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
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
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
they do it evidently follows that both of them are not true but that either the one or the other is false The same may be applied to the other Contradictions wherewith I charge the Doctor in the progress of my discourse 2. When of two Propositions that contradictone another the one is true and taken for granted the other is necessarily false This is also certain otherwise both of them would be true which is impossible according to the first Principle If therefore the first of the two Propositions quoted above viz. The Roman Church is a true Church be true and taken for granted it manifestly follows that the second Proposition viz. The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church is false supposing as we do suppose that they contradict one another The like also may be affirmed of the other contradictory Propositions which we have laid to the Doctors charge Now the way I insisted upon all along in my discourse is comprehended in these 4. Points set down in the beginning thereof in these words 1. I shall in brief propose the Accusation he frames against our Church 2. I shall lay down some few Principles either manifest in themselves or at least owned by Dr. St. and his Partizans 3. From these Principles I shall 〈◊〉 one or two Syllogisms deduce the contradictory of the Accusation framed against us 4. I shall close up each Point with facing together the manifest Contradictions committed by Dr. St. in reference to the present Aspersion Whence clearly appears that though I aim in the last place only at the Contradictions committed by the Doctor and entitled thence my Book yet I intended by the way to annul as I have annulled out of true and solid Principles owned by Dr. St. and his Associates all the Accusations he laid against us For what more can be required to annul them than to prove their condictories to be true And hence appears how frivolously the Dr. supposes as in many places he seems to do that I have done nothing else in my whole Book but only set down the Contradictions committed by him whereas of four Points whereinto I divided each discourse one only is employ'd upon this Subject According to this my designe insinuated in the forementioned words in each Point I took two Propositions the one contained the Charge laid upon us by the Doctor the other which I proved to be opposite to the former and is admitted as such by Dr. St. in this first part was granted by him as in the respective places I demonstrated Neither do I see that the Dr. as yet has denied any of such Propositions as far as they concern my intent yea we suppose now by common consent that he grants all such Propositions for how can he contradict himself in two Propositions which is the Hypothesis we proceed upon at present unless he grants them both Hence I inferred that the charges he laid against us were false and of no force The Substance of our Discourse in brief is this If the Propositions alledged by us above do contradict one another and such of them be true and taken for granted as are opposite to the Charges laid against us such Charges must necessarily be false But the fore-mentioned Propositions do contradict one another as we have proved and the Dr. now admits and such of them as are opposite to the Charges laid against us are true and taken for granted for this is the way I insisted upon and it is supposed here that the Dr. grants them Therefore on Supposition that Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insisted upon the Charges he lays against us must necessarily be false And this is the common way Authors insist upon when they see that their Adversary grants something true in it self and opposite to the Conclusion he has undertaken to defend they take for granted the former Proposition as favourable unto them and wherein they agree with their Adversary and infer thence the falsity of the later wherein they dissent from him But to shew also that I destroy all the Doctors Reasons too wherewith he pretends to make good the aforesaid Charges I add this third Principle 3. Whatever is brought or can be brought in proof of a falsity is either false or inconclusive This is also evident For there can be no true real and solid proof of a falsity according to that Maxime Ex vero tantum non sequitur falsum Out of Truth alone no falsity can be legally inferred For if the Conclusion be false either all the Premisses are not true or if they be so they do not infer the Conclusion whence I argue thus If the formentioned Charges which the Doctor imputes to the Roman Church be false whatsoever he brings or can bring in proof of them is either false or inconclusive But on supposition the Dr. contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all such Charges are false as has been proved Therefore in the same supposition whatsoever he brings or can bring in proof of them is either false or inconclusive Whence appears how illogically Dr. St. urges that though he should contradict himself in the Aspersions he casts upon us and in the way I insist upon yet the Reasons he produces to evidence such Aspersions are good and solid Wherefore I never affirmed that meerly because he contradicted himself all his Arguments on both sides of the contradiction were null For one part of the contradiction may be true and the