he declares us free but of the latter he makes us guilty And we poor Souls because we cannot discern such subtle distinctions as these must be chalked up for Half-witted men But if the accomplishedness of Dr. St.'s wit has no more of wit in it then No Idolatry has of Idolatry we have little reason to envy him Yet farther 't is impossible that a Church which holds any damnable Errour should be a True Church For all damnable Errours lead to Damnation and upon that account are called Damnable But a True Church carries to Salvation and therefore must be True in all things necessary to the obtaining thereof Nor among those things which are necessary to the obtaining taining of Salvation one is the avoiding all Damnable Errours as being destructive thereunto Whence it is manifest that a Church which holds any Damnable Errour cannot so long be a True Church and to hold any Idolatry whatsoever is without question a Damnable Errour since all Idolatry is Damnable and destructive to Salvation Yea Dr. St. pag. 34. Charges our Church with Damnable Errours especially upon the account of the Idolatry which as he fancies she does teach and which page 22. he owns to be very sinful neither do I believe that the Dr. will dare to affirm that a Church which should teach Adultery to be Lawful could so long be a True Church and yet Idolatry is no less damnable and destructive to Salvation than Adultery Wherefore to hold either of them as Lawful is equally at least destructive to the Being of a True Church 'T is therefore impossible that the Roman Church should hold any sort of Idolatry as Dr. St. will needs have us believe she does without holding a Damnable and Fundamental Errour destructive to the very Essence and Being of a True Church For in the Dictionary of such as have any insight into Religious Concerns a Fundamental Errour in matters of Religion a Damnable Errour and an Errour inconsistent with the Essence of a True Church are Terms Synonymous Moreover whereas the very Vitals of a Religion are the Honour of God and the Salvation of Souls Idolatry undermines them both by giving the Honour due only unto God to a meer Creature and by leading souls to Damnation How therefore can it chuse but destroy the very Essence of a True Religion And as a High Treason whereby one does give the Honour and Respect due only to his Sovereign to a meer Subject is beyond debate contrary to a Fundamental point of Loyalty and destructive thereunto so it is a palpable Contradiction to assert that such a person is a true and faithful Subject but yet a Traitour in the like manner since by all Idolatry according to the Notion thereof assented unto even by Dr. St. is given to a meer Creature the Honour due only unto God and upon this account Idolatry is High Treason against God Dr. St. must needs be guilty of Self contradiction in affirming the Roman Church to be a True Church but yet Idolatrous Whence appears that the instance of a Traitour alledged by the Dr. page 25. makes rather against him than for him where we must reflect that according to Dr. St. not only the practice of the Roman Church but also her Doctrine is Idolatrous since she teaches and approves of that very practice which she judges to be Idolatrous Hitherto we have shewn that all sorts of Idolatry are inconsistent with the very Essence of a True Church and by consequence that it is a manifest Contradiction to affirm that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet depraved with Idolatry However 't is enough for my purpose to evince that that sort of Idolatry which Dr. St. Fathers upon the Roman Church Destroies the very Essence and Being of a True Church which I shall prove in the following Chapter CHAP. VI. Another Proof of the same intent drawn from the Nature of the Idolatry the Doctour Fathers upon the Roman Church THe Idolatry Dr. St. endeavours to fasten upon the Roman Church is as he pretends to prove at large in his Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome pag. 58. seq point blanck against the second Commanded according to their reckoning of the Decalogue and is immediately opposite thereunto Now 't is certain that this Commandment contains an Essential and Fundamental point of Religion since it so neerly concerns Gods Honour and worship the chief aim of Religion Whence it manifestly follows that the Idolatry he Fathers upon the Roman Church is destructive to a Fundamental point of Religion and by consequence inconsistent with the very Being of a True Church Besides the Dr. does willingly confess and it would be a madness not to do so that there is some sort of Idolatry destructive not only to the Soundess for this is general to all sorts of Idolatry but also to the very Essence and Being of a True Church See his Answer pag. 24. whence we infer that whatever Church holds that kind of Idolatry which is destructive to the Being of a Church cannot so long be a True Church whatever other Tenets she maintains So that it would have been a palpable Contradiction in Dr. St. even according to his own Doctrine had he held the Church of Rome to be a True Church as he does and yet charged her with the Forementioned kind of Idolatry Now let us examin what Character Dr. St. gives us of the Idolatry he is pleased to Father upon the Roman Church In his Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome pag. 69. he saies thus It seems much more reasonable for me to worship God by Prostrating my self to the Sun or any of the Heavenly Bodies nay to an Ant or a Flie than to a Picture or Image and he endeavours to prove this his Assertion according to which the Idolatry he Fastens upon the Roman Church in the Veneration of the Pictures or Images of God is esteemed by him far worse than the Adoration of the Sun Moon an Ant or a Flie practised by the Heathens pag. 132. he approves this Testimony of Costerus If the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be not true the Idolatry of the Heathens in Worshipping some Golden or Silver Statue or any Images of their gods or the Laplanders in Worshipping a red Cloath or the Aegyptians an Animal is more excusable than of Christians that Worship a bit of Bread This Costerus asfirms only upon this condition That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be not true But Dr. St. who absolutely judges that Doctrine not to be true and moreover approves the foresaid Testimony of Costerus must needs hold the Idolatry he imputes to Catholicks in the Adoration of the Eucharist to be more detestable than that of the Aegyptians and Laplanders Pag. 134. he seems to approve this Sentiment of Dr. Taylour An Image then becomes an Idol when Divine Worship is given to it and to Worship False Gods or to give Divine Honor to
who can blame him for making our Church both True and Idolatrous Again the Dr. answers clear himself from Self-contradiction that he never affirmed the Roman Church did or does teach in express terms any sort of Idolatry or that the honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature But that she only teaches those things wherein Idolatry lies which is not to teach Idolatry expressly as for instance she does not teach the Veneration she exhibits to Images to be Idolatry and yet lawful for that would be to teach Idolatry in express terms but rather she affirms the contrary viz. That the forementioned Veneration is not Idolatrous for she thinks that the honour she exhibits to Images is not Divine Worship however because the Dr. will have her to be mistaken in these perswasions he impeaches her of Idolatry Now the Substance of this Answer comes to be that although to say that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet that she does teach Idolatry in express terms be a palpable Contradiction yet there is no appearance of contradiction in saying as he does that the Roman Church is a True Church but yet that she does teach those things wherein Idolatry lies which are his words pag 29. or that she does teach Idolatry not in express terms but only by Consequence as he saies pag. 21. But I leave to others to examin how this does agree with what Dr. St. affirms in several places of his Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Roman Church endeavouring to shew that she does expressly act against the Second Commandment of God according to their account wherein is prohibited Idolatry when she teaches the Veneration and Worship of Images