such a Proposition for a particular Affirmative and as the true Notion of a man in general is Animal rationale so the true notion of Idolatry according to Dr. St. himself pag. 24. quoted above is giving the Honour due only to God to a meer Creature Wherefore these two Propositions are universal Affirmatives equivalent to these To be any man whatsoever is to be Animal rationale To teach any Idolatry whatsoever is to teach that the Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature The reason hereof is because as Logicians tell us an indefinite Proposition in a necessary matter such is the Notion of a Thing which must necessarily agree unto it is equivalent to an Universal as to say a man is Animal rationale is as much as to say every man is such and to say Idolatry is the giving to a meer creature the honour due only to God which is the true notion of Idolatry in general is the same as if one should say All Idolatry is such Now if this Universal Affirmative be true as it is even according to Dr. St.'s confession a Church that teaches any sort of Idolatry whatsoever does teach that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature and hence it necessarily follows That no Church that does not teach this can be guilty of any sort of Idolatry as because every man is animal rationale a rational Animal it must needs follow that nothing that is not animal rationale can be a man whoever has the least smattering of Logick cannot be ignorant of these Rules But it was not for Dr. St.'s purpose to remember any thing of Logick or of Rationality Whence I conclude that the Proposition layed down by me is an Universal Affirmative equivalent to the Proposition set down by the Dr. Since therefore no Church can teach any Idolatry without teaching that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature it is evidently inferred that no Church can teach any Idolatry without erring against the forementioned Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion which is all I pretended in my second Proposition Besides although I should grant as I do not that a Church might teach some sort of Idolatry without teaching or requiring that the Honour due only to God be given to a meer Creature yet according to Dr. St.'s own confession the Idolatry he Fathers upon the Roman Church is such that it requires the honour which is due only to God to be given to a meer Creature For in his Discourse concerning the Roman Idolatry pag. 3. he has these words The Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist and the formal Invocation of Saints doth require giving to the Creature Worship due only to the Creator So that according to this Assertion of Dr. St. which he endeavours to establish throughout that whole Discourse no Church can teach the Idolatry he fathers upon the Roman Church without teaching the giving to a meer Creature the Honor Worship due only to the Creator and consequently without erring against that Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion contained in my first Proposition which is enough for my main intent So that if my second Proposition be propounded thus To teach that sort of Idolatry which Dr. St. Fathers upon the Roman Church is to err against the forementioned Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion he will have nothing to quibble at it since he expressly asserts that such a kind of Idolatry requires the contrary to that Article whence I conclude that this second Proposition is also agreed unto by Dr. St. either absolutely or at least as far as is necessary for my purpose My third Proposition runs thus A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry To this Proposition he answers That it is very Sophistical and Captious Dr. St. seems to be possess'd with such a panick fear to be Non-pluss'd by me that had I said two and two are four in all likelyhood he would have called it a Sophistical and Captious Proposition And this is a common flaw in weak but obstinate defendants who when they have nothing to say against a Proposition they Characterise it for Sophistical But let us see in what consists the Sophistry and Captiousness of this Proposition He saies pag. 28 29. That if by Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion he means the main Fundamental points of Doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed then a Church which does own all the Fundamentals of Doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry and teach those things wherein it lies But where is Dr. St.'s ingenuity My Proposition was not That a Church which owns all Fundamentals does not teach Idolatry but that a Church which does not err against any Fundamental does not teach Idolatry which is very different because a Church may err against a Doctrine which she owns and contradict her self as has been hinted at above and Dr. St. himself agrees unto as hereafter will appear So that the Dr. does not deny my Proposition but another very different We may therefore take my Proposition for granted yea we have shewn already that any Fundamental Errour or an Errour against any Fundamental point great or little if there be any Fundamental point of little concern is destructive to the Being of a Church He goes on and saies But if by erring against an Article of Faith be meant that a Church which does