this way of not answering each Argument in particular be New I was not the Inventer of it For Dr. St. himself in his Discourse of Idolatry which was published before my Book saw Light p. 558. affirms That the Principles of Protestant Religion which he sets down at the end of that work are a sufficient Answer to Protestancy without Principles whereas it is manifest that in his whole Appendix of Principles he does neither State the Controversie plainly nor examin the proofs that Learned Author produces nor apply distinct Answers to his Arguments fairly represented in their own words which is what he sayes Protestant Writers observe Pref. pag. 3. when they set themselves to Answer our Books And I appeal to the Judgment of any Impartial person who has taken the pains to peruse his late Answers to the formentioned book Protestancy without Prnciples to Reason and Religion and to the Guide in Controversie whether he has performed all the aforesaid Formalities which he requires of us ibid. pag. 4. and whether he does not pick up here and there some Sentences to Answer or one Chapter or two together or leaps from one thing to another as if resolved to pass by the greatest difficulties or omits whole Discourses as the fourth and fifth Discourse in the Guide in Controversie All these little Arts and Shifts in us sais the Dr. are either plain Acknowledgments of a baffled Cause or an Argument of a weak and unskilful Management Whereas all these very same Arts in the Dr. must be pregnant proofs of a good Cause and of a skilful management thereof But some will say That Dr. St. may be permitted to answer as he please and without tying himself to the abovementioned Formalities because he has learned a secret proper to himself to draw off all the spirit of a book in two or three lines Pref. Gen. pag. 30. and all the rest he leaves behind viz. all that he cannot Answer which is the far greatest part of his Adversaries Books is only Phlegm and Caput mortuum But we poor Souls to whom Dr. St. has not as yet had the Charity to impart this Secret unless we answer his book Chapter by Chapter Paragraph by Paragraph and Point by Point we do nothing Whoever desires to see more concerning Dr. St. 's manner of writing let him read the First Letter written by the Worthy Author of Some General Observations upon Dr. St. 's Book and way of Writing Now the true reason why Dr. St. frets so much at my manner of dealing with him seems to be because he thought it a disparagement that so little a Book should be published against so great a Dr. and that I should compel him in no more than a sheet and a half to fall foul on himself and to be his own Executioner The Dr. seems to be in the vulgar Errour of such as measure Books by their Bulks and Imagin that in a little book such as he stiles Rats and Flies there can be no great thing But he must know that a Rat can overcome an Elephant and that Flies have been able to rout vast Armies Hence any one may see what Motives I had to take this way of Answering Dr. St. whereof he will needs make so great a Mistery My intention was to dispatch him in short and to set forth a little Book against him which I could never have performed should I have answered all his Arguments one by one and observed all the other Formalities he will needs oblige us to Besides the Conveniencies of a little book are very great It is easily made easily Printed easily bought and easily read and consequently thereby are spared two precious things Time and Money About a Thousand Copies of Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet went off in three weeks or a month and had I Printed as many more I might have dispatch'd them all On the contrary a great Volume cannot be made without great labour nor Printed without great Expences and when it is made and Printed few buy it and fewer have time or patience to read it over A Pestilent Book may be dash'd at the beginning with a short Paper before it spreads its Venome but this being once spread a whole Volume will scarce suffice to quell it A Pail of Water may quench a Fire before it extends itself whereas a far greater quantity will not be effectual to a vert its fury if it once makes it self master of a house But you will say as many do that some deny the Roman Church to be a true Church which is to destroy and pull down the very stress whereon is builded our whole Discourse I say also that many deny the Antient Fathers others all General Councils and others the very Scripture it self nay what is there that some do not deny May we not therefore Argue well out of Fathers Councils and Scriptures against such as admit these Topicks Neither is it necessary to prove alwayes our Conclusion out of General Principles which all or most agree unto otherwise we should never argue in matters of Religion out of certain Books of Scripture which Jews and some Sectaries do deny against such as do allow of those Books Particular Principles come neerer the Conclusion we pretend to prove consequently if they be true assented unto by both parties they carry us a shorter way to the Truth we aim at Moreover though some deny the Roman Church to be a true Church yet many grant it and it is the Sense of the English Church and the Perswasion of all Learned Protestants as many of their own Profession aver according to what we have quoted in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet pag. 3 4. Dr. St. himself assents unto it Fanaticks approve of it and Latitudinarians who maintain all Religions to be true stoutly defend it and many times they seem angry with us that we should question whether they grant our Church to be a True Church Of those who profess themselves Christians in England only some rigid Presbyterians deny it yea the title of Reformers of the Roman Religion which Moder Sectaries take upon them does manifestly imply that the Roman Religion the Reformed Religion as they stile it is the same in substance and different only in Accidentals and consequently if theirs be true ours must also be true for it is impossible that a true Church and not a true Church should be the same in Substance To Reform a Church is not to destroy its Essence but to redress its Disorders The Apostles were not sent to Reform Paganism and why because they Destroyed it bringing in in lieu thereof Christian Religion of a different Substance and Nature The fire destroys wood and Refines Gold because it changes the very Substance of Wood into Ashes but it only takes away the dross of Gold and leaves its Substance and Essence untouched Dealing therefote with the forementioned Persons as in this Treatise I do I might with much
low opinion of Christian Religion even when it was in its greatest purity since they think it so hard that being faced with the Roman Religion which seems to them to be so full of Corruptions Superstitions and abominations the one may be distinguished from the other or that the Roman Religion is not so ridiculous and ill-favoured as they represent it to be since it is so like the Christian Religion even in its greatest Purity that being compared together 't is extream difficult to know which is which and that by such a parallel men are incited either to embrace them both or reject them both The Dr. goes yet farther and endeavouring to supply with counterfeited zeal the difficiency of true and solid reasons puts down these words pag. 11. I would fain know of these men whether they do in earnest make no difference between the Writings of such as Mother Juliana and the Books of Scripture between the Revelations of St. Bridgit St. Catherin c. and those of the Prophets between the actions of St. Francis and Ignatius Loyola and those of the Apostles if they do not I know who they are that expose our Religion to purpose If they do make a difference how can the representing their Visions and practises reflect dishonour upon the other so infinitely above them so much more certainly conveighed down to us with the consent of the whole Christian world In answer to this Objection I would fain know of the Dr. whether he does in earnest make no difference between a Door a Vine a Worm a Lamb a Shepheard c. and Christ our Saviour If he does not then Christ is no better than a Door a Vine a Worm a Lamb a Shepheard which to affirm is Blasphemy if he makes a difference how does the Scripture compare Christ to things so infinitely beneath him Now if he saies that these things though infinitely beneath Christ yet in some of their Properties may resemble him and his virtues and upon that account he is compared unto them without any blemish or reflexion upon his honour why might not we without reflecting any dishonour upon Christ say that Saint Francis Saint Ignatius and other Canonized Saints of the Roman Church do in their Virtues Miracles and Practises resemble those of Christ and his Apostles though infinitely above them Besides 't is manifest that Christ and his works as being an infinite value derived from the dignity of the person were far more above the Apostles and their works than those were above the particular Saints of the Roman Church and their practices notwithstanding we have the same Inducements and Topicks to believe the matters of Fact of the Apostles and Prophets as those of Christ though so far beyond them and whoever should deny the former without doubt he would open a way to deny the latter Although therefore the practises and Revelations of the particular Saints of the Roman Church be in several Circumstances inferiour to those of the Apostles and Prophets yet there may be the same Motives and Inducements we speak antecedently to Scripture taken as the word of God as when we prove against Pagans the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles to believe the one as the other So that should one deny the Virtues Revelations and Practises constantly related and believed concerning the Roman Saints and approved by our Church for of such Virtues Revelations and Practises we speak in this present debate he would doubtless give a great occasion to Pagans to deny or question the Virtues Revelations and Practises of the Apostles and Prophets The reason is because the same Motives Inducements and Topicks may serve for the belief of things very different one from another which is what I pretended and if they are of no force in the one neither are they in the other Yet one would think that the harder the thing is and the more sublime the stronger Inducements are requisite to believe it So that if the unanimous consent of so many learned and pious men is not sufficient to induce a Protestant to believe the practises and transactions of St. Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis and St. Ignatius handed down by so general a Tradition and of a far fresher date how shall the like consent be sufficient to induce Pagans to believe the works of Christ and his Apostles far more wonderful and of a staler date For commonly matters of Fact of a fresh date are more easily prov'd and believed than of a staler The difference therefore inculcated by Dr. St. between Christ and his Apostles on the one side and the proper Saints of the Roman Church on the other and the Superminency of the former above the latter is so far from diminishing the force of our Argument that it rather increases it Again Dr. St. and his Partizans commonly defend that the certainty we have that such Books are Scripture and that they were penned by such Writers whose names are prefixed unto them is of the same nature with the certainty that we have that such Books were written by Titus Livius or Plutarch which are unanimously assented unto as Titus Livius or Plutarch's Works and the certainty we have that there have been such men as Christ his Apostles and that they did such and such things which are commonly ascribed unto them with the certainty we have that there have been in the world such men as William the Conquerour Julius Caesar and Henry the Eighth and that they have done such things as unanimously are attributed unto them So that whoever should deny all such meer Humane Histories would be in a fair way to deny that ever there have been such men as Christ and his Apostles or that they have done such things which Christians unanimously ascribe unto them This Doctrine supposed whether true or false I do not now dispute I would once more fain know of the Dr. whether he does in earnest make no difference between the Books of Scripture and the Books of Livy and Plutarch between Christ and his Apostles and their Practises and William the Conquerour Julius Caesar Henry the Eighth Practises if not then we know who they are that expose Christian Religion to purpose if he does make a difference how does he make this Parallel between things so far estranged the one from the other and if he saies the Parallel he makes is not between the persons or things themselves but between the certainty of the one and the other and there may be without doubt the same kind of certainty concerning things very different let him apply to the same answer to his Argument made against us and he will see how it comes to nothing For what we pretend is that there is the same or the like certainty the same or the like motives and inducements we speak here antecedently to Scripture held to be the word of God for such it is not held to be by Pagans to believe that there have been such men as St.