Besides this objection is cashiered by what has been already discuss'd For since the Idolatry Dr. St. fathers upon the Roman Church is destructive to a Fundamental point of Religion and consequently to the very Being of a True Church as has been already demonstrated 't is impossible that a Church remaining a True Church should teach such an Idolatry either in express terms or by good Consequence and as the Dr. will not grant that to teach Idolatry only by Consequence teaching those things wherein it lies is enough to free the Roman Church from being really Idolatrous otherwise by this Answer he himself would discharge her from the Crime of Idolatry he casts upon her so neither can it excuse the Roman Church from being no True Church the oppositeness of Idolatry with the Essence of a Church consisting in the Reality of the thing and not in the particular perswasion of such as teach it Wherefore to say that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet that she does teach Idolatry in the manner aforementioned is to commit a palpable Contradiction Moreover 't is certain neither can the Dr. question it that the Churches of the grossest sort of Heathens did teach Idolatry destructive to the being of a true Church and in a manner destructive thereunto and yet they did not teach Idolatry in express terms but only by Consequence teaching those things wherein it did lie For either they did affirm though by mistake that the object to which they gave Divine Worship was not a meer Creature or that the honour they gave was not properly Divine For what Heathen did ever teach in express terms That the honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature So that were this objection of any force it would excuse the grossest Heathens from practising or teaching any Idolatry destructive to the Essence of a True Church Nay if Idolatry because it is taught not in express terms but by consequence is not destructive to the Being of a Church he might also affirm that upon the same account it is neither destructive to the soundness of it and consequently the Roman Church would not be according to the Dr. 's opinion not only True but Sound also For if this Doctrine be true the destructiveness of Idolatry is not to be taken from the thing which is practised or taught but from the manner of practsing it or teaching it All Heresies if they be truly such are destructive to the very Being of a True Church because they separate the Societies that profess them from the Church of Christ as the very notion of Heresie does import yet according to this answer of the Doctor they would be consistent with the Essence of a True Church because there is no Heretical Church which is not mistaken in some thing that it teaches or which does teach to be an Errour or Heresie that which she maintains as a Truth yet because she teaches those things wherein her particular Heresie lies and because she teaches to be true what really is an Errour and an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith therefore she is an Heretical and no True Church Whence it follows that should one affirm that such a Church is True and yet that she teaches those things wherein Heresie and Errour against Faith does lie he would beyond debate contradict himself and if it be a contradiction to affirm that such a Church is true and yet Heretical will it be no Contradiction to defend that the Roman Church is True but yet Idolatrous For certainly Idolatry is no less destructive to the Being of a Church than Heresie Wherefore as to kill a man 't is enough for one to do that which necessarily infers the Separation of the Soul from the Body whether he does it by mistake or without mistake knowingly or not knowingly So to destroy the Being of a True Church 't is enough if she teaches any Fundamental or Essential Errour destructive to the Essence thereof as she must necessarily do if she teaches Idolatry whether she teaches it in express terms or only by consequence whether by mistake or not For although mistake may excuse him who has it from erring maliciously yet not from erring nor the Church that should teach such an Errour from being Erroneous Since therefore Dr. St. does not excuse the Roman Church from Erring against this Fundamental point The Honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature he cannot excuse her from a Fundamental Errour inconsistent with the Being of a True Church and consequently he cannot excuse himself from a manifest Contradiction in granting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with Doctrines containing Idolatry After all these attempts on the part of the Idolatry he fathers upon us had proved unsuccessful he turns himself to the other part of the Contradiction saying that when he grants the Roman Church to be a True Church he means thereby nothing else but that she does embrace all Essential points of Faith couched in the Antient Creeds of the Catholick Church and he thinks it very far from any contradiction to affirm that a Church may embrace all such points and yet teach Idolatry and therefore he saies that although
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
an Image which is no God is all one kind of formal Idolatry Wherefore Dr. St. since he assents to this Doctrine Parallels the Veneration of Images practised by the Roman Church to the Worship of False Gods and looks upon them both as one kind of formal Idolatry and certainly the Worship of False Gods as rejecting the true God is inconsistent with the Being of a True Church For what Idolatry is so if this be not In the same pag. he pretends to shew that the grossest Idolatry in the world is excusable on the same grounds whereon we excuse from Idolatry the Veneration of Christ in the Eucharist which he compares with the Idolatry of those who said Christ was the Sun and he adds pag. 136. That the Absurdities of Transubstantiation are greater than of that Doctrine which teaches the Sun to be God and in the same place he calls it as Venial a Fault The Worshipping that for the True God which is not so such is the Idolatry he Fathers upon us and terms it the Superstition of an undue way of Worshiping as the Worshipping False Gods which he stiles the Superstitian of an undue object and pag. 137. he saies thus The most stupid and senseless of all Idolaters who Worship the very Images for God which the wiser among the Heathens according to his Judgment alwayes disalowed were in truth the most excusable upon this ground upon which we excuse from Idolatry the Veneration we give to the Sacrament of the Altar and by consequence the Idolatry he Fathers upon us in this matter is in his opinion worse and less excusable than the most stupid and senseless Idolatry of the Heathens In the page immediately before he compares our Veneration of Christ in the Eucharist with the Aegyptians worshipping the Sun for God and the Israelites the Golden Calf believing it was the true God Pag. 142 143. speaking of the Veneration the Roman Church allows to Saints he adds I would willingly understand why I may not as well honour God by giving Worship to the Sun as to Ignatius Loyola or St. Francis or any other of the late Cannonized Saints And why does he not speak of the B. Virgin Mary of the Apostles of St. Augustine and of other Ancient Saints since he equally impugns the Veneration of all Saints The reason he adds is excellent I am sure saies he the Sun is a certain Monument of Gods goodness and I cannot be mistaken therein But I can never be certain of the holiness of those persons viz. the late Cannonized Saints For all that I can know Ignatius Loyola was a great Hypocrite But I am sure that the Sun is none I know the best of men have their Corruptions and to what degree it is impossible for others to understand But I am certain the spots of the Sun are no Moral Impurities nor displeasing to God How frivolous this reason is will clearly appear by this instance Dr. St. will not deny but that some Reverence Respect Esteem and Veneration may be given in this life to men by reason of their Holiness Sanctity and Honesty of Life and that one may here upon earth implore the Prayers of other men especially Holy and Honest Men or invoke them to be his Intercessours with God in his Necessities which is practised by Protestants and no more than this we ascribe to the Saints in Heaven Now according to this Reason of the Dr. to use his own words Why may I not as well honour Dr. St. 