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 second Reflection.

HEre is a great Cry, but little wool; a great outcry made against me, but little, yea no reason for it but the fictions of his own disturb∣ed fancy, where did I speak of antiquity and succession in relation to that Religion which is

acknowledged by all to be true, and proved to be unalterably derived by a continued and un∣interrupted succession from the Author of the true Religion? and where did I speak of an undefined antiquity and succession?

It is evident to him that will see, that I spoke of antiquity and succession in relation to the present Romish Religion, which is not acknow∣ledged by all to be true, but accounted by a great part of the Christian World to be false, and is so far from being proved to have its derivation from the Author of the true Religion, (That if we must believe the Reflectors) it is unreasonable for us to require any such proof; and it is evi∣dent that I speak of that antiquity and successi∣on, which claims not farther than to the Times of Austin the Monk, and of the antient Britains that were contemporary with him.

Is this the man that comes furiously against me saying, mentita est sibi iniqu••tas, while he stinks of that odious crime which he lays to my charge? and is this the method that is by the Champions of the Roman Church in shewing their ••alour, to charge the figments of their own Brain upon their Antagonists? certainly this is a plain di∣scovery of the nature of that cause and Religi∣on which is maintained by them; an unconscio∣nable management is a clear evidence of an evil cause, and the use of such fictious supports as these, is a plain demonstration of a rotten Re∣ligion; Truth will not endure to be supported with lying inventions.

And by my consent the odious imputation of fondness shall be translated, if the present Ro∣mish Religion be acknowledged by all to be true, who is there that can be blinded with passion, or

prepossesse•••• witherrour against it? & to whom, and to what purpose must that manifestation be made, which is pretended to flow from antiqui∣ty and succession? surely all will not come so near in fondness to this Gentleman, as to make this acknowledgment without a previous ground and reason for it.

But the present Romish Religion being ac∣counted by a great part of the World to be false will antiquity and Succession alone afford a con∣vincing argument to prove it to be true? St. Au∣stin * 1.1 maintains the negative, quod anterius est, says he, inquiunt Ethnici falsum esse non potest, quasi antiquitas & vetus consuetudo praejudicet ve∣ritati, the Heathen say, that the Religion that was first cannot be false, as if antiquity and old custom could prevail against the truth, and Tertullian † 1.2 says, viderint ergo quibus novum est, quod sibi est vetus, haereses non tam novitas, quam veritas revincit, quodcunque contra veritatem sa∣pit, hoc est haeresis, etiam vetus consuetudo, let them therefore take heed who count that new which in its self is old, heresy is reproved not so well by novelty as by verity, whatsoever thing savoureth against Truth, the same is an heresy, though it be a custom never so old.

The argument that is to be raised upon this medium in the behalf of the Romish Religion, is this; That Religion which hath antiquity and succession is true, but the present Romish Religi∣on hath antiquity and succession, ergo &c. unless the major proposition be an universal truth, the premises are not able to bring forth a conclusi∣on,

ex particularibus nihil concluditur; if it be, I would know some better reason then is expressed by the reflector, why this argument may no•• be used by a Turk or a Jew, both having Antiquity and Succession for their Religion; neither Turk nor Jew will acknowledg his Religion to be the meer invention of man, but are both pretende••s to a Divine original, and the Romanists having on∣ly a pretence unto Christ and his Apostles, the meanest capacity that sits under the instruction of the reflector, will easily discern the disparity spo∣ken of, to be a meer nullity, is there any diffe∣rence between feigned pretences whatsoever shew or colour they do bear, they are but feigned pre∣tences still, and the opinions of the Romanists that are contradicted by the Protestants can be no more really derived from Christ and his Apostles, then the Religion of a Turk or a Jew.

Should I comply to his humour, and say what cannot be truly said, that a meer pretence unto Christ and his Apostles, alters the nature of the argument, making it serviceable for the Romanist, while it is unserviceable for the Turk and the Jew; suppose then that a Nestorian, or Arrian, or Pela∣gian should step forth, and plead Antiquity and Succession for his opinions, saying that they were handed down from one to another, from Father to Son, through all ages until they arrived with him, they all pretend to Christ and his Apostles as well as the Romanists do, and if upon this pretence the argument be irrisistable for the Romanists, it must be as serviceable for all the other Hereticks; but it is an undoubted truth that Antiquity and Suc∣cession alone cannot be serviceable for any, what∣soever they pretend unto; for that can never be an evidence of truth that is common to errour.

and it is certain that many heresies are of an a••∣tient standing and long Succession.