18. That he never vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry in his Defence of Archbishop Lawd which is the Book wherein he confesses the Church of Rome to be a true Church But what does he mean by saying That he never vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry does he mean that he never writ any Treatise on this Subject That I confess to be true But sure to commit Contradiction 't is not necessary to have written Treatises in vindication of each or either part of the Contradiction Had he said in express terms The Church of Rome is a true Church and is not a true Church would he not have Contradicted himself unless he had published Books or Treatises in defence of the one or the other part of such a palpable Contradiction as this To Contradict ones self 't is enough to affirm and to deny the same thing although he has never writ or produced Arguments to prove the one or the other part Does he therefore mean that in defence of Archbishop Lawd he has not laid down any Principle nor asserted any thing which if true does not clear the Church of Rome from Idolatry and consequently contradicts the Charg he laies upon her in his Discourse of Idolatry This I have shewn to be false because in the Defence of Archbishop Lawd he grants the Church of Rome to be a true Church which concession does evidently clear her from Idolatry wherewith he charges her in his other Book neither has he yet vindicated himself from this Contradiction as we shall see by examining the shifts whereby he pretends to clear himself pag. 18. He adds in the same place that it fell out very happily that in his Defence of Archbishop Lawd pag. 596.606 he had made a Discourse to the same purpose proving the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints and the Worship of Images But what does this help to shew that what he saies in his Defence of Archbishop Lawd does not contradict what he Asserts in his Discourse of Idolatry which is his main design in the present Answer Is not this as if one should have affirmed what Dr. St. saies in one part of his Defense of the Archbishop does contradict what he saies in another part of the same Book Therefore what he saies in his Defence of the Archbishop does not contradict what he asserts in his Discourse of Idolatry Is not Dr. St. like to have a good cause if such Inferences as these be warrantable To contradict himself in the very self same Book is more detestable and can be no medium to prove that he does not contradict himself in different Books Neither was I ignorant of the forementioned contradiction committed by him in his former Book but because my Design in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet was to annul the Charges laid upon the Roman Church in his Discourse of Idolatry I took notice only of the Contradiction betwen his former Book and latter Discourse never intending to deny that in the same book he did contradict himself For the Dr. does so stuff up his works with Contradictions that it is not necessary to turn over many Books nay nor many Chapters nor sometimes many leaves to meet with them He saies farther in the same page 18. that I do not pretend to gather out of his Books any Contradiction in Terms or a Formal Affirmation and Negation of the same Object but only by Consequence and I desire to know of him whether if I do shew as I have already shewn That what he asserts in his Rational Account does by good Consequence contradict and annul the Charges laid upon us in his Discourse of Idolatry All those Inferences mentioned above which follow from Self-contradiction in the way I insist upon do not by good consequence fall heavy upon him and if so whether this be not enough to confute him To declare the better the inanity of these Evasions he makes use of to Vindicate himself from Contradictions let us put case that one who heretofore had confest Dr. St. to be an Honest man should now upon some pick although retaining yet the former good opinion of his honesty affirm him to be a Knave and that some of the Dr.'s Friends to vindicate him from so foul an Aspersion should charge his Adversary as justly they might with Contradiction in affirming Dr. St. to be an Honest man and yet a Knave can he or any one else imagin that such a man would sufficiently clear himself from the Crime of Contradiction by saying That he never vindicated the Honesty of Dr. St. although he has heretosore and did still hold him to be an Honest man That it had happily fallen out that when heretofore he acknowledged him to be an honest man even at the same time he had published him for a Knave and finally that to say he is an Honest man and yet a Knave is no Formal Contradiction in terms since he does not Formally say that he is and is not an Honest man or affirm and deny the same thing This Case is parallel to the Vindication Dr. St. makes here for himself and so clear that any one without difficulty may make the Application And yet there is no more Contradiction in affirming that one is an Honest man and yet a Knave than in saying that the same Church is a True Church and yet Idolatrous and the Contradiction in both Cases is so palpable that it appears to any one who understands what he saies without needing to draw it out by Consequences In the next page in order to the farther clearing himself from Self-contradiction pag. 19. he carges me with Disingenuity because forsooth as he saies I barely oppose a judgment of Charity concerning our Church such he stiles this Concession of his The Roman Church is a true Church to a judgment of Reason concerning the nature of Actions and such he will needs have this his Assertion to be The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church Is not this a pretty way to save all Contradictions let them be never so palpable For in all Contradictions the one part is favourable which upon thaat ccount may be called a Judgment of Charity or Kindness and consequently according to this excellent Principle of Dr. St. cannot without Disingenuity be put in opposition to the other part which is grounded or pretended to be grounded upon other respects for both parts of a Contradiction cannot have the same enducements Suppose that Dr. St. had expressly granted The Roman Church to be and not to be an Idolatrous Church which sure is to grant palpable Contradictions if it is possible that there should be any such would the Dr. in this Case think it a satisfactory Answer to say That the one of these Judgments is of Charity and the other of Reason and that accordingly one cannot be opposite to the other and to urge the instance produced above should one be charged with Self-contradiction
extended as the Roman Church is is sufficient to excuse particular waies of Devotions and particular Revelations from the imputation of Fanaticisme which necessarily implies a Resistance against all Lawful and competent Authority Neither did I ever affirm in my Book as Dr. St. grossly mistakes me That Divine Authority manifested by Miracles is not sufficient to clear particular manners of preaching or Praying from Fanaticisme as it happened to the Prophets and Apostles as I shewed above Yea my Third Proposition pag. 9. was That the Aathority competent and by a competent Authority I understand a Lawful Authority to clear particular waies and practises from Fanaticisme is not necessarily Divine as I prove there with several instances And certainly Those words clearly signifie that I thought the forementioned Authority might be Divine But such are the Arts Dr. St. uses in answering his Adversaries He mistakes some places he takes no notice of others and he blunders over others and it is a great wonder how frequently he makes use of these Artifices in the Examination of my Book though so short I shall close up the whole Discourse with an address to Dr. St.'s Friends perhaps I shall have better luck with them than I have had with the Dr. himself in the favours I requested at his hands entreating them First That as they tender the Honor of our Nation wherein Dr. St. bears so great a sway and the Credit of that famous University whereof he is a Member they would find out one way or other to purge his brains from this pestilent Humour of Self-contradiction which infects all his Works in such a manner that they seem to be nothing else but so many Bundles of notorious Contradictions This procedure of Dr. St. is a shrewd conjecture that the Report which goes about is true viz. That Dr. St. had only the penning of those Books which he has set forth and that the Matter was suppeditated unto him from several Authors who were wiser than to publish such things themselves and the good Dr. without ever considering the coherency of one thing with another huddles all together dresses it with Drollery Flurts and Gawdy Expressions and then presents it to publick View For it seems impossible that one Author if he has an eye to what he writes should commit such palpable Contradictions whereas 't is no wonder that different Authors should Contradict one another Secondly That since the Dr. as it seems mispent the time that he should have employed in learning Logick in the perusal of Play-books and Romances they would procure some University-man to teach him the Rules of Rational Discourses For it is a great affront for a Dr. of Divinity to be so deficient as we have proved him to be even in the very Rudiments of Rationality and if the Dr. saies that it is too late for him to learn such things then they may perswade him to leave off Writing Yea who forced him to begin when he knew himself unacquainted with so necessary a Faculty for such as write Polemical Discourses Has not the Church of England other men who understand the Rules of Logick able to write in Vindication of Protestancy Thirdly That they would obtain of the Dr. if he be yet resolved to write more Books of Controversies to lay aside Railery unless he pretends to be not the Champion but the Buffoon of the Protestant Church Let him try whether he be not able to write something which though devested of all those little Arts he has hitherto made use of to set of his Works may deserve not to lie upon the Stalls to be bespatter'd with the dirt of Coach-wheels and to be sold off at last for wast-paper FINIS
Dr. STILLINGFLEET STILL AGAINST Dr. STILLINGFLEET OR THE EXAMINATION OF Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet EXAMINED By J. W. LUKE XIX XXII By thine own Mouth I Judge thee Naughty Servant Printed in the Year MDCLXXV The Preface AFter eighteen Months silence Dr. Stillingfleet was pleased to publish an Answer to a Treatise of a sheet and a half penned by me with this Title Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet wherein I laid open the palpable Contradictions committed by him in charging the Roman Church with Idolatry danger of Salvation in her Communion Fanaticisme and Divisions in matters of Faith endeavouring by this way to compel him to be his own Executioner St. ag St. pag. 14. and to make havock of his Arguments with his own Weapon Hence the Dr. took a fancy to frame of me the following Character Pref. Gen. pag. 3. Forthwith there starts up a young Sophister among them Catholicks and bids them be of good heart for by letting fly at him some Squibs and Crackers he did not question but he should put this Monster Dr. St. into such a rage as to make him fall upon himself which design being highly approved in a short time came forth that dapper piece called Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet It was a notable plot and cunningly managed as the Reader may see and clearly too by the following Answer to it In one place he terms all his Adversaries Books so many empty vessels Pref. Gen. pag. 6. thrown out for him to play with In another place he calls my Answer and the Answer of that Learned Author N. O. two elaborate Pamphlets Pref. p. 1. charging me in almost every leaf with Disingenuity or Sophistry or both Sometimes he fancies me to be one of the Romantick Knights pag. 13. which do hurt nowhere but in paper and their own imagination At another time he Parallels me with a Juggler Pag. 47. Now he stiles me a half-witted man and a man without Sense Page 50. then a Popish Leviathan and then a Pusionello affirming that any man whom I encounter must be accounted a Gyant Pag 4. he saies that his Adversaries have beaten nothing but the Air and themselves p. 2. that they have not said one wise word in a just Vindication of their Church from Fanaticisme and p. 51. that they plunge those who relie upon their word into the depths of Atheisme p. 59. he compares the Roman Church with the Augean Stable p. 10. he avers that what I say is a base suggestion and a sly insinuation p. 8. absurd silly and idle stuff p. 39. vain and sophistical talk p. 64. that I designed nothing but Sophistry and trifling and p. 43. that I sought for nothing but words to raise Cavils upon In fine he closes up his Answer to me in Don Quixots stile Page 68. Go thy way then for the Eighth Ghampion of Christendome enjoy the benefit of thy illustrious Fame Sit down at ease and relate to thy immortal honour thy mighty exploits only when thou hast done remember thou hast encountred nothing but the Wind-mills of thy own imagination and the man whom thou thoughtest to have executed by his own hands stands by and laughs at thy ridiculous attempts Notwithstanding this and much more railing and scoffing language wherewith he lards all his works the good man out of his exceeding great humility does plainly confess in his answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle Apologetical in the Preface to the Benedictines Page 4. That he is yet to learn the Art and Terms of Railing What yet to learn the art and terms too of Railing well then we may conclude that he will never learn this art for I am confident there cannot be found in the world a man who is able to teach him A Juggler a man without sense an empty vessel a Leviathan a Pusionello base suggestions sly insinuations absurd silly and idle stuff vain and sophistical talk and such like are it seems in this Drs. Dialect terms only of pure civility 'T is in vain to examin what Reason Dr. St. had to fasten upon my Companions and my self such scurrilous expressions For we must not expect from him any Reason or Proof for what he saies By these and such like Romantick Phrases which are the chief Ornament that sets off his works we may easily guess in what books this Dr. of Divinity has spent his time and that he is well verst in Don Quixot the Seven Champions and other Romantick Stories Sure he erred in his Vocation had he quitted all serious matters and dedicated himself wholly to Drollery and Romances with two or three years under Hudibras he would have been a Master in that Faculty the Stage might have been a gainer by it and the Church of England would have been no loser But who would imagin that in the very same book and within some few leaves where he Characterizes his Adversaries in such reproachful language he should have the confidence to affirm Pref. p. 5. I have learn'd of him who when he was reviled reviled not again not only to forbear reproaching them his Adversaries in the same manner is it because he reproaches them in a far higher manner but to return them good for evil and to pray for them while they calumniate me What language is reproachful if the forementioned expressions be not If such be Dr. St's Prayers who will be so mad as to desire the Dr. to pray for him or what Contradiction can there be more palpable than to revile us in such a manner and then to tell us that he does not revile us but only pray for us Suppose that one of as hot a temper as Dr. St. should call him a Trifling Sophister an empty Vessel a Juggler a man without sense a half-witted man a Romantick Knight a Socinian Leviathan a Pusionello the 8th Champion of Christendom and a leader into Atheisme for such fine Epithets as these he is pleased to bestow either upon all Catholicks in general or upon some in particular should one I say draw such a Character of Dr. St. and then tell him Sir after all this I have no intention to revile you God forbid I should I do only pray for you What opinion could any rational man conceive of such a person who should so palpably and so notoriously contradict himself But alas poor Dr. I pity him he is so possest with the Spirit of Self-contradiction that he can scarce write some few leaves without falling into one of his Fits and even in this book where he had made it his business to clear himself from so foul an imputation he could not forbear to afford us fresh proofs and instances thereof Neither am I ignorant at what Dr. St. aims with this manner of dealing He would fain have me contest with him either at Drolling or Railing and then he would be sure to have the better of me and between Railing and Drolling we should both