's Cat or Dog who in the common opinion of Philosophers as being Substances endowed with Life are perfecter than the Sun as Dr. St. himself or invoke them as well as him or any of the Protestant Bishops or Ministers I am sure Dr. St. 's Cat and Dog do whatever God will have them do and that they never have transgress'd any of his Commandments and I cannot be mistaken therein But I can never be certain that Dr. St. is an honest man yea I am certain that he has transgress'd Gods Commandments For all that I can know Dr. St. is a great Hypocrite and an errant Knave But I am sure Dr. St. 's Cat and Dog are none I know that Dr. St. has his Corruptions since the best of men have theirs and to what degree he has them is impossible for me or others to understand but I am certain that the Blemishes of those Creatures supposing they have them are no Moral Impurities nor displeasing to God Whence it follows that according to this Argument of Dr. St. 't is as Lawful and more laudable to Reverence upon the account of Honesty Dr. St.'s Cat or Dog to invoke their Intercession as to Reverence Dr. St. himself or to invoke his assistance by Prayers and what ever answer Dr. St. shall give to this Instance will solve the Objection he makes against us For 't is certain that the Sun is as uncapable to understand or to be made to understand our addresses or to intercede for us or to lead a moral honest life as a Cat or a Dog But Dr. St. knows too well that it is not for his interest to consider the incoherency of his Principles or the train of Absurdities which commonly wait upon his Arguments Yet for our present intent it is enough to shew that the Idolatry he endeavours to fasten upon the Roman Church in the Invocation of Saints which she allows of is in his perswasion as bad or worse than the Adoration of the Sun Page 159. he makes a large Parallel between the Veneration that Roman Catholicks afford to Saints and the Idolatry of the Heathens in Sacrificing to their Inferiour Deities or Heroes Did the Israelites saies he use solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of Divine Worship So does the Roman Church Did they set up their Images in publick places of Worship and then kneel down before them and Invocate those represented by them So does the Roman Church Did they Consecrate Temples and Erect Altars to them and keep Festivals and burn Incense before them So does the Roman Church Lastly Did they offer up Sacrifices in those Temples to the Honour of their lesser Deities or Heroes So does the Roman Church Whence it appears that Dr. St. does hold us for as great Idolaters by reason of the Honour we afford to Saints as the Heathens were in Adoring their lesser Deities All this Doctrine he had laid down in his Answer to the Questions pag. 3 4. where he has these words The same Argument whereby the Papists make the Worship of the Bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry would make the grossest Heathenish Idolatry not to be so And a little after he saies thus 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 the giving to the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator Whence it follows that Dr. St. does Charge the Roman
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
't is true For as a man does not signifie all kind of Animals but only a certain kind So neither an Article of Faith does signifie all matters of Religion but only certain points So that Dr. St.'s distinction comes to be this If by Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion be understood not only Articles of Faith and Fundamental points but also other points which are neither Articles of Faith nor Fundamental i. e. if by these words he understood what they do not signifie then very wisely the Dr. saies pag. 28. The Proposition is true but impertinent as certainly it is impertinent But who makes it so But if by Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion be only understood Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion as whoever has any understanding in him must needs understand Then what then he saies not a word to the Proposition layed down by me viz. A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry Whereas according to the common Rules of distinguishing Propositions he should have told us whether our Proposition qualified with that part of the Distinction was true or false But he coggs in another Proposition very different saying That a Church which does not own all Fundamentals of Doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry Let any one judge whether this be not downright juggling Whence the Reader may easily see to what extremities this poor man is brought to make good against us his pretended Charge of Idolatry and to clear himself from Self-contradiction Moreover either he does admit other Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion besides those which are contained in the Apostles Creed or not if he does admit others then the Distinction would run thus If by not erring against any Article of Faith be understood that a Church which does not err against some certain Articles of Faith cannot teach Idolatry i. e. if in place of my Proposition which is an Vniversal Negative be put in another Proposition very different viz. a Particular Negative then the Proposition which he puts in may be false as certainly it may be for a Church may teach Idolatry without erring against every Artiticle of Faith as the Heathens who admitted a Deity and a Religion did not err against every Article of Faith though they taught Idolatry But this cannot hinder the truth of my Proposition which was an Vniversal Negative viz. not erring against any when as his Proposition would be a particular Negative viz. not erring against some As this universal is true a man that does not transgress any of Gods Commandments is a good man but this other particular may be false A man that does not transgress some certain Commandments of God viz. those which concern immediately the honour of God is a good man neither could the falsity of this latter Proposition obstruct the truth of the former But if Dr. St. admits no Articles at all of Faith nor Fundamental points which are not contained explicitely nor implicitely in the Apostles Creed then he must needs reduce to the Apostles Creed the Article quoted in my first Proposition viz. The honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature since he grants this to be an Article of Faith and a Fundamental point of Religion as has been seen and doubtless 't is a main Fundamental point too And this is enough for the truth of our third Proposition For if a Church does not err against any Article of Faith even of those which the Dr. grants to be such she does not err against the forementioned Article which even the Dr. places amongst Articles of Faith and if it does not err against this Article it does not teach Idolatry at least that kind of Idolatry which he is pleased to father upon us For to teach any sort of Idolatry at least that which the Dr. laies to our charge is to err against the aforesaid Article which not only in our opinion but also in the opinion of the Dr. and other Protestants is an Article of Faith as does manifestly appear by what has been handled in our Second Proposition My fourth Proposition was framed thus The Church of Rome does teach Veneration of Images Adoration of the Hoast and Invocation of Saints To this Dr. St. page 29. answers That it is agreed on by both sides without adding any more Now I see the Dr. takes heart and dares to grant a Proposition set down by me without stigmatizing it either before or after for Sophistical and Captious Hence I infer that the Veneration of Images Adoration of the Hoast and Invocation of the Saints are Doctrines of the Roman Church and by consequence they are not meer practices of Roman Catholicks For when a practice of the members of any Chuch is taught and approved by the Church her self then such a practice comes to be the Doctrine of that Church This I have said because sometimes Dr. St. does seem to look upon the forementioned points as meer practices of Roman-Catholicks and it is certain that a Church may be a True Church and yet the Members thereof practice some things contrary to the Doctrine and Tenets of the Church whose members they are For the Dr. will not deny that among