not err at all in matters of Religion cannot teach Idolatry then he concludes the Proposition is true but impertinent Neither does this part of the distinction touch my Proposition For all matters of Religion are not Articles of Faith according to Dr. St. who does not think all the 39. Articles to be Articles of Faith yet he judges them all to be Articles or matters of Religion and to concern the Soundness of a Church but not the Essence nay we do not hold that all the Ceremonies of our Church and all our Ecclesiastical Precepts are Articles of Faith yet they may be called matters of Religion Wherefore these two Propositions A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith and a Chuch that does not err at all in matters of Religion are very different neither does the former Proposition contain the latter Is not this when a learned distinction wherein neither part touches the Proposition which the Author pretends to distinguish whereas according to all reason Both Members of the Distinction are to be contained in the word which is distinguished Would it not be ridiculous for one to distinguish thus the following Proposition Every man is a rational Animal if by Man be meant all kind of Animals 't is false But if by Man be meant only that kind of Animal which is man
have of St. Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis St. Ignatius and St. Teresa but it is very easie by Mimical Expressions and profane Similitudes to render them ridiculous and contemptible among those who are sure to laugh on the other side But such proceedings can signifie nothing to Wise men but only to such as have not courage to love despised Vertue nor to defend a Cause that is laughed down Come Come Dr. Stillingfleet it is too notorious to all intelligent persons what you pretend with this scurrilous drolling way of attacking the Roman Church Your aim is to bring all Religion and Vertue into Contempt and Derision however you endeavour to disguized so mischievous a design with all Artifices possible I wish from my heart I were able to impute your Misdemeanours and Miscarriages in your Controversial Books to Ignorance or Inadvertency But on the one side your Mistakes are so gross your Contradictions so palpable and your Aspersions so notoriously scurrilous that he must needs be a Fool who cannot see them and on the other side the works you have published do proclaim you no Fool that I am forced to impute your unhandsome proceedings to the Malice of your Will not the Ignorance of your Understanding The Dr. pag. 70. endeavouring to stave off the Self-contradiction charged upon him in imputing to the Roman Church Divisions in matters of Faith saies thus But the fourth and fifth Proposition viz. of my Book in this point are the most healing Principles that have yet been thought on Fie for shame Why should we and they of the Church of Rome quarrel thus long We are very well agreed in all matters of Faith as I shall demonstratively prove it from the Argument of J. W. drawn from his two last Propositions All who assent unto the antient Creeds are undivided in matters of Faith by Prop. 4. But both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds Ergo they are undivided in matters of Faith And hath not J. W. now done his business and very substantially proved the thing he intended But I hope we may enjoy the benefit of it as well as those of the Church of Rome and that they will not henceforward charge us with dividing from their Church in any matters of Faith since we are all agreed in owning the antient Creeds and seeing we are not divided from the Church but by differing in matters of Faith according to his Proposition it follows that we are still Members of the True Church and therefore neither guilty of Heresie nor Scisme By what Dr. St. sets down here any prudent man may clearly see how grossly and wilfully he mistakes himself My fourth Proposition set down by me pag. 12. whereof the Dr. makes mention in the place now quoted and to which I refer my self in the Syllogism I frame pag. 13. runs thus All those who assent to the antient Creeds are according to Dr. St. 's opinion mark those words undivided in matters and Articles of Faith and that was the Dr. 's perswasion I proved out of his Rational Account pag. 56 58. and thence I conclude pag. 13. that according to Dr. St. mark those words All those who agree to the antient Creeds are of the same Communion and undivided in matters of Faith Now this wise Dr. most grossly supposes that it is the same for me to say All those who agree to the antient Creeds are according to Dr. St. undivided in matters of Faith where I only relate Dr. St. 