treason p. 239. l. 20. that was r. that this was p. 249. l. 23. as he r. as that he p. 265. l. 15. being an r. being of an p. 269. l. 2. eighth practises r. eighth their practises ib. l. 14. to the same r. the same CHAP. I. On supposition Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all the Charges he casts upon the Roman Church are false and all their proofs void AFter Dr. St. had prefixed two Prefaces to his Book the one of 82 pages the other of 12 he sets upon the examination of my Treatise which with Introduction Answer and Appendix contains only 21 pages though in a closer letter He designes to prove two things against me 1. That on supposition he did contradict himself in the way I insist upon yet that would be no sufficient Answer to his Book Page 14. 2. That he is far enough from contradicting himself in any one of the things I charge him with In reply to these two Points I shall shew 1. What follows if the Dr. Contradicts himself and hence will appear whether on supposition he contraicts himsef in the way I insist upon I answer his Book or not 2. That he palpably contradicts himself in the forementioned Charges he lays upon the Roman Church And that the Dr. may see I have a mind to deal fairly with him I am very willing to be tried by the Learned men of our Two Famous Universities where there are many as ingenious as Dr. St. and far more ingenuous not only whether I have not proved that the Dr. contradicts himself but also whether this being once proved in the way I insist upon I do not invalidate and annual all the above-mentioned Charges he lays against the Roman Church with all the Reasons and Proofs he produces or can produce to make them good To commence therefore the first Point of this Reply If I have proved that Dr. St. has contradicted himself in the aforesaid Crimes he imputes to the Roman Church which is the supposition wherein he and we speak in this first part it manifestly follows that I have obtained the design of my Book couched in the Title thereof viz Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet and if I moreover shew that he still contradicts himself I compleat also the Subject and Title of this Rejoynder Dr. Stillingfleet still against Dr. Stillingfleet For nothing else is aimed at in these Titles but only to evince that the Dr. did contradict and persists to contradict himself This is apparent from what I insinuated at the beginning of my Book in these words page 1. My aim therefore in this short Paper only is to lay open the palpable contradictions of Dr. St. in imputing to the Roman Church the forementioned Calumnies And what more can be expected from a Writer than to fill up the Subject and Designe of his Discourse Especially if the Designe be of great Consequence as this is according to what now follows Again Self-contradiction being proved as Dr. St. himself grants p. 15. overthrows the authority of the Person who stands convicted thereof Now I conceive that a sheet and half of Paper was not ill-imployed in overthrowing had it no other effect the authority of one who pretends to be a Pillar of the Protestant Church and who gains more upon his Devotees by authority than by reason So that even according to Dr. St's confession self-contradiction being once evidenced against him we ought not to believe him in any thing he says or alledges unless he recalls himself For to believe one is to take a thing upon his authority and sure no body ought to take any thing upon the authority and credit of one who has lost all authority and credit Besides whoever forces his Adversary to grant manifest Contradictions or shews that he grants them according to the rigour of Logique and close arguing he puts him in a sack he brings him to a Non-plus and in plain vulgar English he makes an Ass of him or shews him to be so unless he recants And can more than this be required of one to confute and confound his Adversary or can one press him further than to a Non-plus Finally Whoever grants and persists to grant palpable Contradictions he may justly be posted up for a Mad-man Should one for instance infected with the Plague say and repeat that he is in very good health but withal that he is deadly sick of the Plague could there be a clearer Symptome that such a man's brains were distemper'd than to hear him harp upon so palpable a contradiction And there is no wise man who will have to do with Mad-men no not in their Lucid Intervals as Dr. St. in his Pref. p. 11. gravely observes For though Mad-men Fools may sometimes say shrew'd things yet no body who is perswaded they are such can in prudence think himself bound to confute them but rather to pity them nor to solve their Objections but to slight them though it does not follow because they are so that all their Arguments are false and their Objections null This I have said because I perceive there are several who are not sensible what gross absurdities do follow from self-contradiction Nevertheless the Dr. still urges That all this is no sufficient answer to his Book For though he confesses that self-contradicition being once evidenced against him all his authority and credit is worth nothing and consequently he is not to be believed or credited in any thing he quotes or alledges and all his Arguments which depend upon the truth of his Quotations are not to be valued nay neither is one bound to make enquiry whether his Quotations be true or not For who is bound to make inquiry into the truth of what a Mad-man or one that hath forfeited all his credit does say or alledge Yet after all this he affirms and vapours in almost every leaf of this first part that his Arguments especially such as do not depend upon the truth of his Allegations and how few has he of such Arguments remain firm solid and unanswered Now to disabuse the Doctor and his Partizans in this Point I shall demonstrate that in the present Supposition viz. That he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon by laying to our charge the above mentioned crimes not only all the aforesaid Aspersions but also all the Arguments which he produces or can produce either from Authority or Reason in proof of them are void and of no force And to this purpose I set down these following Principles which though appertaining only to Logique this Dr. of Divinity seems to be ignorant of 1. When two Propositions contradict one another both cannot be true but either the one or the other must needs be false This is a manifest Principle of Natural Logique wherefore if these two Propositions The Roman Church is a true Church the Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church do contradict one another as now we suppose
reason take that proposition for granted and should I encounter an Adversary who denies the Roman Church to be a true Church I would set upon him another way and prove it to be a True Church which is not hard to do For different wayes are to be taken with different Adversaries and what is a solid proof against one is of no force against another I confess therefore that all the Arguments I have framed against Dr. St. grounded upon this Principle The Roman Church is a true Church are of no force with such as deny That Principle unless first I prove it In the same manner all the Arguments grounded upon the Authority of the Fathers and Councils are of no force against Fanaticks who slight the Fathers and Councils unless their Authority be first established Hence appears how insignificantly Dr. St. and his Cabal threaten us that if we press them out of this Principle The Roman Church is a True Church freely granted by them they will deny it and fall back from what they have yielded unto and that we shall get nothing else thereby but to make them less Charitable towards us and the difference between us wider For in the same manner they might threaten us when we argue against them out of Councils and Fathers admitted by them that if we press them they will deny their Authority Neither should any one press another out of Scripture though granted by him for fear least if he be press'd he will deny Scripture and become a Turk or a Pagan Nay since one cannot convince another but out of what he has assented unto were this way of dealing warrantable any one might easily elude all Arguments whatsoever For either we urge our Adversary or not if not how shall we convince him if so he may stave off the Conviction according to Dr. St. 's manner of dealing by threatning us that if we urge him we shall get only this of him that he will deny what already he has granted Doubtless the Scholars of the Illustrious University of Cambridge would be ashamed of their Dr. St. should they hear him say in a publick Dispute to his Adversary Do not press me for if you do I 'le deny what I have already granted Finally since this Assertion The Roman Church is a True Church is common assented unto not only by Catholicks but also by Protestants of the English Church and others of different Professions as we have seen But this other The Roman Church is Idolatrous is denyed both by Catholicks and several learned and zealous Protestants and since either the one or the other of these Assertions is to be recalled supposing they contradict one another 't is more reasonable to recal the latter than the former because caeteris paribus particular Sentiments are to yield to common Principles when they run Counter But what is the reason that Dr. St. who professes himself a mortal enemy to the Roman Church does not deny it to be a true Church recalling what heretofore he has asserted yea he is so far from recalling it that he ratifies and grants several times in this Examination of my book in plain terms what he had affirmed in his Rational Account that the Roman Church is a True Church I insinuated in my Book in the place above quoted several motives why Dr. St. and his Associates do unanimosly aver the Roman Church to be a True Church Because upon this account they ground the pretended Moderation and Charity of the English Churh wherewith they endeavour to inveigle unwary minds and if they deny the Roman Church to be a true Church either they must confess that there was no true visible Church in the world for many hundred of years be Luther and Calvins time or they are shrewdly put to it when we urge them to shew us which that true visible Church was distinct from the Roman Yet another particular reason moved Dr. St. not to recal what he had asserted concerning the Truth of the Roman Church For he could not but see that should he deny the Roman Church to be a true Church he must either deny the Protestant Church to be a true Church or seek out other grounds to prove the truth thereof different from those he laid down in his Rational Account For the Discourse he makes in that Book to establish the truth of the Protestant Religion in substance is this Whatever Church holds all such points as were held by all Christian Societies of all Ages acknowledged by Rome it self has all that is necessary to the being of a true Church and by Consequence is a True Church But such is the Protestant Church as he affirms Therefore according to his Principles it is a true Church And descending to particulars he says That all Churches which admit the Antient Creeds as the Roman Church evidently does are true Churches Now these Principles whereon the Dr. bottoms the truth of Protestancie do necessarily imply that the Roman Church is a true Church For either the Roman Church acknowledges what is sufficient to constitute the being of a true Church or not if she does she must necessarily be a true Church If she does not how can Dr. St. assert That the Roman Church with other Christian Societies acknowledges what is sufficient to constitute the being of a true Church Wherefore unless Dr. St. grants the Roman Church to be a true Church that Principle whereon he grounds the truth of Protestancie viz. That it admits whatsoever is admitted by all Christian Societies and acknowledged by Rome it self is of no force So that unless Dr. St. maintains the truth of the Roman Church he must either confess that Protestancie is no true Religion and that the Account he has hitherto given concerning the grounds of Protestancy is void and irrational or seek out other Principles to prove it Now if Dr. St. has such a pike against the Roman Church that to the end he may prove her Idolatrous or no true Church he cares not to unchurch Protestancy or at least to cancel whatever he has yet said to shew that it is a True Religion I conceive that Protestants will give him little thanks for his pains But the truth is that Dr. St. if we reflect well upon his works cares not what becomes of Protestancy nor Christianity neither so that he may according to his fancy destroy Popery But we care as little for his attempts if he cannot destroy Popery without undermining Christianity The Dr. seems in several places of his Answer slily to insinuate as if he had only been heretofore of opinion that the Roman Church is a true Church but that now he has altered his Opinion and it can be no disparagement for a man to recal what heretofore he asserted To this purpose he alledges pag. 16. the Recognitions of Bellarmin who in imitation of St. Augustin retracted some former Errours delivered by him But where I pray has D. St. made any book of
in proof of them is false or impertinent And what more can be required in order to wipe of from the minds of such persons the aforesaid Calumnies CHAP. III. Other Objections Answered BY what hitherto has been discuss'd it plainly appears that the instance of a Lawyer at the Bar alledged page 16. by Dr. St. is of no force against us Because should a Lawyer produce at the Bar no other proof but such as is repugnant not only to his own particular Tenets but also to the common perswasion of the Judges and of all the Learned Lawyers of the Kingdom yea and to the unanimous consent of the Parliament sure his proofs would be held for frivolous This is what succeeds in our present Case Dr. St. Charges us with Crimes repugnant as he himself now admits to this Principle The Roman Church is a True Church not only granted by him and all Roman-Catholicks but also by all Learned Divines of the English Church as suitable to her Sense and Doctrine as they themselves confess and by several other of different Professions All such persons therefore and these are all with whom we now disp … 〈…〉 hold the forementioned Accusations for void and frivolous Moreover should a Lawyer plead to prove one to be a notorious Traytour and yet at the same time should plainly declare at the Bar that he is and has ever been a Loyal and faithful Subject could Dr. St. or any other think that any account were to be made of such a Barrister who should so openly Contradict himself This is what the Dr. does He pleads to shew our Church to be Idolatrous and yet at the same time he sincerely confesses that she is a true Church standing to what he has formerly asserted and he admits at the present that the forementioned Accusation contradicts this his Assertion as really it does no less then these two Propositions do contradict one another Such a man is a notorious Traytour but yet he is a faithful Subject What account therefore can any prudent man make of this Accusation of Dr. St. or consequently of the proofs he alledges in favour thereof Finally though a Lawyer may be permitted when required thereunto by his Clyent after he has informed him of his Judgment to propose all the proofs he can in his favour though his particular opinion be that his Clyent has no right to what he pretends because the Judge who is to decide the Plea may be of a contrary perswasion Yet sure Dr. St. will not affirm that what he produces in his discourse concerning the Idolatry of the Roman Church is only to shew in order to ingratiate himself with the Presbyterians what may be said upon that Subject and not because he is of opinion that the Roman Church is Idolatrous For if so he might as well have published some book against the Divinity of our Saviour or against a Deity as he hath published the forementioned Discourse to prove the Roman Church Idolatrous and then tell us if he be urged that having received a Fee from Socinians or Atheists he did it only to shew what might be said against the Divinity of our Saviour or a Deity and not because he is of opinion that there is no God or that Christ is no God Yea he might say in like manner that what ever he has produced hitherto to prove the truth and Orthodoxness of the Protestant Religion was only to shew to the end he might promote his Interest among Protestants what might be alledged in favour of their Religion and not that he thinks it True and Orthodox The Dr. seems to value much a Case he produces pag. 20. in order to shew the Insufficiency of our manner of Answering him his words are these I will put a Case parallel to this Suppose one of the Church of Judah should have called the Church of Israel in the time of Jeroboam a true Church because they acknowledged the true God and did believe an agreement in that common acknowledgment to be sufficient to preserve the Essentials of a Church among them and afterwards the same person should go about to convince the Ten Tribes of their Idolatry in worshipping God by the Calves of Dan and Bethel Would this be thought a sufficient way of Answering him to say that he contradicted himself by granting them a True Church and yet charging them with Idolatry Whereas the only true Consequence would be that he thought some kind of Idolatry to be consistent with the being of a Church He adds that such a person might justly say that they made a very ill use of his Charity and that if they could prove to him that the Idolatry he fathered upon them did Vn-church them the Consequence of it would be that his Charity must be so much the less and that he must deny them to be a true Church This is Dr. St.'s Case whereby he pretends to evince the invalidity of our manner of Answering him But before I examin this Case of the Dr. I will put a Case Parallel to ours to shew that the way we have taken to Answer him is sufficient Suppose that a Jew for why may not a Jew be as Charitable and Zealous too as Dr. St. and yet Contradict himself as he does should out of a pretended zeal Charge Christian Religion even when it was in its greatest purity with the same kind of Idolatry as Dr. St. fastens upon us and that notwithstanding at the same time carried away with the like Charity as the Dr. is should confess that Christian Religion was then not only a True Religion but also a Pure Safe and Sound Religion and with such a Religion even Dr. St. affirms the Idolatry he Charges us with yea all kind of Idolatry to be inconsistent as will appear hereafter Now in this Case might not the Dr. in vindication of Christian Religion say and prove too for I do not aver as he seems to insinuate that it is enough to say he is guilty of self-contradiction unless one proves it that such a man did contradict himself in granting Christian Religion to be a true and sound Religion and yet Charging it with Idolatry Could he rationally say that the only true Consequence in that case would be not that such a person contradicted himself but that he thought some kind of Idolatry to be consistent not only with the Being but also with the Soundness of a Church or should he think so would he not therefore contradict himself and having proved to him that the Idolatry he fathered upon the Christian Religion was destructive to the Soundness of a Religion would the Consequence be that the Charity of such a person must be so much the less and that he must deny hereafter the soundness of Christian Religion Would it not be a suffient way of Answering such a man to demonstrate unto him that the Charge of Idolatry cast by him upon Christian Religion was false and consequently that what ever