Protestants there are some nay many who although they assent to the Tenets of the Protestant Church do contradict in their practice the Doctrine they profess to believe being Adulterers Thieves Perjurers and Drunkards living as if there were no God according to that of St. Paul Titus 1.16 quoted by Dr. St. pag. 25. speaking of some who profess that they know God but in works they deny him And yet sure the Dr. will not therefore affirm that the Protestant Church is not a true and sound Church However should she teach Adultery Thieving and Perjury to be lawful or that there is no God certainly the Dr. in that case would not hold her for a True much less for a Sound Church Our present debate therefore is concerning the Doctrines of the Roman Church and whether Dr. St. does not Contradict himself by asserting that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet that she does teach Idolatry or those things wherein it lies My fifth and last Proposition goes thus The Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion Dr. St. does confess pag. 29. That this is his Concession from whence all the force of our Argument is taken and we do not deny but that this Concession of the Dr. is of great concern in order to our present Design All the endeavours therefore of the Dr. are bent to shew in what sense this Concession is made by him and of what force it is in this present Debate I prove this to be Dr. St.'s Sentiment which some did question when my book first came forth as I insinuated above
those two Revelations of the abovementioned Saints were approved of in particular by the Roman Church or in general True it is that the Roman Church declares them both to be Saints and to be famous for their Revelations but she does not therefore approve of every porticular Revelation related to have been made unto them The whole Christian Church looks upon Christ and his Apostles as famous for their Miracles and Doctrines shall we therefore hence infer that the whole Christian Church approves of every particular Miracle related of them by any Author whatsoever and of every particular Doctrine which some one or other teaches to have been delivered by them Are there not many false Miracles and Doctrines father'd upon Christ and his Apostles wherefore to the end that the Roman Church be proved Fallible by reason of the two forementioned Revelations contrary the one to the other it was necessary for Dr. St. to have shewen that they were both approved of by our Church which the Dr. has not yet done Those two Saints might be famous for their Revelations and deservedly look'd upon as such though the abovesaid two Revelations or at least one of them had been forged Moreover though one of these two Revelations as being contrary one to the other was false and the person to whom such a Revelation is sayed to have been made either deceived or was deceived supposing she affirmed that she had had such a Revelation yet it does not therefore follow that either such a Revelation was Fanaticisme or such a person a Fanatick For sure Dr. St. will not enlarge so much the roll of Fanaticks as to affirm That all such as are deceived are Fanaticks For so he must cast himself into that heard since certainly he is not so vain as to think that in no Interpretation of Scripture in no Tenet whatsoever of so many as he has laid down in his Books he has been deceived Wherefore as an unjust Warr is not Rebellion if it be countenanced by the Authority of a True and Lawful Sovereign Prince For Sovereigns may wage unjust Warrs So neither a false Revelation is Fanaticisme if it be countenanced by the Authority of the True Church supposing that the True Church may countenance such Revelations For it is Essential Fanaticisme as we have seen to be contrary to Authority I have enlarged my self upon this point of Fanaticisme because the Dr. seems to hugg it as the Benjamin of his Mimical Wit and presumes so much of his endeavours in this kind that he boldly attests as we hinted above that his Adversaries have not said so much as one wise word to clear their Church from the Aspersion of Fanaticisme The Dr. vapours pag. 59. that this Charge of Fanaticisme was a new Charge yet the Author of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stillingfleeton tells us whence he borrowed it snd neither Bellarmin Becanus or any of their old beaten Souldiers could give them any assistance they found not the Title of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church in any of their Common place Books therefore plain Mother-wit must help them 'T is a wonder that order has not been given to erect a Statue to Dr. St. for so rare an Invention as this is of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church and if his Mother-wit could help him without the assistance of Common-place Books to frame this new Charge against us well may the Mother-wit of his Adversaries help them without needing the assistance of any Staunch-Author for such he terms our Antient Writers to answer it There is a short way to answer Dr. St. 's Books without needing to read Antient Authors Read only his Books and you will find the Answer to whatever he objects against us so full they are of self-contradictions They are like to certain venemous Beasts that breed in themselves the Antidote against their own poison I have lately read a perfect Character of Dr. St's proceedings in charging Roman Church with Fanaticisme drawn by himself in a Sermon preached before his Majesty 24. of February last 1674. Where shewing how licentious people among the Gentiles heretofore as in these times among Christians brought Vertue into Contempt and having assigned for the first Medium they laid hold of to effect their wicked design viz. The seperating Religion and morality from each other he adds page 11. These words The next thing was to make it vertue to appear ridiculous which was a certain way to make Fools out of love with it who do not consider what is fit to be laughed at but what is so When Socrates at Athens undertook with many sharp and cutting Ironies to reprove the vices of his age and with a great deal of Wit and Reason to perswade men to the sober practice of vertue the licentious people knew not what to do with him For they were not able to withstand the force of his Argments At last Aristophanes having a Comical Wit whereby he was able to make any thing seem ridicalous although he knew very well the Wisdome and Learning of Socrates yet to please and humour the people he brings him upon the Stage and represents his grave instructions after such a manner as turned all into a matter of laughter to the people of Athens This is the method which men take when they set their wits against Vertue and Goodness They know it is impossible to argue men out of it but it is very easie by ridiculous postures and mimical gestures and profane Similitudes to put so grave and modest a thing as Vertue is out of countenance among those who are sure to laugh on the other side I do not think that such things can signifie much to wise men but when was the world made up of such and therefore it signifies very much to the mischief of those who have not the courage to love despised Vertue nor to defend a cause that is laughed down Thus far the Dr. All which may be easily applied to Dr. St. himself For the main task of the Dr. in his Treatise of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church was to render ridiculous the Religious practices of the Roman Catholicks and of so many Saints famous throughout the world for their Zeal and Piety which to use his own words was a certain way to make fools out of love with our Church who do not consider what is fit to be laughed at but what is so He could not be ignorant of the great reputation even the modern Saints of our Church deservedly enjoy upon account of their Vertue far beyond what Socrates had yet like another Aristophanes having a Comical and Drolling Wit whereby he is able to make any thing though never so Sacred to seem ridiculous only to please and humour Licentious people he represents their grave Instructions and their Charitable and devout practices in such a manner as he turns all into a matter of Laughter He knows it is impossible to argue judicious men out of the opinion they