's opinion argue thence against him ad hominem or to say absolutely All those who agree to the antient Creeds are undivided in matters of Faith which words pronounced so without any modification import as if I were of that perswasion whereas I am very far from it neither here nor in any other place do I defend any such Doctrine Wherefore the Major Proposition in the Syllogism set down by the Dr. is in his opinion True and consequently may be subservient to prove against him but in my opinion it is false and of no force to demonstrate any thing against me and I confess that it is a very compendious way to compose the differences between me and the Dr. if one may suppose as he here does That what he saies I say and that it is the very same for me to affirm such a thing is so according to Dr. St's opinion or it is true that Dr. St. thinks so and such a thing is so or it is true what Dr. St. thinks which Propositions doubtless are very different For to the truth of the former Proposition 't is enough that Dr. St. be of that opinion whether his opinion be true or false but to the truth of the latter 't is requisite that his opinion be true and that what he saies be so as he saies it is Certainly Christians may truly affirm without forfeiting their Faith that according to the opinion of the Jews Christ is not the Messias will the Dr. therefore infer hence that Christians may truly affirm that Christ is not the Messias or that Christians and Jews are agreed in that main point Fie for shame to use your own expression you a Doctor of Divinity and cannot distinguish between Propositions so notoriously different Where is the ingenuity you so much boast of Sure you imagined that the Reader would be so silly as to take upon your bare word what you write or quote without ever examining or comparing it By what I have said in reference to the Major Proposition of his Syllogisme whereby he pretends to prove demonstratively against us That both Catholicks and Protestants are agreed in matters of Faith any one many judge what Demonstrations we are to expect from Dr. St. As concerning the Minor Proposition of the Drs. Syllogisme he supposes it to be the same with my Fifth wherein he is also wilfully mistaken For my Fifth Proposition is this All Roman Catholicks assent unto the antient Creeds whereas his Minor was this Both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds where he adds That Protestants assent unto the Antient Creeds which I never affirmed and the Dr. cannot be ignorant that Roman-Catholicks hold Protestants do not believe in that Article even of the Apostles Creed Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam which in its true and legitimate sense signifies the Roman Catholick Church and those only are to be thought to believe Scripture and the Antient Creeds who believe them in the true and legitimate sense which in our Doctrine is only that sense which is agreable or not repugnant to the exposition of the Roman Catholick Church So that Protestants according to the perswasion of Catholicks do not believe the Antient Creeds because they do not believe them rightly understood But according to Dr. St. 's opinion Roman Catholicks do believe the Scripture and the Antient Creeds rightly understood For his Rule is that whoever understands Scripture or the Antient Creeds as by his natural
Church with an Idolatry of an undue Object Because the Worship due only to God is given by us as he fancies to a meer Creature and not only with Idolatry of an undue and prohibited man-manner of Worship which are two sorts of Idolatry he makes mention of In the same page to confirm the former Doctrine he saies thus In the Worship of God by Images wherewith he Charges us the Worship due to God and I suppose he speaks of a Worship due only to God is terminated wholly on the Creature Wherefore if this be Idolatry it must be Idolatry of an undue Object Much more to the same purpose might be alledged out of him But what already I have produced is sufficient From what hitherto has been quoted out of Dr. St. 't is manifest that the Idolatry he Fathers upon the Roman Church is in his opinion as bad nay worse than the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens Now since the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens is beyond debate and Dr. St. alwaies supposes it is so is I say inconsistent with the Being and Essence of a True Church and a true Religion and since the Malice of Idolatry is to be scaned by the opposition it has with Religion this being so is it not a madness to say and confess that the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens is inconsistent not only with the Soundness but also with the Essence of a true Church but yet that the Idolatry of the Papists although as bad nay worse than the grossest of the Heathens is inconsistent only with the Soundness of a Church and not with the Essence Is not this as if one should say If you cut off the head of a man you will kill him but if you give him another wound as bad or worse if you run him through the heart if you cut him all in pieces you will only make him sick What sence can there be in affirming that the Heathens are not members of the True Church because they are Idolaters in so high a degree and yet that Roman Catholicks though grosser Idolaters than the Heathens are Members of the True Church That the Heathenish Idolatry at least some is of a nature high enough to unchurch Heathens and yet that the Roman Idolatry though grosser and higher than any Heathenish is not of a nature high enough as he saies pag. 22. to unchurch Romanists If this be not Non-sense what is Moreover from what we have alledg'd out of the Dr. 