be consistent with Loyalty and that if they could prove to him all sorts of High Treason to be inconsistent with Loyalty the Consequence of it would be that his Charity must be so much the less but the danger would be the same Behold here the Vindication of the forementioned Witness drawn up in the same terms and upon the same grounds whereon Dr. St. in his Controversie builds his own Vindication And yet what prudent man is there that would not look upon the aforesaid Vindication of a Witness convicted of such a manifest Self-contradiction as frivolous and insignificant Yea we have shewed already upon another account that on supposition he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all his Arguments grounded either upon Authority or meer Reason if he has any such wherewith he pretends to make good the Charges cast upon us are false or impertinent The same is to be affirmed of whatever he shall hereafter object against our Church in matters of Faith as long as he holds it to be a True Church For nothing can be objected against our Church in that kind which does not contradict the forementioned Principle Now 't is very pretty to consider how the Dr. sports with the forementioned instance of a Witness whereof I made use grounding all his quibbles upon so gross an ignorance as is to confound Parities with identities and the being one thing like to another with being the same which Topick is very frequent in the Dr.'s Books For because a Witness must make an Affidavit before the Masters of the Chancery he presently fancies that a Writer of Controversies supposing this parity to be good must make an Affidavit and no other Obligation will suffice him before Masters of the Court of Controversies and because whatever is said by a Witness at the Bar is taken upon his Oath he imagins in the same supposition that whatever a Writer of Controversie saies must be taken also upon his Oath and in no other manner and because a Witness who stands Convicted to have forsworn himself according to the Laws of this Kingdom is to be set in the Pillory p. 27. with his Accusation on his Forehead he imagines himself as being proved guilty of Self-contradiction to be set in the Pillory with this Accusation on his forehead Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet not being able to conceive that any other punishment can be inflicted upon one who contradicts himself in matters of moment Are not these Fancies of Dr. St. wonderfully witty what fine Stuff will the Dr. make with Scripture wherein Christ is compared to a Worm to a Door to a Lamb to Lyon and to several other things infinitely below his Greatness if he be permitted to use this manner of quibbling and to make identities of parities or Parables Had not the Dr. made it his Study not to understand us he might clearly have seen that what we intended by the aforesaid instance was that whoever stands convicted to have Contradicted himself most notoriously in matters of so great concern as those of Religion are deserves no credit should be given him in such matters till he has recanted his Errour which the Dr. himself does grant I am not acquainted with the Stile of the English Church nor of our Universities yet I conceive that there would be no absurdity nor any thing done contrary to the practice of other Countries and Universities that Doctors of Divinity and publick Preachers should take their Oath to Teach and Preach the Truth in matters of Religion And in this Case should they palpably contradict themselves they would be guilty of Perjury And though they do not take their Oaths yet a natural Obligation lies upon every one not to commit gross Contradictions in matters of so high concern Some there are who though they confess that the way we have taken is sufficient to confound our Adversaries yet because they think we argue ad hominem they do not look upon this way as effectual to clear the Roman Church from the Aspersions cast upon her For Arguments ad hominem are good to confound an Adversarie but not to evince the Truth To this I Answer that an Argument ad hominem properly speaking is when one proceeds upon a Principle which he judges to be false yet because it is granted by his Adversary he endeavours to confute him thereby As for example when a Catholick argues against a Protestant out of such Versions of the Protestant Bible which are false and contrary to the Chatholick Bible to confute the particular Tenets of Protestancy whence I conclude that the way I made use of against Dr. St. was not properly ad hominem For I proceeded upon a Principle which I my self with all other Roman-Catholicks and several others of different professions hold to be true viz. The Roman Church is a true Church and which is granted by Dr. St. Neither is it of any concern that some deny the Roman Church to be a true Church For if all Arguments are ad hominem which are grounded upon some premise that is denied by some almost all Arguments are ad hominem For what is there that some do not deny Should I have defeated all Dr. St.'s Objections out of plain Scripture admitted both by him and us no body could rationally have objected that I did argue only ad hominem or slight my proofs upon that account and yet how many are there that deny the very Scripture which we and Dr. St. agree upon To close up therefore the first part of my Reply By what hitherto has been laid down it evidently appears that on supposition Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insict upon not only all the Charges of Idolatry Fanatiscisme danger of Salvation in our Communion and Divisions in matters of Faith which he pretends to fasten upon our Church fall to nothing but also all the proofs whether drawen from Authority or Reason wherewith he endeavours to make good such Charges are invalidated and annull'd which is all I did pretend in my Answer to the Dr. and whether this be not a sufficient Answer to his Book I leave to the judgment of any judicious man whatsoever Yea the Dr. himself being Conscious as it seems how ill a cause he had should he grant himself guilty of Self-contradiction in matters of so great Concern passing to the second part of his pretended Answer saies thus pag. 17. I had best stand upon my defence and utterly deny that I have contradicted my self in any thing in which J Ws. has charged me And to pass also unto the second part of my Reply let 's now consider how he does vindicate himself from the Contradictions charged upon him CHAP. IV. The Evasions of the Dr. to clear himself from Self-contradiction in Charging the Roman Church with Idolatry Examined COncerning the clearing himself from Contradiction in imputing to the Roman Church Idolatry and yet granting her to be a True Church he saies pag.
mark by being gone as by being short And although the Dr. has been advised of the Nullity of this manner of Arguing according to that Maxime an Argument that proves too much proves nothing yet hitherto he has not thought it for his purpose to take notice of it In the same page 22. the Dr. affirms that although they do allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church they are far from understanding by that a Sound or a good Church but mean no more by it than as a man is a true man though he hath the Plague upon him Neither did I ever say Dr. St. ag Dr. St. pag. 3. that Dr. St. expressly affirmed that our Church is a Sound Church but only that he granted it to be a True Church which neither now does he deny or question For among other things I alledged out of the Dr. in order to this purpose I affirmed that he held our Church to be a true way to Heaven but not a safe way which signifies here the same as a true Church but not a sound Church Now Dr. St. does plainly confess that it is a Contradiction to say That the Roman Church is a Sound Church and yet an Idolatrous Church which viz. had he granted our Church to be Sound would be as he saies p. 23. the most proper sense to found a Contradiction upon in this matter of Idolatry For he freely grants that all sorts of Idolatry are inconsistent with the Soundness of a Church but not with the Truth thereof Wherefore if I can evince That all sorts of Idolatry are at least that sort of Idolatry which he fastens upon Roman-Catholicks is destructive not only to the Soundness but also to the Truth of a Church and that an Idolatrous Church is not as a man sick of the Plague who may retain the Essentials of a man if I say I can evince this it will be a contradiction not only to say That the Roman Church is a Sound Church and yet an Idolatrous but also to affirm That the Roman Church is a True Church and yet Idolatrous at least with such a kind of Idolatry as Dr. St. laies upon her for which see CHAP. V. The Doctor palpably Contradicts himself in affirming the Roman Church to be Idolatrous and yet granting her to be a True Church WHen my Book first appeared in publick several Zealous Protestants who had been pleased to peruse it were so firmly perswaded that there is a palpable Contradiction between these two Propositions The Roman Church is a True Church The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church and being moreover sensible what an affront it is for any one especially for Lerned men to grant and persist to grant palpable Contradictions they would never believe that Dr. St. whom they applauded so much for his Learning had ever granted the two forementioned Propositions Besides they being not able to deny but that he asserted The Roman Church to be an Idolatrous Church seeing he had written a whole Traetise of that Subject they concluded that he had never granted The Roman Church to be a True Church although I quoted out of him several plain places to that intent But now Dr. St. has done me justice and has cleared all doubts if any might be in this matter ingenuously confessing that he has heretofore and does still affirm The Roman Church to be a true Church And why should he plainly confess that he had affirmed any such thing so disadvantagious unto him were it not so manifest he had done so that it could not be questioned especially when he is forced to winde himself all the waies he can to disentangle the contradiction objected against him whereas had he never granted the Roman Church to be a true Church all appearance of Self contradiction in this point would have vanished Nay he confirms clearly he same Doctrine in several places of this his Examination of my Book For pag. 21. he saies thus We acknowledg that they Roman Catholicks still retain the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith That there is no dispute between them and us about the True God and his Son Jesus Christ as to his Death Resurrection and Glory and being the proper Object to Divine Worship We yeild that they have true Baptism among them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and we looking upon these as the Essentials of a true Church do upon that account own that Church to be so Where without doubt he judges the points here mentioned to be all the Fundamental and Essential points of a true Church otherwise he would not own our Church to be a true Church precisely because she holds the forementioned points For a Church that fails but in one Essential point of a true Church although it be the least of all is no true Church And here by the way I cannot but Advertise that Dr. St. without perhaps reflecting on it has set down a particular Catalogue of all the Fundamental points of the True Religion which protestants commonly are loth to do Page 23. he saies Those which we account the Essentials of a Church we deny not to it that is to the Church of Rome and a Church that retains all the Essentials of a true Church must needs be so In the same place he compares our Church over-run as he saies with such Corruptions in Worship to a man that has the Plague upon him who yet still remains a true man Pag. 22. when we alow saies he the Church of Rome to be a True Church we are far from understanding by that a sound or good Church which words expressly signifie that he and his Partizans allow our Church to be a True Church which is all we now pretend But more at large he confirms this Doctrine pag. 29. § 4. where he has in the Margin these words In what sense the Church of Rome is owned by him and other Protestants as a true Church which manifestly imports that they own her as such Pag. 30. he speaks thus Whatever Church owns those things which are Antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church and in the same page immediately before he insinuates that those things only are necessary Antecedently to the Being of a Church which are required to be believed in order to Salvation and pag. 31. he saies Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian Societies but such things which by all those Societies i. e. Christian Societies and consequently by the Roman Church who is one of them are abknowledged antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church pag. 32. he makes and confessed he made before the Ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church the best measure of those things which are believed to be necessary to Salvation and consequently were sufficient to constitute the Essence and Being of a True Church Now 't is evident neither doth Dr. St. ever question it but
rather very often supposes it That the Roman Church doth embrace the Ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church wherefore even according to Dr. St.'s constitution of a true Church the Church of Rome is necessarily such Pag. 26. he saies We have no Controversie with them Catholicks about the Essential Doctrines of Religion which is that we mean by their being a True Church Finally pag. 33. and in other places the Dr. distinguishes between the Essence and Soundness of a Church and he several times grants that our Church holds all that is requisite to the Essence of a True Church But he denies that she holds all that is necessary to the Soundness of a Church Neither did I ever alledge Dr. St. to the contrary as above I insinuated Hence is evidently concluded that it is the unquestionable Sentiment of Dr. St. that the Roman Church even as it is now in the world is a True Church retaining all the Essential and Fundamental Points of Christian Faith All which I have sayed not because Dr. St. did ever deny it but because some of his Friends could scarce believe that he who had endeavoured with all his strength to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry should notwithstanding hold her to be a True Church See more concerning this in his Answer to my Book pag. 40 41 42. Wherefore since it cannot be questioned but that Dr. St. has heretofore and does still allow these two Propositions The Roman Church is a True Church The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church we come now to examin whether the latter Proposition contradicts the former which Dr. St. denies but we do prove in the following Discourse If the Roman Church holds any Fundamental or Essential Errour in matters of Faith it is no True Church For it is certain that some Errours are sufficient to unchurch a Community and destructive to the very Being of a True Church otherwise a Congregation that holds there is no God might yet be a True Church and if any Errours be such sure such are all Fundamental and Essential Errours For all Errours in matters of Faith even according to Dr. St. and other Protestant Divines are divided into Fundamental or Essential and into Non-fundamental or Non-essential These latter they affirm to be consistent with the Essence and Being of a True Church but not with the Soundness thereof But the former are destructive not only to the Soundness but also to very Essence of a True Church So that whoever saies that such a Church is a True Church but yot that she holds some Fundamental-Errours he commits a manifest Contradiction as if he should say such a Church is and is not True Upon this account those Protestants who grant the Roman Church to be a True Church but yet depraved with several Errours to save themselves from Self-contradiction commonly affirm that the Errours of the Roman Church are not Fundamental nor Essential but only inferiour Errours Non-fundamental and Non-essential Again if the Roman Church holds any Errour necessarily destructive to any Fundamental or Essential Point of Faith she must needs hold a Fundamental and Essential Errour in matters of Faith This is also evident neither can Dr. St. deny it For an Errour is denominated Fundamental or Non-fundamental Essential or Non-essential from the nature and