The novelty of the modern Romish religion set forth in an answer to three queries propounded by N.G., priest, with a rejoynder to his reply, and a reply to an answer made to three queries propounded unto him : together with animadversions upon some reflexions made by an unknown author ... / written by S.F., M.A. and vicar of Mitton in Craven.

Ʋpon the Reflection in general.

HE promised to reflect against my me∣thod and way of proceeding, but I find him employing his strength another way, refle∣cting against the matter of my Papers, I shall pass by this infirmity, and take him as I do find him, confounding two different things, and will see what it is that is objected against me.

I have said that my Adversary in propound∣ing the quaeries, went three miles about, while a journey of one would be more serviceable for finding out the truth, and that the Turk can plead as great Antiquity and Succession f••r his Religion, as the Romanists can do for theirs, pre∣tending to the antiquity of Austin and the an∣tient Brittains, and the Jew can plead a greater Antiquity and longer Succession for his, and I have required my Adversary to prove the affir∣mative of the three quaeries that are propound∣ed by him; and have not agreed with him about a rule for the determining of the controversy: These are the great faults that are laid to my charge, and this is the rule that is prescribed to the Reader, by which he must give judgment concerning my Papers, and determine whither I have in them expressed passion, and keep close unto the matter in controversy, and discussed it with reason.

Now (Christian Reader) what conclusions can be drawn from these premises to over-rule thy judgment, to determine against me? here

is not the least smell of passion, and the matter in controversy being the determination of three trival and unprofitable questions, what can be closer unto it, and more consonant to reason then to tell my Adversary, that it is needless for us to incumber our selves with it, because the resolution of this one question, whether the Religitn now ••rofesse•• by the Romanists be the same that was taught by Christ and his Apo∣stles, will bring as sooner to the knowledg of the truth; and what can be more close like∣wise unto it, and more consonant to reason then to tell him that the determination of two of those questions will be altogether unprofitable for the Romanists? for if they could prove that the Religion now professed by them, is the same that Augustin professed, and his the same that the Antient Brittans in his time professed, notwithstanding this Antiquity and Succession, they must give Protestants leave to account it the meer invention of man, until they prove that it is the same that was taught by Christ and his Apostles; and what can be more close unto it, and consonant to reason, then to require my Adversary to prove the affirmative of the quae∣ries, because the Romanists do boast so much of the Antiquity and Succession of their Religion, and will have Antiquity and Succession to be the touchstone, whereby the Nature and Constitu∣tion of their Religion is to be tried? and how can it be dissonant to reason, not to have agreed with my adversary concerning an infallible rule, while that agreement is improbable, if not im∣possible to be effected.

And what is written in answer to the que∣stions, is likewise to be observed; unto two of

them there is some resolution made in the nega∣tive; and as to the third, I have told my Ad∣versary; that it cannot with any shew of pro∣bability be determined either in the affirmative or the negative, because there are not any Hi∣stories to be found, that do speak directly and expresly to the Religion of the ancient Brittans, informing us, what were the particular tenents maintained by them; and what can be more close unto the matters in controversy, and more consonant to reason then this? would this Gen∣tleman have the Reader so much enslaved to his dictates, as not to beleive his own eyes, nor to credit his own judgment; but upon his ground∣less suggestions, to believe & to determine that is not done, which (he may see) is really done.

And the quality of the Rule that is prescribed is to be taken notice of, a compleat Rule is in∣dex recti as well as obliqui, it shews what is streight as well as what is crooked, and such a rule should have been prescribed by this Gentle∣man, but in the three Reflections he tells the Reader, what, as he conceived, should not have been done; I should not have said that my Adver∣sary in propounding of the Queries went three miles about, while a journey of one would have been more serviceable for finding out the truth and I should not have sa••d that the 〈…〉〈…〉k can plead as great Antiquity and Succession for his Religion as the Romanists can do for theirs, pre∣tending to the Antiquity of Austin, a••d the an∣cient Britai••s and that the Jew can plead a grea∣ter Antiquity and longer Succ••ssion for his; and I should not have requi••••d my Adversary to prove the Affirmative of the three Queries, that are propounded by him; but he doth not declare

his mind to inform us, what he conceived neces∣sary to be done, yet by this crooked and defe∣ctive Rule the Reader must give Judgment con∣cerning my Papers; I perceive he would have the Reader to be, as his self is, an imitator of his great Lord and Master, the pretended head of the Church; to draw conclusions from any kind of premises, and to determine by any kind of rule, nor is this to be accounted a matter of ad∣miration, while this principle is maintained by the Romanists, that it is meritorious to speak or do any thing that is serviceable for the advan∣cing of the Romish Religion.