or singular Opinion contrary to the Scripture, or the Doctrine of the Church, presently an Heresy. That is not the sense of the word, either in Scripture or Antiquity. So that the foundation of the Queries about Heresy is not one jot better laid, then that was about Apostasy, which went before. This is that which I have heard Protestants say; namely, That the Church of Rome doth adhere to very many Opinions and Errors in Faith, contrary to the main Principles of Christian Religion delivered in the Scripture, and so, consequently, the Doctrine approved by the Catholic Church; and, if this be to fall by Heresy, I add, that she is thus fallen also from what she was. But then he asks 1. By what general Council was she ever condemned? 2. Which of the Fathers ever wrote against her? 3. By what Authority ⟨p. 69⟩was she otherwise reproved? But this is all one, as if a thief arraigned for stealing before a Judge, and the goods that he had stolen found upon him, should plead for himself and say; If ever I stole any thing, then by what lawful Judge was I ever condemned? what Officer of the State did ever, formerly, apprehend me? by what Authority were Writs issued out against me? Were it not easy for the Judge to reply, and tell him; Friend, these Allegations may prove, that you were never before condemned, but they prove not at all, that you never stole; which is a matter of fact that you are now upon your trial for. No more will it at all follow, that the Church of Rome did never offend, because she is not condemned. These things may be necessary that she may be said to be legally convicted, but not at all to prove, that she is really guilty. Besides, the truth is, that many of her Doctrines and Practises are condemned by general Councils, and most of them by the most learned Fathers, and all of them by the Authority of the Scripture. And whilst her Doctrine and Worship is so condemned, I see not well how she can escape; so ⟨p. 70⟩that this second way also she is fallen.

The formal reason of Heresie, in the usual acceptation of the word, ariseth from its deviation from the Scripture as such, which is the Rule of the Churches Doctrine, and of the Opinions that are contrary unto it. Nor yet is every private or singular Opinion contrary to the Scripture, or the Doctrine of the Church, presently an Heresie. That is not the sense of the word, either in Scripture or Antiquity. So that the foundation of the Queries about Heresie is not one jot better layed, then that was about Apostasie, which went before. This is that which I have heard Protestants say; namely, That the Church of Rome doth adhere to very many Opinions and Errors in Faith, contrary to the main Principles of Christian Religion delivered in the Scripture, and so, consequently, the Doctrine approved by the Catholick Church; and, if this be to fall by Heresie, I add, that she is thus fallen also from what she was. But then he asks 1. By what general Council was she ever condemned? 2. Which of the Fathers ever wrote against her? 3. By what Authority