make a fine business of Religion but I am far from any such intent I know him too well He is as pitiful at Arguing as excellent at Drolling and I am resolved to attack him on the weakest side let him complain never so much Nor could the Dr. have given the world a more pregnant Testimony that his Adversaries have pinched and galled him than by using such unhandsome and passionate expressions against them For all wise men do clearly understand that whoever in serious debates such as those of Religion are with all persons who have any sense of Religion in them when he is closely press'd in lieu of Answering falls a Railing or a Drolling he yields himself for defeated not to seem so to ignorant people who think that so long as the party speaks he answers he will needs say something though it be nothing to the purpose The best way to deal with such Adversaries is to press the Arguments which nettled them The Spur Which touching only does make one kick and wince if often applyed may tame and calm him And though one should be permitted now and then to sprinkle even serious Discourses with some sort of Railery yet what prudence could it be in Dr. St. when he had no less than Nine several Treatises to answer besides others published before issued forth against his Discourse concerning the Idolatry of the Roman Church or some part thereof and such as even Protestants were of opinion he would have enough to do to answer them what prudence could it be I say for him in this Conjuncture to mis-spend so much time in framing Romantick Characters of his Adversaries Sure had he been perswaded that he could solidly answer them he would presently have closed with them and dispatch'd them and not have stood off so long in Buffoonery And the effect he has obtained by this manner of answering seems to be that having quite spent himself in these Drolling and Railing Fits he has been forced to be beholding to a Person of Honour though unacquainted with Polemical Contests as his Book sufficiently proclaims it for answering his grave Adveersary S. C. and to Dr. Whitby though as that witty Author J. V. C. tells us he vents Reasons Epist ad Cressyn ag Mr. Whitby as young Children do Worms heads and tails together for encountring even the Knight himself For so he stiles his worthy Antagonist pref pag. 40. T. G. And here I cannot but wonder What Dr. St. the Champion of the Protestant Church Whitby in his preface that Incomparable Man that Prodigie of Ingenuity and Learning had he not Courage enough to Combate the Knight even when his own party was in so great expectation of the Engagement Must he be forced to substitute Whitby in his place But to such shifts as these one will be put who when he hath serious business in hand trifles out his time in fopperies Yea probably speaking he will hire some such man and there are many such men as Dr. Whitby to Encounter the Squire too for so he terms that Ingenious Writer J. S. and the rest of his Learned Adversaries who remain unanswered Yet it is great pity he should not answer them all himself For if any of their Books have not hitherto arrived to the esteem they deserve let the Dr. answer them in particular and they will not fail to gain the Repute due unto them For my own part I can assure him that not only I my self but several others too have a greater esteem for my little Book since the Dr. was pleased to answer it than we had before and I am so far from fearing his Replies that I heartily desire he would Answer whatever hereafter I shall Publish relating to Controversie The substance of the Reply was finished some few months after Dr. St. Examination of my Book came forth the reason why it was not published sooner is because I expected the Dr. should afford a particular answer to several Treatises issued forth against his discourse of the Roman Idolatry the book I attaqued which remained yet unanswered to the end that having seen what he could answer to the whole charge layed to him in this debate I might the better order my Reply But since the Dr. in so long a time has not yet been pleased to satisfie so just an expectation for some good reasons he knows I resolved without any farther delay to set forth this Rejoynder especially being prest thereunto by the invitation of several persons of Learning both Diocesan and Catholick who are perswaded that the Dr. in the Examination of my Book has layed himself thus open as will manifestly appear by the following Treatise The Contents CHap. I. On supposition Dr. St. Contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all the charges he casts upon the Roman Church are false and all their proofs void Chap. II. Several objections against the forementioned way of answering the Dr. proved insignificant Chap. III. Other Objections answered Chap. IV. The Evasions of the Dr. to clear himself from Self-contradiction in charging the Roman Church with Idolatry examined Chap. V. The Dr. palpably Contradicts himself by affirming the Roman Church to be Idolatrous and yet granting her to be a True Church Chap. VI. Another proof of the same intent drawn from the nature of the Idolatry the Dr. fathers upon the Roman Church Chap. VII The invalidity of the Drs. answers to our Propositions in particular Chap. VIII Several quibbles against the aforesaid Doctrine removed Chap. IX The Drs. answer to my Appendix proved frivolous Chap. X. Concerning the other Contradictions committed by the Dr. in the Charges he laies upon the Roman Church Chap. XI Some difficulties raised by the Dr. against my Judgment concerning his manner of proceeding rejected ERRATA PRef post medium not to seem so r. yet not to seem so fine Diocesan and Catholick r. Protestants and Catholicks ib. thus open r. too open p. 47. l. 13. would not r. would it not p. 68. l. 5. charity of this r. charity as this p. 75. l. 18. his excess r. this excess l. 22. this charity r. his charity p. 100. l. 2. nor among r. now among p. 101. so it is r. so that it is p. 103. l 13. commanded r. commandment p 123. l. 13. post illa virba honour due to God add and then 't is false p. 124. l. 8. this part was r. this was part p. 131. l. 8. when r then p. 132. l. 27. does not own r. does own p. 145. l 25. our own r. his own p. 161. l. 27. would not be r. would be p. 185. l. 24. answering r. answer p. 186 l. 22. and Idolater r. an Idolater p. 188. l. 8. any r. as any p. 194. l. 19. universal truth r. universal true p. 214. l. 26. in any times r. many times p. 220 l. 26. detected r. detested p. 221. l. 9. are most r. are more ib. l. 17. to him treason r. him to
in proof of them is false or impertinent And what more can be required in order to wipe of from the minds of such persons the aforesaid Calumnies CHAP. III. Other Objections Answered BY what hitherto has been discuss'd it plainly appears that the instance of a Lawyer at the Bar alledged page 16. by Dr. St. is of no force against us Because should a Lawyer produce at the Bar no other proof but such as is repugnant not only to his own particular Tenets but also to the common perswasion of the Judges and of all the Learned Lawyers of the Kingdom yea and to the unanimous consent of the Parliament sure his proofs would be held for frivolous This is what succeeds in our present Case Dr. St. Charges us with Crimes repugnant as he himself now admits to this Principle The Roman Church is a True Church not only granted by him and all Roman-Catholicks but also by all Learned Divines of the English Church as suitable to her Sense and Doctrine as they themselves confess and by several other of different Professions All such persons therefore and these are all with whom we now disp … 〈…〉 hold the forementioned Accusations for void and frivolous Moreover should a Lawyer plead to prove one to be a notorious Traytour and yet at the same time should plainly declare at the Bar that he is and has ever been a Loyal and faithful Subject could Dr. St. or any other think that any account were to be made of such a Barrister who should so openly Contradict himself This is what the Dr. does He pleads to shew our Church to be Idolatrous and yet at the same time he sincerely confesses that she is a true Church standing to what he has formerly asserted and he admits at the present that the forementioned Accusation contradicts this his Assertion as really it does no less then these two Propositions do contradict one another Such a man is a notorious Traytour but yet he is a faithful Subject What account therefore can any prudent man make of this Accusation of Dr. St. or consequently