quality of the Truth wherewith it is inconsistent all Errour being inconsistent with some Truth So that if the Truth or any of the Truths wherewith such an Errour is inconsistent be Fundamental or Essential the Errour must needs be Fundamental or Essential But if none of them be Fundamental neither can the Error be Fundamental Now the inconsistency of a Proposition with its contradictory or of an Errour with the Truth opposite therunto does not consist in that an Errour does absolutely destroy the Truth in it self wherewith it is said to be inconsistent For it is certain this Erroneous Judgment There is no God does not destroy the Truth of its Contradictory There is a God nor in that he who gives an assent to the one part cannot possibly at the same time give his assent to the contrary part otherwise it would not be possible for any one to Contradict himself which is manifestly false as Dr. St. himself does too too well know The forementioned inconsistency therefore consists in the repugnancy in order to the Truth of both Propositions together and at the same time or in that the Truth of the one necessarily destroyes the Truth of the other So that if the Errour which is inconsistent with a Fundamental Truth should cease to be an Errour the contrary Truth would cease to be a Truth Moreover some Errours are not destructive to any Fundamental Point immediately or formally or in express terms as this Error There is no God is destructive to this Fundamental point There is a God but only mediately and by Consequences because they destroy immediately something wherewith some Fundamental point is necessarily connexed which being once destroyed such a Fundamental point must necessarily fall as supposing that it is a Fundamental point of Christian Faith that Christ is God Consubstantial to his Father this Errour Christ is a meer Creature is beyond debate Fundamental although it does not destroy immediately the former Truth but only mediately and by Consequence because it immediately destroyes its Contradictory viz. Christ is not a meer Creature which being destroyed the former Fundamental Truth does necessarily fall For whatsoever is God either is no Creature or at least no meer Creature Wherefore 't is a Fundamental Errour whatsoever necessarily destroyes a Fundamental Truth whether mediately or immediately For the malice and malignity of a Fundamental Errour consists in its Destructiveness to a Fundamental point and what destroyes it mediately does truly destroy it but destroies with it some other thing One may beat down a Steeple either by shooting immediately at the Steeple or at the Tower that upholds the Steeple and in both Cases the Steeple is equally beaten down but with this difference that in the second case the Tower also is beaten down with the Steeple Yea Dr. St. himself pag. 24. confesses the second way of Worship mentioned there by him to be destructive mediately only and by Consequence to the Existency of a true God and yet it is inconsistent doubtless with the Being of a true Church since by such a Worship the Vnity of the Godhead is denyed and many False Gods are joyned with him in the same Worship and to teach a multiplicity of Gods is beyond debate to teach an Errour by reason of its opposition to the Vnity of the Godhead destructive to the Being of a Church Besides I said that an Errour which is necessarily destructive to any Fundamental point whatsoever it be must needs be Fundamental and inconsistent with the Essence of a True Church For an Errour as other Negations is malignantis naturae of a malignant nature such as destroying any Essential part or
intrinsical condition must needs destroy the whole So that a Church to be True must have all her Essentials but to be absolutely False 't is enough that any one of them be wanting according to those common Axioms of Philosophers Bonum ex integra causa malum autem ex quolibet defectu Death destroies the Essence of a man and yet it neither destroies the Soul nor the Body immediately but only the Union between them both which is the least considerable thing in a mans Essence Finally because we discourse now what Errours are Essential in matters of Faith and inconsistent with the Being of a True Church we must reflect that according to Divines there are two sorts of Errours the one Privative the other Positive A Church does err privatively against the Essence of a True Church by not holding all the positive Essential points requisite thereunto although she should not positively hold any thing contrary to such points A Congregation of Men who should not believe there is a God although they should not positively believe that there is no God would beyond all question be no true Church But a Church errs positively against the Essence of a true Church when she positively holds and asserts something inconsistent with an Essential point whatever else she affirms Doubtless a Church or Congregation which teaches that there is no God cannot be a true Church whatever else she teaches Both these sorts of Errours are destructive to the Essence of a Church and the latter is rather worse than the former For it is worse to believe that there is no God than not to believe that there is a God Hence I infer that to the constitution of a true Church 't is not enough to assert the positive Articles requisite to the Being of a Church but 't is also necessary not to hold any Errour incoâ—sistenâ— with any of such Articles as 〈…〉 several persons who deny either mediately or immediately those very points which they confess These things being premised I go on to shew that if the Roman Church does hold any kind of Idolatry what kind soever it be to be lawful as Dr. St. expressly affirms she does she must needs hold an Errour destructive a to Fundamental and Essential point of Faith and by consequence a Fundamental Errour inconsistent with the Essence of a true Church And since 't is certain that no kind of Idolatry is lawful if the Roman Church holds any kind of Idolatry as lawful she must needs hold an Errour inconsistent with some Truth as all Errour is Now it is not possible that the Roman Church should hold any sort of Idolatry whatsoever as lawful unless she holds that some Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature For the notion of Idolatry in general does necessarily contain this even as Dr. St. himself confesses in this Book pag. 24. where he saies thus I agree in general that the true notion of Idolatry is giving the Honour due only to God to a meer Creature but he adds presently these words I desire no greater advantage against the Church of Rome in order to prove her Idolatrous than from such a Concession which is as much as if I should say I desire no greater advantage against Dr. St. in order to prove him a Knave than that he should grant as doubtless he does that the Notion of a Knave in general is he who makes it his business to cheat others For I am certain that it is far easier to shew that this notion of a Knave does agree to Dr. St. than that notion of Idolatry to the Roman Church But for my present purpose it is enough that Dr St. grants that to be the true notion of Idolatry in general For so 't is evident that let the kinds of Idolatry be never so many they must needs participate the forementioned notion because all the Species or different kinds must needs participate the general notion under which they are contained as for instance because it is the general notion of an Animal to be vivens sensibile a living Substance endowed with a sensitive power let the Species or differences be never so many 't is impossible that there should be any sort of Animal which is not vivens sensibile So that whatsoever is not vivens sensible is not Animal and whatsoever Worship is such that thereby the Honour due only to God is not given to a meer Creature such a worship cannot be any sort of Idolatry Hence I infer that 't is impossible the Roman Church should teach or hold any kind of Idolatry whatsoever it be gross or not gross but she must hold supposing the Notion of Idolatry in general to be such as has been insinuated expressly or implicitly in the same manner as she holds Idolatry That some Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature which Errour for evidently 't is an Errour is inconsistent with the contrary Truth viz. No Honour due to God may be given to a meer Creature And what Truth is this Fundamental and Essential or Non-fundamental and Non-essential without debate it is a Fundamental and Essential point of Religion For what point is such if this be not Nay Dr. St. himself does absolutely grant it pag. 26. in the Answer to my first Proposition as hereafter will appear and p. 21. he accounts among the Essentials of a true Church and the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith this very proposition viz. That God and his Son Jesus Christ are the proper object of Divine Worship or which is the same no Divine Worship or no Honour due only to God is to be given to any one but God Since therefore all Idolatry is inconsistent with the forementioned Fundamental and Essential point 't is manifest the Church of Rome cannot hold any kind of Idolatry whatsoever without holding a Fundamental Errour destructive to the very Essence and Being of a True Church Wherefore Dr. St. by granting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with Idolatry does commit a palpable Contradiction and in one breath blows cold and hot asserting that she is a True Church and yet that she holds something inconsistent with the very Being and Essence of a True Church To draw this Argument into a narrower circle I form this Dilemma Either by the Idolatry Dr. St. Fathers upon our Church Some Honour due only to God is given to a meer Creature or not If not then it is no Idolatry as not participaring the general Notion of Idolatry If so then it is destrrctive to an Essential point of Religion and consequently to the Essence of a True Church So that Dr. St. by distinguishing two sorts of Idolatry one destructive to the Being of a Church another not-destructive to the Being of a Church does as much as tell us There are two sorts of Idolatry one that is Idolatry another that is not Idolatry of the former
a Dr. or of Divinity should not be ignorant of them and all that he does in this kind is as appears by the instances above produced First he feigns me to speak what I do not and then he affirms that I speak Sophistically and Captiously Thirdly 't is the common stile of our Polemical Divines here in England whether Catholicks or Protestants to use this Syllogistical way both in their Books and conferences concerning matters of Religion when they will write or speak close to the Subject they handle Let my Adversary be a president who in his Answer to the two Questions proposed by one of the Church of Rome he reduces almost all his Discourses to formal Syllogisms although he laboured that Answer only for the satisfaction of a Lady and Ladies do not use to be much verst in Artificial Logick or formal Syllogisms And in the late Disputes betwen the Annabaptists and Quakers the greatest of their Auditory being made up of Women and Tradesmen who have not frequented Universities yet their Arguments were framed in a Syllogistical way Since therefore I had never heard this common method of treating Controversies reprehended in our Divines Protestants or Catholicks and being moreover inclined thereunto as having been bred the greatest part of my life in Famous Universities where a Scholastick and Dialectical method is most in vogue I thought no just exception would be made against me should I indulge my self in a thing nothing extravagant and suitable to my inclination especially when I intended my Book particularly for learned men who are not unacquainted with Syllogisms And for the satisfaction of Protestants in this matter 't will without doubt be enough to see that my Adversary Dr. St. although he seems to have been resolved to pardon me in nothing which he could find to be any way obnoxious to his Reproofs has not carped at me upon this account However if any one be not satisfied with these Reasons he may pass over the Formal Syllogisms laid down at the closing of each point in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet only I desire him to make the Deduction by himself in the manner he shall think best The Two Syllogisms therefore wherewith out of the Propositions above mentioned and assented unto by the Doctor I demonstrated the Roman Church to be free from Idolatry in the Veneration of Images Adoration of the Hoast and Invocation of Saints were these A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry See Prop. 3. But the Roman Church is a Church that does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion See Prop. 5. Therefore she does not teach Idolatry But she does teach Veneration of Images Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist and Invocation of Saints See Prop. 4. Therefore none of these Practices as taught and allowed of by the Roman Church are Idolatry We may add this farther Discourse A Church that does not err against this Fundamental point viz. The Honour due only to the Creator is not to be given to the Creature does not teach Idolatry all Idolatry being destructive to the forementioned point See Prop. 3. But such is the Roman Church as is evident by the fifth Proposition Therefore she does not teach Idolatry And hence manifestly appears how palpably Dr. St. Contradicts himself in charging the Roman Church with Idolatry and yet granting her to be a True Church unerring against all Fundamentals For it is as much as if he had said she does not err against any Fundamental point yet she does err against some CHAP. VIII Several Quibbles against the aforesaid Doctrine removed FRom what we have hitherto set down may easily be answer'd several Quibbles which Dr. St. others do or may object against the Doctrine above established The Doctor often insinuates that there are two sorts of Idolary The one consistent with the Being but not with the Soundness of a Church The other inconsistent with the very Being of a Church and he makes the Roman Church guilty of the former kind of Idolatry and not of the latter Whence he concludes that he does not commit any Contradiction by charging the Roman Church with this sort of Idolatry and yet granting her to be a true Church But this objection vanishes to nothing because we have shewn that the general notion of Idolatry allowed by the Dr. is inconsistent with a Fundamental and Essential point of Religion and consequently with the very Being of a True Church And since there can be no kind of Idolatry which does not participate the general notion of Idolatry as is evident it manifestly follows that all sorts possible of Idolatry are inconsistent with the Being of a Church Moreover we have already demonstrated that Dr. St. affirms in the places quoted above the Idolatry allowed of by the Roman Church to be as bad nay worse than the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens Now if the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens be destructive to the Being of a Church as certainly it is neither does nor can Dr. St. deny it how is it credible that an Idolatry yet worse than that should be consistent with the Being and Essence of a True Church The Dr. might as well with the subtlety of his wit distinguish two Antichrists the one that is contrary to Christ the other though worse than the former that is not contrary to Christ but his intimate Friend For I am confident that one may as easily find out an Antichrist not contrary to Christ as an Idolatry not dstructive to the Being of a True Church In the like manner he might say and therein he would highly oblige the Libertins of our Nation that there are two sorts of Debauchery the one inconsistent with a good life the other though far worse than the former yet consistent with it and then tells us that one cannot be a good and pious man and yet a Debauchee in the former sense But that if one be a Debauchee in the latter sense which is yet far more horrible than the former he may very well be a good and pious man without the least shew of Contradiction and then laugh at us as half-witted men because we cannot understand these Niceties Certainly there has never been yet in the world a man who has more obliged Idolaters than Dr. St. has done I and many more with me have alwayes believed that there is no Idolatry which is not Idolatry and that all Idolatry is inconsistent with the Being of a True Church But the incomparable Dr. St. has found out one Idolatry that is no-Idolatry another Idolatry which kills a Church another though worse than the former that makes her only sick and another finally that is an Essential perfection and a necessary ingredient of a True Church as we shall see when we come to examin his Answer to our Appendix Now since the Dr. has invented such pretty kinds of Idolatry