't is evident that he ascrib's unto us Idolatry of an undue Object and sure all such Idolatry is inconsistent with the very Being of a True Church For Dr. St. when he would excuse the Idolatry he Fathers upon us from being destructive to the very Essence of a true Church he endeavours to say that it is only Idolatry of an undue manner of Worship which shews that he holds Idolatry of an undue Object to be destructive to the Essence of a Church Since therefore he confesses in the places above mentioned that the Idolatry of the Roman Church is Idolatry of an undue Object he makes her guilty of an Idolatry inconsistent with the Essence of a true Church Again Dr. St. seems to suppose that an Idolatry which brings in a multiplicity of Gods is destructive to the Essence of a Church and why Because it is destructive at least by consequence and mediately to a Fundamental point of Religion viz. the Unity of the Godhead Since therefore the Idolatry he fathers upon us is destructive at least mediately to this Fundamental point The Honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature assented unto even by Pagans it must be inconsistent with the Being of a Church For an Errour destructive to any Fundamental point of Religion whatever is destructive to the Being of a Church as has been demonstrated Yea an Idolatry accompanied with the acknowledgment of one onely God such is the Idolatry he imputes to us may doubtless be inconsistent with the Being of a Church as for instance the Idolatry of such who accknowledging one only God should adore no other God but the Sun Yet farther the Adoration of a red Cloth which the Laplanders use either is destructive to the Being of a Church or not Sure Dr. St. is not so mad as to say it is not Now if it be destructive to the Essence of a Church as certainly it is is not Dr. St. ashamed to say that the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist is worse and less excusable than that of the Laplanders and yet that it may be consistent with the Being of a True Church Can any one require a more convincing Argument to prove that such a Church is no true Church then if he can shew that she adores or requires the Adoration of a red Cloth for God or something as bad or worse Lastly Dr. St. affirms that the Roman Church does not only teach an Idolatry as bad or worse than the grossest of the Heathens but also that she teaches it as an Article of Divine Faith Fathering it upon God and making him the Author thereof For the Roman Church delivers as Articles of Divine Faith the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist the Invocation of Saints and the Veneration of Images as both he and we confess The Dr. moreover maintaines all the forementioned practices and Doctrines to be flar Idolatry as much or more detestable than the grossest Heathenish Idolatry Now certainly 't is a Fundamental and Essential point of Religion That God is not the Author of any Superstition whatsoever much less of so gross an Idolatry as he will needs have the Roman Idolatry to be and consequently 't is impossible that the Roman Church should teach God to be the Author of such an Idolatry as necessarily she must if she teaches it as an Article of Faith without erring against the aforesaid Fundamental point and by consequence without incurring a Fundamental Errour destructive to the very Being of a Church 'T is manifest therefore that Dr. St. does commit a palpable Contradiction by asserting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with an Idolatry as bad or worse than the grossest of the Heathens I know not whether these lines will fetch blood from Dr. St. for as he saies Pref. Gen. he was threatned with such lines from his Adversaries But I am sure that if he has any blood in him and has not lost all sense of his honour they will fetch the blood into his face and make him blush After the Dr. had proved unsuccessful in shewing my way of proceeding disingenuous he endeavours to prove it sophistical and captious saying pag. 23. That the starting of a new Objection or the raising a new Difficulty answers no Argument and that this manner of proceeding of mine is a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavilling humour rather than of any intention to satisfie an inquisitive mind To this I answer When the
since he himself affirms in his Rational Account pag. 54 55. That such Tenets are neither Articles of Faith nor necessary to be believed either necessitate medij or praeeepti no Legacies of Christ or his Apostles but only inferiour Truths and meer pious opinions which no body is bound to believe Nay we cannot be secure that the Dr. does assent to them but perhaps in his heart he holds the contrary Doctrines For according to his Cavils about the intention of the Priest one can have no security of the intention or thoughts of other men And why should I think that Dr. St. does love so little his own life as to be burn'd for the defence of such Tenets which according to his own Principles he is not bound to assent unto and perhaps in his heart for ought I know he does not believe them to be true Certain it is that should he be burn'd for them he would not be burn'd for his Faith nor be a Martyr upon that account since even in his own opinion they are not Articles of Faith Moreover should Dr. St. be burn'd at Rome for contradicting or opposing the Religion there established he would be burn'd as a Malefactour even according to his own Churches Principles For it is the Doctrine of the English Church that all Soveraign Temporal Princes at least such as are Christians are Supream Heads of the Church in