of the proofs he alledges in favour thereof Finally though a Lawyer may be permitted when required thereunto by his Clyent after he has informed him of his Judgment to propose all the proofs he can in his favour though his particular opinion be that his Clyent has no right to what he pretends because the Judge who is to decide the Plea may be of a contrary perswasion Yet sure Dr. St. will not affirm that what he produces in his discourse concerning the Idolatry of the Roman Church is only to shew in order to ingratiate himself with the Presbyterians what may be said upon that Subject and not because he is of opinion that the Roman Church is Idolatrous For if so he might as well have published some book against the Divinity of our Saviour or against a Deity as he hath published the forementioned Discourse to prove the Roman Church Idolatrous and then tell us if he be urged that having received a Fee from Socinians or Atheists he did it only to shew what might be said against the Divinity of our Saviour or a Deity and not because he is of opinion that there is no God or that Christ is no God Yea he might say in like manner that what ever he has produced hitherto to prove the truth and Orthodoxness of the Protestant Religion was only to shew to the end he might promote his Interest among Protestants what might be alledged in favour of their Religion and not that he thinks it True and Orthodox The Dr. seems to value much a Case he produces pag. 20. in order to shew the Insufficiency of our manner of Answering him his words are these I will put a Case parallel to this Suppose one of the Church of Judah should have called the Church of Israel in the time of Jeroboam a true Church because they acknowledged the true God and did believe an agreement in that common acknowledgment to be sufficient to preserve the Essentials of a Church among them and afterwards the same person should go about to convince the Ten Tribes of their Idolatry in worshipping God by the Calves of Dan and Bethel Would this be thought a sufficient way of Answering him to say that he contradicted himself by granting them a True Church and yet charging them with Idolatry Whereas the only true Consequence would be that he thought some kind of Idolatry to be consistent with the being of a Church He adds that such a person might justly say that they made a very ill use of his Charity and that if they could prove to him that the Idolatry he fathered upon them did Vn-church them the Consequence of it would be that his Charity must be so much the less and that he must deny them to be a true Church This is Dr. St.'s Case whereby he pretends to evince the invalidity of our manner of Answering him But before I examin this Case of the Dr. I will put a Case Parallel to ours to shew that the way we have taken to Answer him is sufficient Suppose that a Jew for why may not a Jew be as Charitable and Zealous too as Dr. St. and yet Contradict himself as he does should out of a pretended zeal Charge Christian Religion even when it was in its greatest purity with the same kind of Idolatry as Dr. St. fastens upon us and that notwithstanding at the same time carried away with the like Charity as the Dr. is should confess that Christian Religion was then not only a True Religion but also a Pure Safe and Sound Religion and with such a Religion even Dr. St. affirms the Idolatry he Charges us with yea all kind of Idolatry to be inconsistent as will appear hereafter Now in this Case might not the Dr. in vindication of Christian Religion say and prove too for I do not aver as he seems to insinuate that it is enough to say he is guilty of self-contradiction unless one proves it that such a man did contradict himself in granting Christian Religion to be a true and sound Religion and yet Charging it with Idolatry Could he rationally say that the only true Consequence in that case would be not that such a person contradicted himself but that he thought some kind of Idolatry to be consistent not only with the Being but also with the Soundness of a Church or should he think so would he not therefore contradict himself and having proved to him that the Idolatry he fathered upon the Christian Religion was destructive to the Soundness of a Religion would the Consequence be that the Charity of such a person must be so much the less and that he must deny hereafter the soundness of Christian Religion Would it not be a suffient way of Answering such a man to demonstrate unto him that the Charge of Idolatry cast by him upon Christian Religion was false and consequently that what ever
of their Religion and consequently upon that account are no less excusable from Damnation than they say we are Besides Catholicks do not affirm That those Protestants who are in a condition not capable of Malice as meer Fools Madmen and Children are more liable to damnation than Catholicks of the same condition Yet farther we never assert that this Proposition Protestants are damned has more truth in it than this Idolaters are damned and consequently it is as true That a Protestant may be saved as that an Idolater may be saved Neither do we deny but Protestants may be saved if they repent Where then is the difference between their Charity and ours that may give them any cause of Vapouring In Fine if things be well considered it will manifestly appeare That Protestants damn more Catholicks than Catholicks do Protestants For it is certain that there are at least twenty Roman-Catholicks in the world for one Protestant of the English Church with which is our present debate Now since they affirm that scarce any Catholick is saved let 's put the case that only one in twenty is saved and all the rest are damned according to this computation they damn nineteen where we damn one Supposing that we damn all Protestants or believe them to be damned if they continue in that Profession and they scarce save any Chatholick or believe him to be saved if he lives and dies in the Communion of the Roman Church So that concerning the Damnation or Salvation of Contrary Party we have more reason to glory of our Charity than they And hence evidently appears the inanity of their pretended Charity which they often cast in our Teeth this being a common Topick whence they have framed many Sermons and Discourses against us Yet I cannot deny but that the Charity of Dr. St. is enhanced to a high degree For he has made the bounds of the True Church so wide that it contains not only the most notorious Hereticks but also the greatest Idolaters Was it not therefore very ill done of me to make so bad a use of so wonderful a Charity And all this he does out of his exceeding great kindness for Protestant Religion and because he cannot find a way how to bring her within the verge of the True Church without letting in with her the grossest Idolaters of the world both in Doctrine and Practice But whether Protestants will think themselves bound to render the Dr. Thanks for his excess of his Charity I leave it to the judgment of the Learned and Zealous men amongst them One step only is wanting to make this Charity perfect indeed and that is to enlarge the Pale of the True Church so far as that it may take in flat Atheists which he may do with as much ease as he does other things In the pages 19 20 21 22. he mingles many things which do not tend to prove that he does not contradict himself which was the proper subject in this second part of his Answer but only that on svpposition he should contradict himself in the way I insist upon yet this would not be a satisfactory answer nor annull the Reasons he produced in order to make good the charges he laies against us All which has been already answered above in the first part of our Reply As concerning his Vindication from Self-contradiction he saies pag. 20 21 That by granting us a True Church and yet charging us with Idolatry it does not follow That he contradicts himself but the only true consequence is That he thinks some kind of Idolatry consistent with the Being of a True Church For what shadow of Contradiction is it they are the Dr.'s words pag. 21. to say That the Roman Church is a true Church and yet is guilty of Idolatry supposing he believes some sort of Idolatry which is very sinful not to be yet of so high a nature as to unchurch those that practise it A strange Answer so that if one has so good an opinion of himself and who has not as to