the Church of Rome does own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Antient Creeds yet she debauches those very Principles which she professes to own pag. 34. This objection is also annulled by what we have laid down above First Dr. St. does not only grant that the Roman Church does embrace all the Essentials points of Christian Faith and consequently amongst the rest this point viz. The Honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature which he confesses to be one of them But also he allows that she does not err against any Fundamental point of Faith this being my Fifth Proposition which he assents unto and calls in his Concession Now to say That the Roman Church does not err against any Fundamental point as he saies she does not and yet that she teaches Idolatry which is to err against a Fundamental point even according to his Principles is a palpable contradiction Secondly When Dr. St. grants our Church to be a True Church as he does without doubt he takes a True Church as contradistinct from a False Church or from a Church which is not True otherwise he would interpret in a quite contrary sense this his Concession The Roman Church is a True Church i.e. The Roman Church is no true Church which interpretation cannot but seem to any prudent man very ridiculous Now a Church may fail to be a True Church either because she does not positively embrace some Essential point or because she denies some Essential point and errs against it and to the Essence of a True Church it is requisite not only to embrace positively all Fundamental points but also not to err against any one of them as I have demonstrated above Neither do I think that Dr. St. will deny it otherwise he would doubtless have denyed our Fifth Proposition Whoever therefore affirms that our Church is a True Church and yet that it errs against a Fundamental point as necessarily it must if it maintains Idolatry does as much as affirm it is True and not True Thirdly let 's suppose since 't is possible for a Church to contradict her self that a Church embracing all the ancient Creeds with the Articles contained in them should notwithstanding contradict her self denying some of the main points couched in those Creeds and owned by her sure Dr. St. will not say that such a Church is a True Church and that by contradicting those main Articles of Faith she does only debauch them but not ruine or destroy them Certainly every Contradictory ruins it Contradictory and every Contrary destroys its Contrary Will the Dr. affirm that the grossest of the Heathens Idolatry did only debauch and not destroy this Prindiple owned by them viz. The honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature and after the Dr. has taken so much pains to shew that the Veneration of Images owned by the Roman Church is point blank against their 2d Commandment will he say now it only debauches it but does not destroy it Wherefore Dr. St. cannot defend that the Roman Church does teach Idolatry without granting that she contradicts and destroys a Fundamental point of Religion neither can he grant that she contradicts a Fundamental point of Religion and yet allow that she is a True Church So that to maintain on the one side that she teaches Idolatry and on the other that she is a True Church is to commit a manifest Contradiction I insinuated in my Book the similitude of a way from one place to another hinted at also by the Dr. pag. 50. which may contribute much to clear this matter Suppose as the custome is in some Almanacks which set down the true waies from one place to another one should describe a True way how we may go from London to York and setting down all the Towns which others commonly mention should intermingle them with other places that lie either the quite contrary way or at least quite out of the way as for instance from Stamford which lies in the ordinary way to the Fennes thence to Salisbury thence to Plimouth thence to the West Indies and if you please to East-Indies also for you are alwayes in a true way from London to York only with this general advice that whensoever you go out of the true way you must turn back again without specifying which places are out of the way which not but setting them down all as parts of the True way So that whoever does not go through all the places put down in the forementioned description does not follow the way therein contained Would not such a description of a True way from London to York be extream ridiculous could there be a better piece of Drollery than this for Poor Robins Almanack or can any man of common sense knowing that so many places set down in the aforesaid description lie quite out of the way from London to York call the way there described a True way from London to York For certainly whoever understands what he saies must needs understand by a True way from London to York a way that not only contains all the principal places from the one City to the other but moreover does not contain any place quite out of the way This is just our case with Dr. St. He freely confesses that the Roman Church is a True Church and a True way to Salvation but withal he affirms that she does not only contain those main points which he thinks sufficient to constitute a True Church but also other particular points which he looks upon as gross Idolatry and open Violations of the Divine Law and consequently destructive to the Salvation of men which particular points the Roman Church delivers not as Errours but as Truths and Articles of Faith which all are bound to assent unto So that whoever denies any of those particular points can no more be a Roman Catholick than if he denyed some of the main points of Christianity common both to Catholicks and Protestants Now since Dr. St. is of this perswasion that the Roman Church teaches and requires gross Idolatry and open violations of Gods Laws how can he say without manifestly contradicting himself that notwithstanding all this she is a True Church and a True way to Heaven Can a True way to Heaven be made up of a high way to Hell as certainly Idolatry is or is not Idolatry as far out of the way to Heaven as the West-Indies is out of the way from London to York The answer of the Dr. in effect is this If you be a Roman Chatholick you are in a True way to Heaven and yet if you be a Roman Catholick you are quite out of the way to Heaven and whether this be not pure non-sense I leave it to the judgment of any impartial person whatsoever Whence I conclude that all men of Reson must needs understand by a True Church a Church that does not only positively embrace all
difficulties Does he therefore mean by it a Church qualified with such Laws that whoever keeps close to them till death and let the way to Salvation be never so secure yet if one does not keep to it 'till death what will it avail him will certainly be saved If this be his meaning there is no True Church which is not sound and secure in this sense For a True Church must contain all things necessary to Salvation both in order to our Belief and Practice as is certain neither does Dr. St. deny it and sure whoever dies having discharged all things necessary to his Salvation as well in reference to his Belief as Practice will certainly be saved as is manifest from those words of our Saviour Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata which is a much as if he had said whoever observes my Commandments shall certainly be saved and doubtless no Body can do all that is necessary to Salvation without observing Gods Commandments Does he mean by it a Church that does not teach any thing whatsoever as an Article of Faith which is either an Errour or Corruption This seems to be his meaning But neither is it possible that any Church whatsoever should be a True Church and yet not sound and secure in this sense For it is a manifest Contradiction to affirm That such a Church is a True Church but yet that she fathers upon God or teaches God to be the Author of some Errour or Corruption as necessarily she must if she teaches any Errour or Corruption as an Article of Faith A True Church must not err against any Fundamental point of Faith as is certain nor consequently against this point God is not the Author of any Errour or Corruption whatsoever which doubtless is Fundamental A true Church therefore must not teach any Errour or Corruption as an Article of Faith or which is the same must not teach God to be the Author of any Errour or Corruption For to teach this is to err against the forementioned point Does he mean by it a Church that does not require or enjoyn any Practice or any other thing destructive to Salvation as doubtless all Idolatry is whether she teaches it as an Article of Faith or not But how can a Church be true and yet not sound nor secure in this sense also A true Church must lead men to Salvation and certainly it cannot lead men to Salvation if it enjoyns and requires them to do things destructive thereunto Wherefore I cannot see what Dr. St. is able to mean by a Sound and Secure Church which does not prove either that there is not in the world any Church True and Sound or that there is no Church True which is not Sound and secure and we are so far from confounding a True Church with a Sound and Secure Church in the first sense abovementioned i. e. with a Church free from all dangers and difficulties as Dr. St. will needs suppose we do that we constantly affirm that there is no True Church in the world Sound and Secure in that sense according to what I set down in my Book pag. 5. But the Dr. did not think fit to take notice thereof From what has been agitated in the precedent Discourses it manifestly appears that Dr. St. is guilty of Self Contradiction by asserting that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet charging her with Idolatry yea the grossest Idolatry of the world and as I promised at the beginning I am willing to admit as Judges in this plea the Learned men in our two famous Universities CHAP. IX The Doctor 's Answer to my Appendix proved Frivolous I Come now to consider what Answer Dr. St. is pleased to afford to the Appendix of my Book which he Attacks in the next place wherein to confirm the former Doctrine concerning the Nullity of the Charge of Idolatry cast upon the Roman Church I proved that either his Principles whereon he bottoms the forementioned Charge were not good or that he himself was an Idolater and the greatest part of his Answer being contained in less than three leaves in Octavo is stuffed up with Scoffs gawdy expressions jingling Metaphors superfluous Digressions Railery and such like Chaff the common Ingredients of his Books After I had declared each premise by it self I summed up the substance of my Argument in this manner Whoever Worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness is an Idolater according to Dr. St.'s main Principle whereby he pretends to make good the Charge of Idolatry laid upon us in the Veneration of Images But whoever Worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by Images by words or by Imagination he worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness as is manifest Therefore whoever Worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by Words or Images or by his own Imagination as is ding to Dr. St.'s Principles is an Idolater but Dr. St. does worship God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by words by Images or his own Imaginations as is evident if he Worships God at all Whence I conclude that he is an Idolater according to his own Concessions Now Dr. St. cannot deny the Consequences if he once grants the Premises neither can he deny the Premises without eating his own words or denying some manifest Principle For certainly he is not so wicked as to confess that he never Worships God nor so Phanatically pround as to say That he does enjoy the Beatifical Vision Whence it follows that he must grant that he Worships God represented unto him in some manner beneath the Beatifical Vision For it is certain that all other Representations of God different from the Beatifical Vision must necessarily fall beneath it Hence I infer that all Representations of God excepting the Beatifical Vision which is an Intuitive Knowledg of God are inferiour to his Greatness For all such Representations as the Apostle teaches us are Enigmatical and per speculum not representing God on the part of the object sicuti est as he is but as Scholastical Divines term them inadequate and abstractive per species alienas by Idea's alien and far estranged from the Nature of God and consequently infinitely beneath his Greatness For whatsoever is not God must necessarily be infinitely beneath him Since therefore all Representations of God not as he is but by alien Species and Idea's such are all Representations of God by words by Images or by abstractive and imperfect Imaginations are far inferiour to his Greatness and Majesty it is manifestly inferred that whoever Worships God represented unto him in either of the forementioned manners must needs worship him represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness Neither does Dr. St. in his Answer to this point any where refute this Doctrine but rather confirms it confessing plainly pag. 39. That his Conceptions cannot reach the Greatness of
God and he would be a Fanatick should he assert rhe contrary Now since Dr. St. worships God represented unto him by his own Conceptions these remaining far beneath his Greatness we conclud that Dr. St. worships God represented unto him in a way inferiour to his Grandeur and Majesty Wherefore to save himself from being an Idolater he must necessarily deny this Principle to be true viz. Whoever worships God represented unto him in a way inferiour to his Greatness is an Idolater Yet this is the main Principle whereon he grounds the Charge of Idolatry cast upon the Roman Church in the Veneration of Images and hence is manifestly proved that the aforesaid Charge as bottomed upon a false and Sandy Principle is altogether groundless and frivolous which was what I intended by this Appendix made in confirmation of what I had laid down before to prove our Church guitless of Idolatry Let 's now examin what Artifices the Dr. uses to clear himself from this imputation of Idolatry drawn up against him out of his own Principles and to prevent the Train as he saies pag. 35. laid to blow him up fetch'd from his own Stores First he seems to have been inclined to suspect that this Charge of Idolatry cast upon him was intended only for a piece of Drollery This is a pretty way to stave off all Arguments ab absurdo which are very concluding and frequent among Learned men when to prove the inanity of some Principle produced by the Adversary they lay open the absurdities which thence ensue A compendious Answering to all such Arguments according to this incomparable Doctors way of answering is to tell those who frame them That they are in jest and that without doubt they intend only to Droll But if this manner of Answering be warrantable 't will be sufficient to tell Dr. St. That his whole Discourse of Idolatry and Fanaticism charged upon the Roman Church and almost all his other works were intended only for pieces of Drollery Aperson of Quality and no Roman-Catholick could find no fitter place in his Library for Dr. St.'s Discourse of the Roman Idolatry than to put it among the Play-books After this to annul the aforesaid Charge of Idolatry he betakes himself to admiration What saies he pag. 35. is it come to this at last and am I become an Idolater too who was never apt to think my self inclined so much as to Superstition I marry Sir This is a speedy way indeed to dispatch Arguments with no more than an Admiration What! Dr. Stillingfleet and Idolater Dr. Stillingfleet that Zealous man for Religion who knows not how to defend his own Church to be True without laying down Principles that prove all Churches never so Heretical or Schismatical to be true and Orthodox Dr. Stillingfleet that pious and godly Protestant who has so great a kindness for the Protestant Church that he makes her the very same with an Idolatrous Church and with such a kind of Idolatry that is worse than the adoring a red Cloath for God! Dr. Stillingfleet so Religious a man that by all we can guess by his Principles alledged above we cannot determin whether he be of any or of no Religion What such a man as this an Idolater no God forbid And why Because forsooth he was never apt to think himself inclined that way Excellent just as if one should say The Heathens did not think themselves Idolatrous nor inclined that way Therefore they were no Idolaters I wonder why Dr. St. who boasts so much of his Charity does not go to Newgate to instruct the Malefactors there how they may defend themselves when they are Arraigned for Thieves or Murderers telling them with one sole Exclamation they may invalidate all the Evidences brought in against them What They Thieves They Murderers They take away mens Goods and Lives too who were never apt to think themselves inclined but to works of Piety and as coming instructed by so good an Advocate they would doubtless be instantly discharged But if this be the Champion of the English Church as he is cryed up to be she is in as miserable a condition any of her Enemies con wish her Such Defenders as these have brought the English Protestancy so low that 't is no wonder they should in a every Session of Parliament give her a Cordial to keep her alive Such Ministers contribute far more to the ruine of Protestancy than any Roman Priests Yea if this manner of answering be solid it follows also that the Charges of Idolatry and Fanaticisme wherewith he impeaches our Church are without difficulty repealed saying only What The Church of Rome Idolatrous That Church which has banished Paganisme from the greatest part of the World Should she introduce an Idolatry more detestable than the grossest Idolatry of the Pagans That Church which even Protestants themselves confess to have been the only visible Church of Christ for above 1000 years and acknowledge her to be the Mother Church the Patriarchal Church of the West the first See prima Sedes a true Member at least of the Catholick Church unerring in all Articles of Faith the very same with their own Church from whom they pretend to derive the Ordination of their Bishops and by whom have been handed down to them the Books of Scripture upon which alone they ground their Religion that such a Church and acknowledged as such should be impeached by Protestants and among the rest by Dr. St. who in most things agrees to the former Character given of her Should I say be impeached of an Iddolatry more detestable than the Adoration of an Animal a Statue or a red Cloth for God is indeed a thing worthy of Admiration and whereof several moderate Protestants are ashamed But why should any one wonder that Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Stillingfleet I say should be an Idolater and only because he was never apt to think himself inclined that way Although I never absolutely accused him of Idolatry but only on supposition that the Principles whereon he pretends to establish the Charge of Idolatry cast upon us were warrantable which is very different as presently shall be made to appear He goes on and saies pag. 53. That all the comfort he found left was towards the conclusion of my Book wherein as he affirms I confess That the same Argument proves the Prophets Evangelists and the Holy Ghost himself to be Idolaters and then he adds that he hoped there was no great harm to be feared in so good Company But Dr. St. very disingenuosly leaves out this Clause contained in my Book viz. or it proves nothing which renders the sense very different fcom what those words as quoted by the Dr. may seem to import For sure he will not deny but that it is a very different thing to say absolutely Dr. St. is an Hypocrite without adding any thing more or to say Dr. St. is an Hypocrite if he holds one Religion in his heart and professes another