Arguments to prove it good and solid True it is that when one contradicts himself his proofs on both sides cannot be good since one part of the contradiction must needs be false and there can be no good proof of a falsity What therefore I intended to shew was That the Dr. by contradicting common Principles owned by himself in the Charges he lays upon us see the Introduction to my Book such Charges were false and consequently their proofs void Neither do I ever aver that what he alledges in proof of the aforesaid Charges is determinately false but disjunctively that it is either false or inconclusive And now let any rational man judge whether this be not a sufficient answer to his Book viz. not only to annul all the Charges he lays upon us but all the Reasons too and Arguments wherewith he pretends to make such Charges good by demonstrating that on supposition he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all the above-mentioned Charges are void and their Reasons either false or inconclusive But the Doctor presses that I do not answer his Reasons in particular what then if I cut them off all at once what matter is it that I do not cut them off one by one To destroy a house 't is of little concern whether we pull it down Tile by Tile Brick by Brick and Stone by Stone till we have laid it in the dust or whether undermining the Foundations we blow it up in a moment Both ways are effectual
to destroy a house the difference is that the first is tedious the second is quick and active And as it would be very ridiculous for one to say when his house was blown up and shivered into pieces that notwithstanding it was not sufficiently destroyed because forsooth it was not pulled down methodically stone after stone and brick after brick so it is extreme absurd for Dr. St. to vapour that though all the accusations he frames against us are proved null and all the Arguments he brings to make them out are shewn to be false yet his Book is not sufficiently answered because all his Arguments are not solved one by one nor methodically answered Hence appears that one may be secured contrary to what Dr. St. seems to imagine p. 29. concerning the Truth safety of the Roman-Catholick Religion though he hears it charged with Idolatry by Arguments pretended to be drawn from several Topicks whereof the Dr. makes use without examining each Argument in particular For certainly the Dr. will not oblige all Christians if they desire to remain satisfied concerning the truth and purity of Christian Religion to examine in particular whatever Lucian Porphyrius and others of their Gang have objected against it though they pretended also to draw their Argments from the same or the like Topicks and had as good an Opinion and with as much Reason too of what they objected against Christianity as Dr. St. has of what he produces in opposition to the particular Tenets of Catholick Religion Is it not enough to the end one may remain satisfied concerning the Truth and safety of his Religion notwithstanding the Objections made against it that he be convinced that all such Objections are false and all the Reasons alledged in proof of them invalid and of no force Now to know that such Objections are false 't is enough to be perswaded that they contradict some common and true Principle assented unto both by the person who is to remain satisfied and such as make the Objections For what ever contradicts the Truth is false and if the Objections be false 't is evident that all their proofs are false or impertinent and this is the method we observed throughout our whole Treatise as is manifest The Dr. in his particular Preface descants at large against the manner wherewith his Adversaries answer this Book of his One man says he picks out a Sentence here and there to answer another a page or two together a third leaps from one thing to another as if resolved to pass by the greatest difficulties But he is a man of courage indeed that dares fall upon the rear and begin to confute a Book at the end of it So that if he lives long enough and get heart he may in time come to the beginning Sure Dr. St. did expect we should advise with him which way we are to attack him Let him evince that we do not destroy the Aspersions he casts upon us and their proofs and he will do something But when we have beaten down all his Assertions against us and his Arguments too to cry out that we have not struck him in the right place is very ridiculous This puts me in minde of what I have heard concerning a dapper young man well set yet of a low stature who trusting to a grant Buckler wherewith he sheltred himself would encounter any one Among several that worsted him he met with one taler than himself who over-reaching his Buckler and giving him two or three shrewd blows over the head struck him to the ground together with his Buckler Then the poor man after he had sprawled awhile having recovered himself began to enveigh against his Adversary saying A Pox take ye could you not see my Buckler There is no need for me to make the Application As it would therefore be of little comfort for us if we have not destroyed his Book that we attacked him the right way So in all reason it ought to be of little comfort for the Dr. if we have destroyed his Book that we did not set upon him that way which he imagined to be the only right and methodical way to impugn him Certainly Dr. St. is a happy man if he can solace himself with such pitiful excuses as