their respective Dominions and consequently that all are bound as long as they are in such Dominions not to contradict nor oppose the Religion there established by the Supream Prince Since therefore Protestants confess the Pope to be Supream Temporal Prince of Rome and its adjacent Territories and accordingly to be Supream Head of the Church in those places seeing they own him to be a true Christian Prince though they will needs have him to be Antichrist in manifestly follows that even according to Protestant Principles if Dr. St. should be punished at Rome for opposing the Religion there established and for drawing from it the Popes Subjects he would suffer as a Malefactour Besides how civil Rome has shewen her self to several English Protestants persons of Quality who have gone thither to view the Curiosities of the City they themselves many of them being yet alive can witness and from such instances the world may judge whether Rome has not been kinder to English Protestants than London to Italian Papists Yea if Dr. St. has so much zeal as to be burn'd for his Religion 't is not necessary for him to go so far as Rome They may do him that kindness here in England where several have been burn'd for Socinians since Protestancy came in In fine we may secure Dr. St. that should he persist at Rome to grant such palpable Contradictions as we have shewen he does he would never be burn'd there for his Religion yet I would not secure him that in such a case he should not be shaved and sent to the Pazzarelli as happened some years agoe to Three English Quakers who having gone to Rome to Convert the Pope as they said and Preaching in the publick Streets in a forreign Language it seems they had not yet the Gift of Tongues were look'd upon as Madmen and accordingly committed to Bedlam Yet soon after information being given in by some of our Nation what manner of people they were they were presently set at liberty and they offered to supply them with Moneyes which they refused Whether Dr. St. would imitate them in this I know not The Dr. in his second Discourse in the Dedicatory to the Earl of Shaftsbury saies That if he once loses his Senses or his Vnderstanding that is if he once falls mad he knows not whether it may be his Fortune to be carried to Rome But fear not Dr. you will certainly be left in London to go about the Streets ranting at Popery and Popish Idolatry For commonly Madmen harp upon those things which made them run mad or Singing the Catholick Ballad or some such other to Tom a Bedlams Tune and it will not be hard for the Dr. to say them without Book For as one affirmed as truly as ingeniously all such Ballads which have been lately published are nothing else but Dr. St. put in Rhime And the Dr. would do then quite as much good by singing such Ballads against Popery as he has done hitherto by Preaching the like things against it Dr. St.'s Works were heretofore look'd upon as Play-Books as I have already Insinuated But now it seems they have degenerated into Ballads He is resolved I see out of his exceeding great Charity and Compliance to oblige all sorts of Merry Wits Neither do I blame the Dr. for what he has Writ in defence of Christian Religion yet I must tell him that none court one more than such as are secretly contriving his Ruine What I blame in him is That with the Objections he makes against the Roman Catholick Religion he destroys Christian Religion which before he had vindicated and pulls down with one hand what he had set up with the other and I have evidenced already that it is not enough for a Christian to assent unto all the positive Tenets of Christianity but 't is also necessary not to teach any thing destructive to any of them But the Dr. retorts the Argument and will needs have us to destroy Christianity with our manner of proceeding pag. 9. and that we cannot maintain the cause we have espoused without plunging those who relie upon our word into the depth of Atheisme He conceives forsooth a great fear alas good man that some being press'd by our Arguments will rather become no Christians or turn flat Atheists than Roman Catholicks Such is the hatred and prejudice they have against the Roman Church The inanity of this Objection has been laid open above it is grounded upon this pitiful Principle That we ought not to press men out of good and solid Maxims which they themselves assent unto to prove what we pretend least perhaps rather than they will grant what we endeavour to prove they will denie those common Principles wherein they agreed with us and by consequence make the gap and difference between us wider If Christian Religion be so beautiful solid and incorrupt as certainly it is and the Roman Religion so Superstitious Idolatrous Ridiculous as he fancies it to be sure they are as different one from the other as black from white And what fear can there be that men ever take white for black or black for white unless he supposes those with whom he deals to have quite lost their senses and understandings yea to compare them together if they be so different is the best way to make the Beauty of the one and the Ill favouredness of the other appear the greater according to that Maxime Opposita juxta se posita magis elucescunt So that Dr. St. and his Associates do evidence to the world either that they have a very