believe or think that what he affirms is in some sort consistent with what he denies let him affirm or deny what he pleases according to this admirable evasion of Dr. Stillingfleet he will be free from Self-contradiction Whoever joynes two terms that really contradict one another whatever he thinks he commits a Contradiction Should one affirm another to be a notorious Traitor but yet a Loyal Subject which is the instance above insinuated could the Dr. prudently say in this case that such a person did not contradict himself but that the only true consequence that hence might be inferred was That he thought some sort of notorious Treason to be consistent with Loyalty or could he justly exclaim What shadow of Contradiction is it to say That one is a notorious Traitor but yet a Loyal Subject supposing that who saies this believes some sort of Treason though very notorious not to be yet of so high a nature as to destroy Loyalty Neither should the Dr. have supposed pag. 22. as he does but proved that the Idolatry introduced by Jeroborm among the Israelites was not destructive to the being of a True Church Several protestants among other precedents produce the Church of Israel infected with the Idolatry of Jeroboam to shew that the true visible Church may cease and consequently they believed the Church of Israel to have ceased to be a true Church by reason of the Idolatry she committed otherwise they could never have made use of the said instance to that intent and accordingly they look't upon that Idolatry as destructive to the Being of a True Church For how can a Church cease to be true upon the account of an Idolatry not destructive to the Being of a True Church Yea the Apostle Rom. 11. does not obscurely insinuate that the Idolatry practised by the Israelites did unchurch them yet they were not all infected therewith For God told Elias when he complained that he was left alone in Israel that seven thousand of them had not bowed their knees unto Baal The Evasions produced hitherto by the Dr. are as we have seen ineffectual to clear him from Self-contradiction and such as had they any force in them would prove it impossible that any one should contradict himself especially if he believed he does not which is evidently false So that the Dr. to shew himself guiltless of Self-contradiction takes the same way as if to prove himself an honest man he should alledge no better Reasons than such as prove if they prove any thing that there have never been nor are any Knaves in the world but that all are and have been honest men But this is a common Artifice of Dr. St. So that he may produce any Arguments that seem to prove his intent he cares not whatever else they prove with the same force and so he may shoot home he matters not how much he over shoots himself though one may miss as much of the
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
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
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
Spirit and Judgment in matters of Religion and in the Interpretation of Scripture but obliges all to submit to her judgment as is manifest neither can the Dr. question it since he oftentimes complains of the Tyranny as he is pleased to term it of the Roman Church in this point See Doctor Stillingfleet against Doctor Stillingfleet pag. 10. all which he passes over in silence Pag. 52. the Dr. wonders why I do not speak a word of the Fanatick Principles of Rebellion owned as he will needs have it by the Jesuitical party viz. The King 's deriving his power from the people and the people's Authority to call the King to account and if they see good to take away his Power and to chang the Government and not only so but to take away his Life too which pestilent Principles he had quoted out of Mariana a Jesuit and to shew that not only the Jesuits but also the Roman Church does approve these Principles which was his main task he adds that the party which owns these Principles Jesuits is to this day the most countenanced and encouraged at Rome So that he not only Fathers the forementioned Principles upon the whole Body of the Jesuits because they were delivered by one of their Community but also upon Rome because it favours the Jesuits which Argument of the Dr's is as conclusive as if you should Argue thus Hugh Peters a Member of the University of Cambridge preached in the late Wars Rebellious Principles Therefore not only the University of Cambridge but his Majesty also who hath shewen a a particular kindness for that University do countenance such Principles Who would not contemn such a Consequence And yet the University of Cambridge has not made a more publick detestation of those Rebellious Principles of Hugh Peters than the Body of the Jesuits has made of the forementioned Doctrines of Mariana Besides the Pope even in the common opinion of Protestants is a Sovereign Temporal Prince of Rome and its adjacent Territories and as zealous or more if we believe Protestants of his civil Authority as ony other Temporal Prince whatsoever how then is it credible that he should countenance so much the Jesuits as the Dr. saies he does if they did allow such Rebellious Principles destructive to the Sovereignty of Temporal Princes Moreover that party Dr. St. speaks of is countenanced by several Kings who would be loth to be deprived of their Kingdoms But alas for them poor Princes they do not understand the Intrigues of the Jesuits though they converse often with them neither have they men about them able to discover such pernicious Doctrines King Henry the 4th of France his Majesties Grandfather and the present French King both favourers of the Jesuits are unacquainted with matters of State and Civil Government but Dr. Edward Stillingfleet the great Polititian of the world comprehends clearly the true interest of Princes and though he has scarse ever had any converse with Jesuits yet with the sublety of his private Spirit whereby he is able to discover in a moment what Scriptures are Canonical and which is their legitimate sense he has learned their Intrigues and pestilent Principles Finally those who understand the temper of Rome better than Dr. St. affirm that the Dominicans and Clergy are as much or more countenanced there than Jesuits and yet the Dominicans and Clergy if we believe Dr. St. are no great friends to Jesuits In the same page he saies That if J. W. answer again let him speak out like a man concerning those Rebellious Principles abovementioned Well then J. W. speaks out like a man and tells the Dr. plainly That he would be very sorry were he not perswaded that he detected the aforesaid Principles more than the Dr. himself does for all that he can gather from his works For whatever Dr. St.'s practices have been which J. W. has not yet made it his business to enquire after yet even those very Principles whereby he pretends to clear the Protestant Church from the Crime of Scisme do vindicate had they any force in them all Rebellions and Treacherous Conspiracies though never so execrable and are most destructive to all Civil Government than any Doctrines of Mariana as will manifestly appear to whoever shall take pains to compare them And to apply the Dr.'s own words to himself in his Answer to Dr. Cressy's Apologetical Epistle p. 475. He that owns the Principles that lead to him Treason wants only an opportunity to act them So that if Dr. St. has a just and real zeal for his Majesties Interest and Security according to what he affirms pag. 52. his Principles do not lead him unto it but the prospect of some advantage thereby I proved the Roman Church to be free from Fanaticisme because all Fanaticisme as I shewed or at least that sort of Fanaticisme which maintaines rebellious Principles is against all Lawful and competent Authority as Dr. St. himself must needs confess Now what is countenanced by a competent and lawful authority is not against all such authority as is manifest and consequently cannot be Fanaticisme at least that sort of Fanaticisme that maintains rebellious Principles Since therefore the Roman Church is a True Church unerring in all Articles of Faith and since the Authority of a True Church is a lawful Authority and sufficient to clear particular waies of proceeding from Fanaticisme as with several instances I have shewen pag. 9. in the proof of my fourth Proposition though the Dr. cunningly passes them over it evidently