His argument of Antiquity and Succession a∣lone being defeated, now let us observe, first how artificial he is in his j••gling, confounding different things to render that expression, which savoured of nothing but truth, more odious unto the igno∣rant, that are not able to discern his legerdemain; he makes no difference between Antiquity and Succession in the abstract, and that Antiquity and Succession which is Primitive and Apostolical, o∣therwise why doth he tell us, that Antiquity and Succession alone is a sufficient manifestation of the truth, and afterwards tells us, that for us to press this argument against the Turk and the Jew, that the Catholick Religion is that which our Saviour taught his Apostles, and from them it hath de∣scended unto us, therefore it is the true Religion, would be of no force to convince them: to say Religion hath Antiquity and Succession, is it to say that it was taught by Christ and his Apostles, and that from them it hath descended unto us? no Sir, there is a great difference between Antiquity and Succession alone, and that Antiquity and Succes∣sion which is Primitive and Apostolical, and the Romanists wanting this, whatsoever title they have to that, yet the claim which they make unto truth upon that ground, is but like unto the plea that was made by the base son, who because he had a spurious Succession, would have taken the inheritance from the right Heir.

Secondly; let us observe how rational and de∣monstrative he is in his deductions, he tells us, that to any rational Person not blinded with passi∣on, or prepossessed with Errour, Antiquity, and Succession alone of that Religion which is acknow∣ledged

by all to be the only true one, would be a sufficient manifestation of the true Religion, and that of necessity it must be granted that the Reli∣gion which is most ancient, and which is proved to be unalterably derived by a continued and uninter∣rupted Succession from him that is acknowledged by both Parties, to be the Author of the true Religion, is to be admitted of as true by all, and consequently the continuance and Antiquity of it, allowed as undeniable marks and testimonies thereof.

The Gentleman would be very much offended, if I should assimilate him to Balaam the forcerer; but truly there is very great reason for it, they are so visibly alike in their performances, both acting quite contrary to their intentions; Bala∣am came with a purpose to curse Israel, but he altogether blessed them; and this Gentlemon in∣tended to prove Antiquity and Succession alone to be a great supporter of his Religion, but he hath altogether wrought the contrary; Reader, who∣soever thou art (it is not extorted from his words, but his own plain and free confession) thou must not believe the Romish Religion to be true upon the account of Antiquity and Succession alone, be∣fore thou dost know it to be acknowledged true by all, and it must not be admitted as true by all, until it be proved to be unalterably derived by a continued and uninterrupted Succession from him, who is acknowledged to be the Author of the true Religion, afterward by consequence the An∣tiquity and Succession alone of it, is to be allow∣ed as undeniable marks and testimonies thereof.

Verily he hath done so worthily in the behalf of that transcendent, and always reputed argu∣ment of Antiquity and Succession alone, that he deserves,

serves, I will not say a Cardinals Cap; just as if he should say, a black Horse must first be pro∣ved and acknowledged to be an Horse, and then by consequence his blackness is a manifestation and mark, and testimony that he is an Horse, whereas thou canst not distinguish him by his blackness from an Ox.

If he be asked when his Religion will be ac∣knowledged by all to be tru••, he can return no o∣ther answer, but ad C••lenda•• Grecas, that is to say, never, and why it must have that acknowledg∣ment, and how it is proved to be unalterably de∣rived from the Author of the true Religion, by a continued and uninterrupted Succession; I doubt he will be in a great streight for an answer, un∣less he says by Antiquity and Succession alone, and then that Antiquity and Succession may re∣turn unto him (as Jeptha returned to the Elders of Gilead) didst thou not hate me, and expel me out of my Fathers house, and why art thou come unto me now, when thou art in distress, didst thou not make me a consequent of the proof of the truth, and wouldst thou have me to be an ante∣cedent to prove the truth.

It is the will of providence to infatuate this Gentleman so much, that instead of a builder he proves a destroyer of his own cause, wherefore it will be his greatest wisdom to be of another mind, to lay aside that manifestation which is pre∣tended to flow from Antiquity and Succession a∣lone, as unsufficient, and unnecessary; and in∣stead of saying that Antiquity and Succession a∣lone is a sufficient manifestation of the truth, le•• him say this which will stand against all oppositi∣on, that the truth of Religion is a sufficient ma∣nifestation of the Antiquity and Succession of it

that Religion which is proved to be true, is pro∣ved to have Antiquity and Succession, but every Religion that is proved to have Antiquity and Succession, cannot be proved to be true.

Let him prove the present Romish Religion to be true, and the Antiquity and Succession of it to this day shall be freely aknowledged, but not as needful for the clearing of the truth of it, for this will be done by the pr••ceeding Proof, and until that be proved, let him not make these senceless brags, telling us they pretend to derive their Re∣ligion, and to prove a continued Succession of it from our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, it being by them delivered unto others, and so down∣wards to this present, as they make it to appear by Scripture, Tradition, Councels, Holy▪ Fathers, in an unanimous consent of all Nations; I would know what Scripture they have for those opinions wherein they differ from Protestants, and what Nations, what Fathers, what Councels they are that are consenting unto this, that the body of the Romish Religion, that was compacted by the Councel of Trent, and never saw the light before, received this Derivation and Succession; did the Fathers, and Councels, and Nations of the for∣mer ages, foresee what would be done in the lat∣ter age by the Romish Church, and upon that foresight praefix and afford their consents unto the actions and determinations of that Church con∣cerning points of Religion.