clear himself from Self-Contradiction in this point we are willing to declare him free from that imputation in the other points mentioned in my Book Secondly Because we have seen That the Dr. does confessedly grant the Roman Church to be a True way to Heaven a True Church unerring in all Articles of Faith and hence follows as already we have evidenced that she teaches nothing as an Article of Faith which is either a Falsity or Corruption and that she neither requires nor approves of any thing destructive to Salvation And yet after all this Dr. St. maintains that the Roman Church teaches and requires Damnable Errours and gross Violations of Gods laws which doubtless are destructive to Salvation and herein according to his Aspersion consists the danger of Salvation in living and dying in the Communion of the Roman Church That she teaches and allows of particular Enthusiasms contrary to the Law of God and countenances Rebellion contrary to the Duty due to Lawful Superiours which Duty is an Article of Divine Faith And herein he constitutes the pretended Fanaticisme of the Roman Church and finally that she teaches and countenances Divisions in matters of Faith which she cannot do without countenancing Heresies and Errours against Articles of Faith Whence I conclude that Dr. St. palpably contradicts himself by granting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with danger of Salvation in her Communion Fanaticisme and Divisions in matters of Faith Thirdly because one notorious Contradiction being evidenced against any person is enough to overthrow all his authority and credit and to vacate consequently all the Arguments which depend upon his Authority and Faithfulness as the Dr. himself confesses Since therefore Dr. St. stands convicted of a palpable Self contradiction in a matter of so great a moment as is the Charge of Idolatry layed to the Roman Church and since the other Charges above mentioned depend upon his credit and faithfulness in the Quotations he produces out of our Authors and whereon he grounds such Charges we infer that the aforesaid Charges are Null till he has wiped off the Self-contradiction whereof he is Convicted or at least till those who peruse his Books have found out that his Quotations are faithful and effectual to his purpose I have read not long since in the Catholick Apology Third Edition the Right Honourable Author whereof has handled all matters of Fact objected against us so accurately and perspicuously that whoever is not resolved to be obstinate cannot but remain satisfied I have read I say in that elaborate Book pag. 269. What Gondamour observed in one of his Letters to Olivarez He saies that being out of curiosity once with King James at Chappel he perceived the Auditory extreamly attentive to their Minister yet nevertheless they would not he found trust him a whit For no sooner had be cited a place of Scripture but they all ran to their Bibles to see whether it were so or not Now if Protestants will not trust their Ministers and are taught even by the Ministers themselves not to trust them when they quote or rather read places out of their Bible which they have before them citing the Book the Chapter and the Verse and when every one or at least the greatest part of the Auditory have their Bible with them so that if the Minister should forge any thing or be mistaken in the least kind his forgery or mistake would presently be discovered to his Eternal disgrace for forging or mistaking Gods own word and not the word of men If I say even in these Circumstances where there is so little reason to suspect any forgerie or mistake they are taught not to trust their own Ministers why should they trust them in the Allegations against the Roman-Catholicks till themselves have found out that what they alledge against us is as they alledge when many times the Minister does not so much as name the Author for the thing he quotes or names the Author but not the Book or the page when he has not the Author before him nor perchance has ever seen him but what he quotes he has received at a second or third hand or if he has seen him it has been only perfunctoriously or a long time since and so he may have forgotten the words when none of the Auditory have the Book with them nor in any times know where to find it nor if they find it perhaps most of them do not understand the Language wherein it is written so that the forgery or mistake if there be any is not easily detected and at most is a forgery or mistake in the word of man not of God should the Protestants observe only this rule which they are taught by their own Ministers even in Circumstances where there is suspicion of some forgery or mistake viz. not to trust them but to suspend their Judgment till they have consulted the books themselves and find that what their Ministers alledge is true most of the Calumnies urged against us would vanish to nothing and if this is to be observed with other Ministers even according to their own Doctrine much more with Dr. St. who by standing convicted of Self-contradiction has forfeited all his Authority and Credit The Dr. seems very fond of his Treatise concerning the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church wherefore 't will not be amiss to add something in particular in reference to this point He saies pag. 51. That to prove that Fanaticisme does necessarily contain a Resistance against Authority I unhappily quote these his words p. 141. in his Discourse concerning the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church By Fanaticisme we understand either an Enthusiastick way of Religion or resisting Authority under pretence of Religion Now I thought that Dr. St. in the forementioned words had given us two different Notions or Descriptions of Fanaticisme but I was mistaken For the Dr. as it seems intended only in that place to assign two sorts of Fanaticisme The reason of my mistake was because I supposed that the Dr. proceeded like a Scholar and that accordingly beginning to treat of Fanaticisme he would give us some Description thereof But he very illogically tells us how many sorts of Fanaticisme there are without ever telling us what it is I hope he will pardon this mistake and I promise never more to be mistaken in him upon that account nor ever to suppose that he proceeds like a Scholar Neither does this mistake of mine obstruct the truth of the abovementioned Proposition layed down by me which I proved from the common perswasion of Mankind For no body judges that to be Fanaticism which is not grounded upon a private Spirit and Judgment contrary to Authority Neither does nor can the Dr. deny it Hence I inferred that the very constitution of the Roman Church which we both suppose to be a True Church is destructive to Fanaticisme because she does not leave every one to be guided by his private
Reason in the Interpretation of Scripture and obliges all to submit to her judgment On the contrary the Church of England as it is constituted according to Dr. St. 's Exposition favours all sorts of Fanaticisme since it permits every one to be led by his own private Spirit in the Interpretation of Scripture without obliging him to submit to the Judgment of any Church in such matters He answers secondly that if whatever is countenanced by the Authority of a True Church ceases to be Fanaticisme there flow hence monstrous Absurdities The first is that a prevailing Fanaticisme ceases to be Fanaticisme pag. 55. Is not this a strange whimsie of the Drs. and a pregnant Argument how little he values church Authority to say that because some particular way of Devotion comes to be approved and countenanced by the Authority of a True Church the approbation of the Church serves only to make it a greater and a more prevailing Fanaticisme than it was before whereas I proved in my Book pag. 9. with several instances That the approbation of a True Church is sufficient to clear particular waies of Devotion from the imputation of Fanaticisme So that the difference between Fanatick and Non-fanatick waies of Devotion does not consist in the extravagancy rather of the one and not of the other for both may be extravagant enough but in that the former are against Authority the latter according to Authority I will explain this Doctrine with the Example the Dr. alledges in the place now quoted of Treason and Rebellion What difference is there between a Loyal and Rebellious Army Both Plunder Harras Fight and Kill The difference only is that a Loyal Army proceeds according to Authority and by order of their true Sovereign But a Rebellious Army acts contrary to Authority and to the orders of their Prince As therefore it would be extream ridiculous to affirm That the approbation of a True and Lawful Prince serves only to make the proceedings of his Subjects approved by him more Rebellious or a more prevailing Rebellion so it is absurd to defend as Dr. St. does That the approbation of a True Church renders particular waies of Devotion approved by her more lyable to Fanaticisme or a more prevailing Fanaticisme But the Dr. urges That this would be an excellent way to vindicate the Fanaticisme of the late times which because countenanced by an Authority supposed competent enough by some who then writ of Obedience and Government it ceases to be Fanaticisme Speak out Doctor was Cromwell a True and Lawful Governour of this Kingdome or not if you say he was not how can you have the confidence to parallel our case with theirs since you your self defend the Roman Church to be a True Lawful Church and the very same with your own if you say that he was a True and Lawful Governour and his Authority competent where is your Loyalty As for the Writer of the Book entituled Obedience and Government let him answer for himself I detest that Doctrine neither am I responsable for what that Author affirms as neither Dr. St. will think himself obliged to own whatever Protestants did in the late Rebellion The second Absurdity he pretends to infer from our Doctrine is That Prophets and Apostles nay our Lord himself are according to this Rule unavoidably Fanaticks For what competent Authority saies he pag. 56. had they to countenance them Are you in earnest Doctor had Christ the Prophets and Apostles no competent Authority to countenance their proceedings This indeed is to cast them into the common heard of Fanaticks since no competent Authority neither Humane nor Divine did countenance or approve their Preaching Can the Dr. deny but that Christ the Apostles and Prophets were countenanced by Divine Authority manifested by unquestionable Miracles or will he say That Divine Authority manifested by these Miracles is not an Authority competent enough to vindicate such actions as it approves of from the Crime of Fanaticisme But the Dr. presses that the Jewish Church though not yet cast off while our Saviour lived did not countenance him nor his Apostles What then did I ever affirm that the Authority of a True Church was determinately necessary to clear particular practices from Fanaticisme as the Dr. most grossly supposes I did I defended indeed that the Authority of a True Church is sufficient to clear such actions from Fanaticisme but I never asserted that it was necessary yea I insinuated the contrary pag. 9. There are two waies to commission men to Preach and to Authorize their manners of Devotion Both of them sufficient but neither of them determinately necessary the one extraordinary when God by evident Miracles declares that such men are commissioned by him and in this manner Christ the Prophets and the Apostles were commissioned by him the other Ordinary when the Pastours of the True Church authorize men to Preach or approve of such particular waies of Devotion and in this sense I cleared the particular waies of Devotion countenanced by the Roman Church which the Dr. confesses to be a True Church from the Aspersion of Fanaticisme Neither can one reasonably argue that what is not countenanced in the Second and Ordinary way is not countenanced by a competent Authority since it may be approved of in an Extraordinary way And though the Jews did not follow the Doctrine of Christ yet they acknowledged his Commission and Gods Broad seal viz. evident Miracles wrought by him when in a full Assembly they affirmed Joan 11. Hic homo multa Signa facit This man Christ works many Miracles and certainly such a publick attestation as this was enough to countenance and acknowledge his Commission though out of obstinacy they would not submit to his Doctrine as Pilate declared our Saviour to be innocent and guiltless yet out of fear lest he should disgust Caesar condemned him to death I cannot omit here the two famous yet Contradictory Revelations which are said to have been made to St. Bridgit and St. Catherin concerning the immaculate Conception of our Blessed Lady To St. Bridgit that she was conceived without Original Sin To St. Catherin that she was conceived with Original Sin Dr. St. scarce publishes a Book wherein he does not insert these Revelations pretending thereby to blow up the Infallibility of the Roman Church since she Canonized for Saints both St. Bridgit and St. Catherin and approves their Revelations and consequently something that is false as necessarily one of the forementioned Revelations must be particularly he endeavours to prove hence against me That submission to the Judgment of the Church is not a Rule to judge Fanaticisme by For both these Revelations were approved of by the Roman Church and yet one of them was false and therefore Fanatical and one of those Saints either was deceived or went about to deceive and by consequence was a Fanatick See the Dr. pag. 61 62. To this I answer that the Dr. has never yet shewn That
