A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux

Further Vindication of the first Chapter of the Animadversions. Church of Rome not what she was of old. Her Falls and Apostasy. Difference between Idolatry, Apostasy, Heresy, and Schism. Principles of the Church of Rome condemned by the ancient Church, Fathers, and Councils. Imposing Rites unnecessary. Persecution for Conscience. Papal Supremacy. The Branches of it. Papal Personal Infallibility. Religious veneration of Images.

Further Vindication of the first Chapter of the Animadversions. Church of Rome not what she was of old. Her Falls and Apostacy. Difference between Idolatry, Apostacy, Heresie, and Schism. Principles of the Church of Rome condemned by the antient Church, Fathers, and Councels. Imposing Rites unnecessary. Persecution for Conscience. Papall Supremacy. The Branches of it. Papall Personall Infallibility. Religious veneration of Images.

The third Assertion which you review is, That the Roman profession of Religion, and practice in the worship of God, are every way the same as when first we received the Gospel from Rome, nor can they ever otherwise be; whereunto you say, This indeed though I do no where formally express it, yet I suppose it, because I know it hath been demonstratively proved a hundred times over. You deny it hath been proved, why do you not then disprove it? because you decline, say you, all common places. All that I affirmed was, that you did suppose this Principle, and built many of your Inferences on the supposition thereof, which you here acknowledge. And so you have already owned two of the Principles, whereof in the foregoing Page you affirmed, that you could hardly own any one, and that in the sense wherein by me they are proposed and understood. But what do you mean that you no where formally express it? If you mean, that you have not set it down in those syllables, wherein you find it expressed in the Animadversions, no man ever said you did; you do not use to speak so ⟨p. 49⟩openly and plainly: To do so would bring you out of the corners, which somewhat that you pretend unto never lead you into. But if you deny, that you asserted and laboured to prove the whole and entire matter of it, your following Discourse wherein you endeavour a vindication of the Sophism, wherewith you pleaded for it in your Fiat, will sufficiently confute you. And so you have avowed already two, of the hardly any one, Principles ascribed unto you: And this you say hath been demonstratively proved an hundred times over, and ask me why I do not disprove it, giving a ridiculous Answer, as from me, unto your Enquiry. But pray Sir talk not of Demonstrations in this matter; palpable Sophisms, such as your Masters use in this Cause, are far enough from Demonstrations. And if you think it enough for you to say, that it hath been proved, why is it not a sufficient. Answer in me to remind you that it hath been disproved, and your pretended proofs all refuted. And according to what Rules of Logic, do you expect Arguments from me to disprove your, Assertion, whilst I was only answering yours that you produced in its confirmation?