these In particular he complains of N. O. and J. S. because as he says Gen. Pref. pag. 4.40 They steal quite behind his Book and shew a particular spite at the Dragons Tail The reason why he says thus is because they confute the later end of his Book But if they annul the part they set upon what matters all this what General who had his Army routed by the Enemy did ever think it a sufficient excuse to say That they fell upon the rear and so routed him And though I do not affirm that Dr. St's Book hath neither head nor tail yet I may with truth aver that his Book resembles a Monster in this that it has the head where it should have the tail for he ends with the Principles of his Religion whereas according to the natural method of writing he should have begun not ended with them Since therefore the Dr. ends where he should begin what wonder is it that these two worthy Authors should begin where he ends CHAP. II. Several Objections against the forementioned way of answering the Dr. proved insignificant THis way of answering is new as the Dr. will needs have it Is not this to trifle out the time and plainly to acknowledge that he is destitute of a solid reply If the way I have taken be a true and an effectual way to confute his Book as we have shewen it is of what damage is it that it be a new way Moreover this manner of confuting I have insisted upon cannot seem new to any one who is acquainted with the Schools For though the Defendant may produce several Reasons to establish the Conclusion he undertakes to maintain yet the Opponent commonly sets upon the Conclusion without taking notice of the Reasons especially when he is perswaded that the Conclusion is false and if he destroys the Conclusion all the Reasons produced in defence thereof fall to the ground And certainly a Defendant would be laught at who after he had been defeated by his Adversaries and had his Conclusion annulled should cry out Though the Conclusion be false yet the Reasons are good and solid or should not be able to afford any other answer than that the Argument made against him was new and never before heard of by him Besides should one destroy all the Arguments one by one wherewith his Adversary pretends to make good the Thesis he defends yet in rigour he would not therefore unless he adds some other principle destroy the Thesis but only shew that the Defendant does not prove it well But if one destroys the Thesis which is a more compendious way it is evident that he annuls all the Reasons and Arguments brought in proof thereof Yea if
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
Recognitions recalling his former Errours though he might make a just Volume upon that Subject and begin it with the Recantation of what he sets down in his Irenicon destructive to the Episcopal Dignity which he is loth to do for he sees that book endeared him to the Presbyterian party whom he seems to Court I confess that it is no blemish for a man when he is better informed to recal the Errours which heretofore he assented unto For to err is a frailty of men but to persevere obstinately in an Errour as necessarily he must do who persists in a palpable Contradiction is a brutish obstinacy and what greater disparagement than this can there be for a rational man Now Dr. St. not only heretofore but even in this present book after he had Charged the Roman Church with gross Idolatry affirms that she is a true Church as shall hereafter appear without having ever yet recalled that Proposition and consequently he persists to contradict himself as he now admits Whence follows that the Allegation of Bellarmin's Recognitions or Recantations was nothing to the purpose For it is as if one should argue thus Bellarmin though he erred yet because he recalled his Errours making a Book of Recognitions did not lose his Reputation neither did he deserve that we should slight what he saies Therefore Dr. St. who has erred and does persist to err who has and does still contradict himself without ever having recalled his Errours does not deserve we should slight what he affirms or thus Saint Peter though he sinned grievously yet because he did sincerely repent was a great Saint Therefore such as have sinned grievously and never repent are great Saints Let Dr. St. imitate Bellarmin and recal his former Errous and he will lose nothing no not his Authority which notwithstanding as he himself affirms Self-contradiction being once proved especially if it be insisted upon is utterly overthrown But we must reflect That such as recal their former Opinions or Tenets are in two sorts Some recal Tenets heretofore assented unto because they find them inconsistent with Errours which they are resolved to defend as if one for instance who being not able to vindicate the General Principles of Christianity without confessing the particular Tenets of the Roman Church to be true should out of hatred to such particular Tenets deny the General principles of Christianity which before he had yielded unto Such men as these are far from deserving any Commendation for recalling their former perswasions but rather shew an inveterate obstinacy and odium against the Truth and amongst such men Dr. St. must be enrolled should he to defend the Idolatry of the Roman Church deny her to be a true Church contrary to the Truth he has so often acknowledged and to the very Grounds whereon he builds the truth of Protestancy For though I do not allow of his Grounds yet I Assent