follows That whatever the Roman Church countenances as long as she remains a True Church cannot be Fanaticisme nor Rebellion and by consequence she is free from those crimes For why should any one impute to her that which she does not countenance To this the Dr. Answers pag. 54. First That he charged as Fanaticks several persons in our Church who were never countenanced by her neither did they submit to her Authority But what answer is this to me who pretended only to clear our Church from Fanaticisme and how can she be justly impeached of Fanaticisme which she does not allow of Yea the Principal design of the Dr. in that Chapter was to Charge the Roman Church with Fanaticisme as appears from its Title But he adds that he produced those instances to prove against his Adversary T. G. That the Sects and Fanaticisms among Protestants here in England could not be the effect of the reformation since there were as wild and extravagant Fanaticisms before Good just as if he should have argued in this manner King Henry the 8th or Edward the 6th could not bring in Protestancy here in England because Luther had broached it before in Germany There have been Fanaticks heretofore among the Roman Catholicks as there are now among Protestants But with this difference That the very Constitution of the Roman Church is repugnant to Fanaticisme since it expressly prohibits men to be guided by their own private
Reason in the Interpretation of Scripture and obliges all to submit to her judgment On the contrary the Church of England as it is constituted according to Dr. St. 's Exposition favours all sorts of Fanaticisme since it permits every one to be led by his own private Spirit in the Interpretation of Scripture without obliging him to submit to the Judgment of any Church in such matters He answers secondly that if whatever is countenanced by the Authority of a True Church ceases to be Fanaticisme there flow hence monstrous Absurdities The first is that a prevailing Fanaticisme ceases to be Fanaticisme pag. 55. Is not this a strange whimsie of the Drs. and a pregnant Argument how little he values church Authority to say that because some particular way of Devotion comes to be approved and countenanced by the Authority of a True Church the approbation of the Church serves only to make it a greater and a more prevailing Fanaticisme than it was before whereas I proved in my Book pag. 9. with several instances That the approbation of a True Church is sufficient to clear particular waies of Devotion from the imputation of Fanaticisme So that the difference between Fanatick and Non-fanatick waies of Devotion does not consist in the extravagancy rather of the one and not of the other for both may be extravagant enough but in that the former are against Authority the latter according to Authority I will explain this Doctrine with the Example the Dr. alledges in the place now quoted of Treason and Rebellion What difference is there between a Loyal and Rebellious Army Both Plunder Harras Fight and Kill The difference only is that a Loyal Army proceeds according to Authority and by order of their true Sovereign But a Rebellious Army acts contrary to Authority and to the orders of their Prince As therefore it would be extream ridiculous to affirm That the approbation of a True and Lawful Prince serves only to make the proceedings of his Subjects approved by him more Rebellious or a more prevailing Rebellion so it is absurd to defend as Dr. St. does That the approbation of a True Church renders particular waies of Devotion approved by her more lyable to Fanaticisme or a more prevailing Fanaticisme But the Dr. urges That this would be an excellent way to vindicate the Fanaticisme of the late times which because countenanced by an Authority supposed competent enough by some who then writ of Obedience and Government it ceases to be Fanaticisme Speak out Doctor was Cromwell a True and Lawful Governour of this Kingdome or not if you say he was not how can you have the confidence to parallel our case with theirs since you your self defend the Roman Church to be a True Lawful Church and the very same with your own if you say that he was a True and Lawful Governour and his Authority competent where is your Loyalty As for the Writer of the Book entituled Obedience and Government let him answer for himself I detest that Doctrine neither am I responsable for what that Author affirms as neither Dr. St. will think himself obliged to own whatever Protestants did in the late Rebellion The second Absurdity he pretends to infer from our Doctrine is That Prophets and Apostles nay our Lord himself are according to this Rule unavoidably Fanaticks For what competent Authority saies he pag. 56. had they to countenance them Are you in earnest Doctor had Christ the Prophets and Apostles no competent Authority to countenance their proceedings This indeed is to cast them into the common heard of Fanaticks since no competent Authority neither Humane nor Divine did countenance or approve their Preaching Can the Dr. deny but that Christ the Apostles and Prophets were countenanced by Divine Authority manifested by unquestionable Miracles or will he say That Divine Authority manifested by these Miracles is not an Authority competent enough to vindicate such actions as it approves of from the Crime of Fanaticisme But the Dr. presses that the Jewish Church though not yet cast off while our Saviour lived did not countenance him nor his Apostles What then did I ever affirm that the Authority of a True Church was determinately necessary to clear particular practices from Fanaticisme as the Dr. most grossly supposes I did I defended indeed that the Authority of a True Church is sufficient to clear such actions from Fanaticisme but I never asserted that it was necessary yea I insinuated the contrary pag. 9. There are two waies to commission men to Preach and to Authorize their manners of Devotion Both of them sufficient but neither of them determinately necessary the one extraordinary when God by evident Miracles declares that such men are commissioned by him and in this manner Christ the Prophets and the Apostles were commissioned by him the other Ordinary when the Pastours of the True Church authorize men to Preach or approve of such particular waies of Devotion and in this sense I cleared the particular waies of Devotion countenanced by the Roman Church which the Dr. confesses to be a True Church from the Aspersion of Fanaticisme Neither can one reasonably argue that what is not countenanced in the Second and Ordinary way is not countenanced by a competent Authority since it may be approved of in an Extraordinary way And though the Jews did not follow the Doctrine of Christ yet they acknowledged his Commission and Gods Broad seal viz. evident Miracles wrought by him when in a full Assembly they affirmed Joan 11. Hic homo multa Signa facit This man Christ works many Miracles and certainly such a publick attestation as this was enough to countenance and acknowledge his Commission though out of obstinacy they would not submit to his Doctrine as Pilate declared our Saviour to be innocent and guiltless yet out of fear lest he should disgust Caesar condemned him to death I cannot omit here the two famous yet Contradictory Revelations which are said to have been made to St. Bridgit and St. Catherin concerning the immaculate Conception of our Blessed Lady To St. Bridgit that she was conceived without Original Sin To St. Catherin that she was conceived with Original Sin Dr. St. scarce publishes a Book wherein he does not insert these Revelations pretending thereby to blow up the Infallibility of the Roman Church since she Canonized for Saints both St. Bridgit and St. Catherin and approves their Revelations and consequently something that is false as necessarily one of the forementioned Revelations must be particularly he endeavours to prove hence against me That submission to the Judgment of the Church is not a Rule to judge Fanaticisme by For both these Revelations were approved of by the Roman Church and yet one of them was false and therefore Fanatical and one of those Saints either was deceived or went about to deceive and by consequence was a Fanatick See the Dr. pag. 61 62. To this I answer that the Dr. has never yet shewn That
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
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