those two Revelations of the abovementioned Saints were approved of in particular by the Roman Church or in general True it is that the Roman Church declares them both to be Saints and to be famous for their Revelations but she does not therefore approve of every porticular Revelation related to have been made unto them The whole Christian Church looks upon Christ and his Apostles as famous for their Miracles and Doctrines shall we therefore hence infer that the whole Christian Church approves of every particular Miracle related of them by any Author whatsoever and of every particular Doctrine which some one or other teaches to have been delivered by them Are there not many false Miracles and Doctrines father'd upon Christ and his Apostles wherefore to the end that the Roman Church be proved Fallible by reason of the two forementioned Revelations contrary the one to the other it was necessary for Dr. St. to have shewen that they were both approved of by our Church which the Dr. has not yet done Those two Saints might be famous for their Revelations and deservedly look'd upon as such though the abovesaid two Revelations or at least one of them had been forged Moreover though one of these two Revelations as being contrary one to the other was false and the person to whom such a Revelation is sayed to have been made either deceived or was deceived supposing she affirmed that she had had such a Revelation yet it does not therefore follow that either such a Revelation was Fanaticisme or such a person a Fanatick For sure Dr. St. will not enlarge so much the roll of Fanaticks as to affirm That all such as are deceived are Fanaticks For so he must cast himself into that heard since certainly he is not so vain as to think that in no Interpretation of Scripture in no Tenet whatsoever of so many as he has laid down in his Books he has been deceived Wherefore as an unjust Warr is not Rebellion if it be countenanced by the Authority of a True and Lawful Sovereign Prince For Sovereigns may wage unjust Warrs So neither a false Revelation is Fanaticisme if it be countenanced by the Authority of the True Church supposing that the True Church may countenance such Revelations For it is Essential Fanaticisme as we have seen to be contrary to Authority I have enlarged my self upon this point of Fanaticisme because the Dr. seems to hugg it as the Benjamin of his Mimical Wit and presumes so much of his endeavours in this kind that he boldly attests as we hinted above that his Adversaries have not said so much as one wise word to clear their Church from the Aspersion of Fanaticisme The Dr. vapours pag. 59. that this Charge of Fanaticisme was a new Charge yet the Author of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stillingfleeton tells us whence he borrowed it snd neither Bellarmin Becanus or any of their old beaten Souldiers could give them any assistance they found not the Title of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church in any of their Common place Books therefore plain Mother-wit must help them 'T is a wonder that order has not been given to erect a Statue to Dr. St. for so rare an Invention as this is of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church and if his Mother-wit could help him without the assistance of Common-place Books to frame this new Charge against us well may the Mother-wit of his Adversaries help them without needing the assistance of any Staunch-Author for such he terms our Antient Writers to answer it There is a short way to answer Dr. St. 's Books without needing to read Antient Authors Read only his Books and you will find the Answer to whatever he objects against us so full they are of self-contradictions They are like to certain venemous Beasts that breed in themselves the Antidote against their own poison I have lately read a perfect Character of Dr. St's proceedings in charging Roman Church with Fanaticisme drawn by himself in a Sermon preached before his Majesty 24. of February last 1674. Where shewing how licentious people among the Gentiles heretofore as in these times among Christians brought Vertue into Contempt and having assigned for the first Medium they laid hold of to effect their wicked design viz. The seperating Religion and morality from each other he adds page 11. These words The next thing was to make it vertue to appear ridiculous which was a certain way to make Fools out of love with it who do not consider what is fit to be laughed at but what is so When Socrates at Athens undertook with many sharp and cutting Ironies to reprove the vices of his age and with a great deal of Wit and Reason to perswade men to the sober practice of vertue the licentious people knew not what to do with him For they were not able to withstand the force of his Argments At last Aristophanes having a Comical Wit whereby he was able to make any thing seem ridicalous although he knew very well the Wisdome and Learning of Socrates yet to please and humour the people he brings him upon the Stage and represents his grave instructions after such a manner as turned all into a matter of laughter to the people of Athens This is the method which men take when they set their wits against Vertue and Goodness They know it is impossible to argue men out of it but it is very easie by ridiculous postures and mimical gestures and profane Similitudes to put so grave and modest a thing as Vertue is out of countenance among those who are sure to laugh on the other side I do not think that such things can signifie much to wise men but when was the world made up of such and therefore it signifies very much to the mischief of those who have not the courage to love despised Vertue nor to defend a cause that is laughed down Thus far the Dr. All which may be easily applied to Dr. St. himself For the main task of the Dr. in his Treatise of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church was to render ridiculous the Religious practices of the Roman Catholicks and of so many Saints famous throughout the world for their Zeal and Piety which to use his own words was a certain way to make fools out of love with our Church who do not consider what is fit to be laughed at but what is so He could not be ignorant of the great reputation even the modern Saints of our Church deservedly enjoy upon account of their Vertue far beyond what Socrates had yet like another Aristophanes having a Comical and Drolling Wit whereby he is able to make any thing though never so Sacred to seem ridiculous only to please and humour Licentious people he represents their grave Instructions and their Charitable and devout practices in such a manner as he turns all into a matter of Laughter He knows it is impossible to argue judicious men out of the opinion they
have of St. Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis St. Ignatius and St. Teresa but it is very easie by Mimical Expressions and profane Similitudes to render them ridiculous and contemptible among those who are sure to laugh on the other side But such proceedings can signifie nothing to Wise men but only to such as have not courage to love despised Vertue nor to defend a Cause that is laughed down Come Come Dr. Stillingfleet it is too notorious to all intelligent persons what you pretend with this scurrilous drolling way of attacking the Roman Church Your aim is to bring all Religion and Vertue into Contempt and Derision however you endeavour to disguized so mischievous a design with all Artifices possible I wish from my heart I were able to impute your Misdemeanours and Miscarriages in your Controversial Books to Ignorance or Inadvertency But on the one side your Mistakes are so gross your Contradictions so palpable and your Aspersions so notoriously scurrilous that he must needs be a Fool who cannot see them and on the other side the works you have published do proclaim you no Fool that I am forced to impute your unhandsome proceedings to the Malice of your Will not the Ignorance of your Understanding The Dr. pag. 70. endeavouring to stave off the Self-contradiction charged upon him in imputing to the Roman Church Divisions in matters of Faith saies thus But the fourth and fifth Proposition viz. of my Book in this point are the most healing Principles that have yet been thought on Fie for shame Why should we and they of the Church of Rome quarrel thus long We are very well agreed in all matters of Faith as I shall demonstratively prove it from the Argument of J. W. drawn from his two last Propositions All who assent unto the antient Creeds are undivided in matters of Faith by Prop. 4. But both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds Ergo they are undivided in matters of Faith And hath not J. W. now done his business and very substantially proved the thing he intended But I hope we may enjoy the benefit of it as well as those of the Church of Rome and that they will not henceforward charge us with dividing from their Church in any matters of Faith since we are all agreed in owning the antient Creeds and seeing we are not divided from the Church but by differing in matters of Faith according to his Proposition it follows that we are still Members of the True Church and therefore neither guilty of Heresie nor Scisme By what Dr. St. sets down here any prudent man may clearly see how grossly and wilfully he mistakes himself My fourth Proposition set down by me pag. 12. whereof the Dr. makes mention in the place now quoted and to which I refer my self in the Syllogism I frame pag. 13. runs thus All those who assent to the antient Creeds are according to Dr. St. 's opinion mark those words undivided in matters and Articles of Faith and that was the Dr. 's perswasion I proved out of his Rational Account pag. 56 58. and thence I conclude pag. 13. that according to Dr. St. mark those words All those who agree to the antient Creeds are of the same Communion and undivided in matters of Faith Now this wise Dr. most grossly supposes that it is the same for me to say All those who agree to the antient Creeds are according to Dr. St. undivided in matters of Faith where I only relate Dr. St. 's opinion argue thence against him ad hominem or to say absolutely All those who agree to the antient Creeds are undivided in matters of Faith which words pronounced so without any modification import as if I were of that perswasion whereas I am very far from it neither here nor in any other place do I defend any such Doctrine Wherefore the Major Proposition in the Syllogism set down by the Dr. is in his opinion True and consequently may be subservient to prove against him but in my opinion it is false and of no force to demonstrate any thing against me and I confess that it is a very compendious way to compose the differences between me and the Dr. if one may suppose as he here does That what he saies I say and that it is the very same for me to affirm such a thing is so according to Dr. St's opinion or it is true that Dr. St. thinks so and such a thing is so or it is true what Dr. St. thinks which Propositions doubtless are very different For to the truth of the former Proposition 't is enough that Dr. St. be of that opinion whether his opinion be true or false but to the truth of the latter 't is requisite that his opinion be true and that what he saies be so as he saies it is Certainly Christians may truly affirm without forfeiting their Faith that according to the opinion of the Jews Christ is not the Messias will the Dr. therefore infer hence that Christians may truly affirm that Christ is not the Messias or that Christians and Jews are agreed in that main point Fie for shame to use your own expression you a Doctor of Divinity and cannot distinguish between Propositions so notoriously different Where is the ingenuity you so much boast of Sure you imagined that the Reader would be so silly as to take upon your bare word what you write or quote without ever examining or comparing it By what I have said in reference to the Major Proposition of his Syllogisme whereby he pretends to prove demonstratively against us That both Catholicks and Protestants are agreed in matters of Faith any one many judge what Demonstrations we are to expect from Dr. St. As concerning the Minor Proposition of the Drs. Syllogisme he supposes it to be the same with my Fifth wherein he is also wilfully mistaken For my Fifth Proposition is this All Roman Catholicks assent unto the antient Creeds whereas his Minor was this Both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds where he adds That Protestants assent unto the Antient Creeds which I never affirmed and the Dr. cannot be ignorant that Roman-Catholicks hold Protestants do not believe in that Article even of the Apostles Creed Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam which in its true and legitimate sense signifies the Roman Catholick Church and those only are to be thought to believe Scripture and the Antient Creeds who believe them in the true and legitimate sense which in our Doctrine is only that sense which is agreable or not repugnant to the exposition of the Roman Catholick Church So that Protestants according to the perswasion of Catholicks do not believe the Antient Creeds because they do not believe them rightly understood But according to Dr. St. 's opinion Roman Catholicks do believe the Scripture and the Antient Creeds rightly understood For his Rule is that whoever understands Scripture or the Antient Creeds as by his natural
Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis St. Ignatius and that they have done such things as are unanimously attributed unto them by Roman Catholicks without any hesitation as that there have been such men as Christ and his Apostles and that they have done such things as are universally ascribed unto them by Christians So that whoever should deny that there was ever such a man as St. Bennet or that he ever founded any Order of Religious men he might easily in the like manner be brought to question or deny that there ever was any such man as Christ or that he ever founded Christian Religion there being the same or the like evidence for the one as for the other antecedently to Scripture owned as the Word of God viz. a constant Tradition of men although Christ and Christian Religion be far above St. Bennet and his Order I do not deny but that there is a more Universal Tradition for the Miracles and Transactions of Christ and his Apostles than for the particular Actions and Miracles of the forementioned Roman Saints But what then may there not be several degrees in the same kind of certainty Protestants aver as we have seen that there is the same kind of certainty and evidence against a Pagan for the Miracles of Christ as for the Actions of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar though these are attended upon by a more Universal Tradition since Jews and Pagans who deny Christs Miracles assent unto the Actions of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar and yet both we and Protestants affirm that they may as well deny or question the one as the other Moreover there is Tradition enough to induce a Moral certainty for all and every Book of the Scripture and yet doubtless there is a more general Tradition for some Books of Scripture than for others for the Old Testament than for the New and for some parts of the New than for others In the like manner though the Tradition for Christs and his Apostles Miracles be more general than for the Miracles of the above-mentioned Roman Saints approved of by our Church yet the Tradition for these is so general that it renders them Morally certain so that whoever proceeds rationally upon the account of Humane Tradition will either allow both or neither Let 's suppose that there are in the world a hundred Millions of Christians and that threescore Millions of them are Roman Catholicks For even Protestants confess that Roman Catholicks alone make up the Major part of Christendome Now whoever has the confidence to deny the Miracles of St. Bennet though assented unto by so many Millions of Roman Catholicks and for the space of above a Thousand years he would not stick should the like passion carry him that way to question the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles though agreed on by the whole Body of Christians and for the space of above a Thousand and six Hundred years Can we imagin that any prudent man does now believe the Miracles of Christ because there is such a precise number in the world and no lesser of Christians who assent unto them or rather because there is a vast number of Christians that unanimously assert them and certainly the number of Catholicks alone is a vast number Or would it not be a madness for one to say That were there no more Christians in the world to attest the Miracles of Christ than there are Roman Catholicks he would not think himself obliged to believe them upon account to Tradition and consent in their favour when as 't is certain there was a time when there were no more Christians in the world than now there are Roman Catholicks and yet even then doubtless there was Tradition and Consent sufficient to render the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles unquestionable And thus far concerning the Parallel between the Miracles and Practises of Christ and his Apostles and those of Roman Canonized Saints supposing the Actions of the latter to be inferiour as really they are in several Circumstances to those of the former Yet our Saviour expressly saies John 14.12 I say unto you He that believes in me the works that I do he shall do and greater works than these shall he do which words even according to Calvin and other Sectaries extend not only to the Apostles but also to the whole Body of the Church in succeeding Ages So that not only the Miracles and practises of the Apostles but also those of modern Saints of the Roman Church considered in themselves are as great or greater than those of Christ Did Christ do Miracles raising the Dead casting out Devils curing suddenly the Lame the Deaf the Dumb and others infected with incurable Diseases So did the Apostles and several Apostolical men of the Roman Church Did Christ Foretel things to come So did the Apostles and Roman Saints Did Christ Convert many with his Preaching So did the Apostles and several Saints of the Roman Church Was Christ a Pattern of Charity Humility Patience and all other Virtues The Apostles and many famous Roman Saints have imitated his Virtues Notwithstanding what Christ did he did it by his own power being Omnipotent but what the Apostles and other Apostolical men did in this kind they did it by the vertue and power Christ liberally conferred upon them And therefore Christ was the Principal Agent of all such works Now let any one judge whether the Parallel between the Inducements we have to be Christians and those which we have to be Catholicks and the certainty of both antecedently to Scripture owned as the word of God be so unreasonable as that only with an Admiration or two Dr. St. could prudently think to blow it off Wherefore I repeat what I have already said That the Drs. Objections against Roman Catholicks will assoon make one no Christian as no Catholick And as for several Extravagant abstruse and mystical expressions he alledges out of the Revelations and Visions of Canonized Saints of the Roman Church branding them for Fanaticisme the Dr. might as I insinuated in my Book produce out of the Revelations of St. John and the Canticles which upon this account are dash'd out of the Canon of Scriptures by some Protestants quite as strange and extraordinary expressions and Practises But Dr. St. is of those men who whatever they understand not they Blaspheme and he is as unacquainted with mystical Divinity as with other Faculties which he has a greater obligation to know Now if the Canticles and Apocalypse are sufficiently cleared from Fanaticisme notwithstanding so many strange and abstruse expressions they continue because they are approved of by the greatest part of Christians also the Revelations of St. Bridgit St. Catherine and St. Teresa are cleared from the like Aspersion because they are countenanced by the Major part of Christendome viz. the Roman Catholick Church which according to Dr. St.'s concession is a True Church And sure the approbation of a True Church and so much