to the Truth of the Roman-Catholick Religion which is evidently thence inferred Others to embrace the Truth which in process of time they have discovered recal former Tenets contrary thereunto as St. Augustin and Bellarmin did So do many who finding Protestant Religion to be false relinquish it and embrace the Roman opposite thereunto Such men as these shew great ingenuity and sincerity and by revoking such Opinions with all Wise men rather gain than lose Authority or Reputation And among these men Dr. St. would deserve to be listed if he would be pleased to recant and declare plainly to the world that when he Charged the Roman Church with Idolatry Fanaticism Divisions in matters of Faith danger of Salvation in her Communion and other Corruptions he over shot himself as several even of his own Friends confess he did at least in the Charge of Idolatry Besides when one recalls an Opinion as inconsistent with the Truth to which he had heretofore assented he also virtually recalls all the proofs thereof acknowledging them to be either false or unconcluding And since what St. Augustin and Bellarmin stood to after their Retractations contradicted what they held before 't is manifest that their proofs either on the one side or other were void and consequently recalling such Opinions they recalled also their proofs of them And here I cannot but reflect that Dr. St. seems to list me pag. 14. among such as he terms Revolters from the Church of England Thanks be to God I was bred a Roman-Catholick my Parents and Ancestors were of the same Religion and suffered much for their constancy therein And I can assure the Dr. that for all I have seen in him I am so far from being startled in my Religion that I am rather confirmed therein For a weak impugnation of the Truth is a confirmation thereof and if God shall be pleased to give me his Grace not to quit the General Principles of Christianity I shall never upon the account of what Dr. St. saies relinquish the particular Tenets of the Catholick Church Many ask me what matters it that Dr. St. palpably contradicts himself and persists so to do which is the same as if they should ask me what matters it if Dr. St. be a Madman And to say the truth it matters very little for the Publick good that he be so but it matters very much that being so he should be commonly reputed a Wiseman For what greater damage can be imagined than that the people be guided by a Madman in affairs of so great concern as those of Religion are Neither can one do a greater service to the Common-wealth than to discover their Guides to be mad if really they be so Neither can there be a better way to discover it than by shewing they grant and persist to grant palpable Contradictions Moreover they might say the same in case I had attacked any other particular Doctor of the Protestant Church for Dr. St. carries as great a vogue as any other asking me what matters it if I force such a Doctor to manifest Contradictions and by consequence bring him to a Non-plus So that were this Objection justifiable it would prove that it is of no concern to defeat and bring to a Non-plus any particular Adversary which is certainly false and repugnant to the common practice of all Learned and Zealous men Besides had I proved only that the Charges which Dr. St. saies upon us did contradict some particular Tenet held only by the Dr. and some few of his Partizans though that would have been sufficient to have baffled him yet it would not have been of so great moment But I have shewn that the Aspersions he casts upon us do contradict General Principles assented unto not only by Dr. St. and all Roman-Catholicks but also by all Learned Protestants Members of the English Church and by many others of different Professions and consequently I convince all such that the forementioned Aspersions are false as being repugnant to True and General Principles granted by them and that whatever is produced
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
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
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
those points and Articles which are requisite to the Being of a Church but moreover does not teach nor require any thing whatsoever destructive to Salvation as doubtless gross Idolatry and open Violations of the Divine Laws are As insignificant and senseless as this is another evasion or rather the same in other terms the Dr. makes use of viz. that we may be saved as Christians but not as Roman Catholicks and that we may be saved if we repent but not otherwise And what Roman Catholick did ever affirm that Protestants or any Hereticks whatsoever are damned as Christians or because they hold the general Principles of Christianity wherein they agree with good Christians but only as holding the particular Errours of their respective Religions neither will they be damned if they Repent And yet Dr. St. pretends that Protestants have a more Charitable opinion of Catholicks in order to their Salvation than Catholicks have of Protestants See my book pag. 7 8. Yea there is no Religion which does not hold some general Truths viz. That we ought to repent of our sins and retract our Errours That we are bound to believe and do whatsoever God will have us believe or do and such like neither is any one damned for holding these Truths nor if he sincerely repents of all his sins and retracts all his errours and yet sure Dr. St. will not grant that all Religions