Nor let him break out into impertinent flouri∣shes, telling us that Christians are not to impugn and answer one another, as they would impugn and answer the Turk and the Jew, and as the Turk and the Jew would impugn and answer Christians, for though it be granted that there must be a dif∣ference

in treating and handling each other, yet the argument of Antiquity and Succession alone in the mouth of a Romanist, is of no more force then when it is to be found in the mouth of a Turk or a Jew; for if it be lame in it self, it is not a feigned pretence that can work a miracle, and make it to leap in the Temple.

Nor let him upbraid us with mutability and no∣velty, these faults (injuriously charged upon Pro∣testants) do sleep in the bosom of the Romish Church; they are the Changlings that coin and declare new Articles of Faith; and they are no∣velists that have not Primitive and Apostolick Antiquity and Succession; this was never yielded unto the Romanists by any real Protestants; but whatsoever Antiquity and Succession hath been granted unto them for those opinions wherein they differ from Protestants is meerly spurious, and many ages postnate to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles.

Nor let him tell us that we are assured that An∣tiquity and Succession will not befriend us, until he do prove his Religion to be true, we are assur∣ed that it will not befriend him; as for our selves we do profess that we stand not in need of any such friendship; though that Antiquity and Suc∣cession which is sound and legitimate belongs only unto us, yet it is not Antiquity and Succession in the abstract, but the proof of the truth, that is the ground on which we do build.

Which proof will not be made for the present Romish Religion, by saying that Religion profes∣sed by the Romanists, is the same with Austines, his the same with the ancient Brittans, their's the same that was first preached in England; or by saying that the Religion now professed by the Ro∣manists

is the same with that of the fifteenth age, that the same with the Religion of the fourteenth, and so backward to the first; can he say that the water at the foot of the River is proved to be as pure and clear as it is at the head, by saying that it runs through those cuts and passages of land, which do strike up to the head, possibly many stinking sinks and unclean puddles, and muddy ditches may empty themselves into the stream, between the head and the foot.

And let him tell us how he knows all this to be true, that the Religion now professed by the Ro∣manists is the same with that of Austin, his the same with that of the Ancient Brittans, theirs the same with that which was brought into En∣gland; I am certain that for the determination of this Identity in most points of Faith, he wants the evidence of Hystories; and let me ask him likewise how he knows that the Religion of this last age, is the same with the fifteenth, and so backward to the first; doth his measure of know∣ledg exceed that of Cardinal Perron, who being required to shew his Romish opinions in the three first ages, cries out upon it as an unjust demand, because (saith he) the monuments of the three first ages are so far ••ost, as no•• the hundredth part of them remains unto posterity, so that it is very foolish and unjust from such a paucity of books to require us to decide all the controver∣sies of our times, or prove the Articles of our Faith; with the want of Histories for some ages, let him take the corruption of Histories in others, and the contradiction of Histories in others, and then let him proceed to a resolution of the que∣stion; he is an excellent artist that can build an house without a foundation, or can draw a cer∣tain

and infallible conclusion from uncertain and fallible premises.

That the truth hath continued and succeeded from Christ and his Apostles, unto this day cannot be denied, but that there was never any chaff or tares mixed with the wheat, that corruptions & er∣rours never entred into the Church in any age, since the first cannot be proved; Histories do inform us of the contrary; that sometime Pellagianism over spread the Churches of Brittany, sometime▪ Arrianism the Churches of the whole world, cer∣tainly he will be at a great loss for the visible Suc∣cession of his Religion in those times, unless he do say that it is the same with Pellagian sin and Ar∣rianism, and it is reported that Pope Liberius was an Arrian; C••lestinus a Nestorian, Honerius a Monothelite; and that John the twenty second de∣nied the Immortallity of the Soul, he must ac∣knowledg that his Religion failed in its visible Suc∣cession during the times wherein those Popes did live, or he must say that his Religion is a main∣tainer of those errours, or that he doth not de∣rive his Religion by Succession from the Popes of Rome, neither of which (I suppose) will be affirm∣ed by him.

The purity of the water at the foot of the Ri∣ver is to be tried by that which is taken up at the head, the truth of Religion is to be proved by the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles delivered in the sacred Scriptures, and whether the Prote∣stants or the Romanists do make the fairest claim unto this proof, the Romanists themselves have determined, by their wicked rejection of the Scriptures, denying it to be the rule of Faith, and loading it with many Ignominious and Blasphe∣mous Titles.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Aug. in quest. vet. & nov. Test. quest. 114.
• † 1.2

  T••t▪ de Virg. Veland.