in the world are True and the very same with Protestancy as he saies ours is The forementioned Answer of Dr. St. puts me in mind of what one answered a Prince who was also a Bishop when being checked by him for having committed some great misdemeanour unbeseeming a Bishop he said that he had done it as a Prince not as a Bishop the other replyed But if the Devil carries away your Highness as a Prince what will become of you as a Bishop In the like manner if Dr. St. affirms that Roman Catholicks as such are damned can he imagin that they will be saved as Christians In fine according to this answer of Dr. St. it is no more possible for Roman Catholicks to be saved than for a man to become a Horse which is altogether impossible For the repugnancy that is for a man to become a horse is not grounded upon the Generical Predicates wherin he agrees with a Horse but upon his special difference and Dr. St. confesses the particular Tenets of Roman Catholicks to be repugnant to Salvation but not the general and if this be the possibility of Salvation he grants us and whereof he so much vapours what Catholick ever denied it to Protestants and to say that we may be saved if we repent of our particular Tenets and recal them which we can never do without quitting the Roman Catholick Religion is as much as if he should say that the Roman Catholick Religion is a true way to Salvation but that it will never carry you thither unless you quit it which is as I insinuated in the place above quoted a pretty piece of Non-sense Whence we conclude that as Dr. St. to shew that the Roman Church may be Idolatrous though True forges an Idolatry which is no Idolatry so to prove that she may be a true Church though Idolatrous he feigns a true Church that is no true Church And who can wonder now that Whitby should stile Dr. St. a Prodigy of Ingenuity and Learning since he has been able to invent such prodigious distinctions of a true Church no true Church and of an Idolatry no Idolatry And hence by the way I infer a thing of great comfort for Roman Catholicks which is that when they hear their Church impeached of Idolatry in so many Ballads cryed through the streets and in so many Pamphlets that lie upon every Stationers Stall there is no more meant by the Idolatry they accuse us of than an Idolatry that is no Idolatry or an Idolatry that is an essential perfection of the true Religion and there is no great harm to be feared from such Idolatries as these One thing there is that I cannot but wonder at which is that since Dr. St. is so eminent in composing things though never so opposite one to the other the Anabaptists and Quakers did not chuse him for Arbiter in their late Contests concerning Religion For though the Anabaptists had proved the Quakers no Christians as they pretended notwithstanding the Dr. out of his immense charity would have demonstrated that they were both still of the very same Religion not only among themselves but even with him also For if he be able to bring to a composition things that grin so much one at the other as a True Church and an Idolatrous Church even with the grossest sort of Idolatry what will he not compose and if he be so charitable as to make his own Church the very same in substance with an Idolatrous Church why not also with a No Christian Church besides the Quakers and Anabaptists follow the very same Rule whereby Dr. St. regulates Protestancy See his Principles 5 13 15. For after a sober and sincere enquiry made into the Truth and whether they have made such an enquiry or not they must be their own Judges without being bound to submit to any Exteriour Guide they follow the Light within or a faculty in them of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to their Belief whereby they judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation and of the Genuine sense thereof So that if this faculty which is and ought to be according to the Dr. their sole Guide tells them That Christ is not God That Christian Religion is not true or that there is no Scripture All goes well and they are of the very same Religion with Dr. St. adjusting themselves to his very rule A late Book entituled A Treatise of Humane Reason disgusted much the Protestants as I have heard and yet it is nothing else but an abstract of those very Principles and Grounds whereon this Champion of Protestancy Dr. St. builds the Vindication of the Protestant Religion Finally because the Dr. seems extream fond of his distinction of a True Church and a Sound Church insinuated above it will not be amiss to examin what he can mean by a Sound Church and secure way to Salvation which in this debate signifie the same Does he mean by it a Church that is free from all difficulties and Temptations if so then there is no True Church in the world that is sound and secure For even according to our Saviours Testimony the true way to Heaven is narrow and difficult beset with several dangers and temptations which render the Salvation of men extream hazardous and encompassed on all with cross and by-paths and dark turnnings wherein many are miss-led yea Christian Religion taken in its greatest purity contains high Mysteries not easie to be assented unto and hard Precepts which go against the grain of our nature and many miscarry deterred by these
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
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.
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