God and he would be a Fanatick should he assert rhe contrary Now since Dr. St. worships God represented unto him by his own Conceptions these remaining far beneath his Greatness we conclud that Dr. St. worships God represented unto him in a way inferiour to his Grandeur and Majesty Wherefore to save himself from being an Idolater he must necessarily deny this Principle to be true viz. Whoever worships God represented unto him in a way inferiour to his Greatness is an Idolater Yet this is the main Principle whereon he grounds the Charge of Idolatry cast upon the Roman Church in the Veneration of Images and hence is manifestly proved that the aforesaid Charge as bottomed upon a false and Sandy Principle is altogether groundless and frivolous which was what I intended by this Appendix made in confirmation of what I had laid down before to prove our Church guitless of Idolatry Let 's now examin what Artifices the Dr. uses to clear himself from this imputation of Idolatry drawn up against him out of his own Principles and to prevent the Train as he saies pag. 35. laid to blow him up fetch'd from his own Stores First he seems to have been inclined to suspect that this Charge of Idolatry cast upon him was intended only for a piece of Drollery This is a pretty way to stave off all Arguments ab absurdo which are very concluding and frequent among Learned men when to prove the inanity of some Principle produced by the Adversary they lay open the absurdities which thence ensue A compendious Answering to all such Arguments according to this incomparable Doctors way of answering is to tell those who frame them That they are in jest and that without doubt they intend only to Droll But if this manner of Answering be warrantable 't will be sufficient to tell Dr. St. That his whole Discourse of Idolatry and Fanaticism charged upon the Roman Church and almost all his other works were intended only for pieces of Drollery Aperson of Quality and no Roman-Catholick could find no fitter place in his Library for Dr. St.'s Discourse of the Roman Idolatry than to put it among the Play-books After this to annul the aforesaid Charge of Idolatry he betakes himself to admiration What saies he pag. 35. is it come to this at last and am I become an Idolater too who was never apt to think my self inclined so much as to Superstition I marry Sir This is a speedy way indeed to dispatch Arguments with no more than an Admiration What! Dr. Stillingfleet and Idolater Dr. Stillingfleet that Zealous man for Religion who knows not how to defend his own Church to be True without laying down Principles that prove all Churches never so Heretical or Schismatical to be true and Orthodox Dr. Stillingfleet that pious and godly Protestant who has so great a kindness for the Protestant Church that he makes her the very same with an Idolatrous Church and with such a kind of Idolatry that is worse than the adoring a red Cloath for God! Dr. Stillingfleet so Religious a man that by all we can guess by his Principles alledged above we cannot determin whether he be of any or of no Religion What such a man as this an Idolater no God forbid And why Because forsooth he was never apt to think himself inclined that way Excellent just as if one should say The Heathens did not think themselves Idolatrous nor inclined that way Therefore they were no Idolaters I wonder why Dr. St. who boasts so much of his Charity does not go to Newgate to instruct the Malefactors there how they may defend themselves when they are Arraigned for Thieves or Murderers telling them with one sole Exclamation they may invalidate all the Evidences brought in against them What They Thieves They Murderers They take away mens Goods and Lives too who were never apt to think themselves inclined but to works of Piety and as coming instructed by so good an Advocate they would doubtless be instantly discharged But if this be the Champion of the English Church as he is cryed up to be she is in as miserable a condition any of her Enemies con wish her Such Defenders as these have brought the English Protestancy so low that 't is no wonder they should in a every Session of Parliament give her a Cordial to keep her alive Such Ministers contribute far more to the ruine of Protestancy than any Roman Priests Yea if this manner of answering be solid it follows also that the Charges of Idolatry and Fanaticisme wherewith he impeaches our Church are without difficulty repealed saying only What The Church of Rome Idolatrous That Church which has banished Paganisme from the greatest part of the World Should she introduce an Idolatry more detestable than the grossest Idolatry of the Pagans That Church which even Protestants themselves confess to have been the only visible Church of Christ for above 1000 years and acknowledge her to be the Mother Church the Patriarchal Church of the West the first See prima Sedes a true Member at least of the Catholick Church unerring in all Articles of Faith the very same with their own Church from whom they pretend to derive the Ordination of their Bishops and by whom have been handed down to them the Books of Scripture upon which alone they ground their Religion that such a Church and acknowledged as such should be impeached by Protestants and among the rest by Dr. St. who in most things agrees to the former Character given of her Should I say be impeached of an Iddolatry more detestable than the Adoration of an Animal a Statue or a red Cloth for God is indeed a thing worthy of Admiration and whereof several moderate Protestants are ashamed But why should any one wonder that Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Stillingfleet I say should be an Idolater and only because he was never apt to think himself inclined that way Although I never absolutely accused him of Idolatry but only on supposition that the Principles whereon he pretends to establish the Charge of Idolatry cast upon us were warrantable which is very different as presently shall be made to appear He goes on and saies pag. 53. That all the comfort he found left was towards the conclusion of my Book wherein as he affirms I confess That the same Argument proves the Prophets Evangelists and the Holy Ghost himself to be Idolaters and then he adds that he hoped there was no great harm to be feared in so good Company But Dr. St. very disingenuosly leaves out this Clause contained in my Book viz. or it proves nothing which renders the sense very different fcom what those words as quoted by the Dr. may seem to import For sure he will not deny but that it is a very different thing to say absolutely Dr. St. is an Hypocrite without adding any thing more or to say Dr. St. is an Hypocrite if he holds one Religion in his heart and professes another
mark by being gone as by being short And although the Dr. has been advised of the Nullity of this manner of Arguing according to that Maxime an Argument that proves too much proves nothing yet hitherto he has not thought it for his purpose to take notice of it In the same page 22. the Dr. affirms that although they do allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church they are far from understanding by that a Sound or a good Church but mean no more by it than as a man is a true man though he hath the Plague upon him Neither did I ever say Dr. St. ag Dr. St. pag. 3. that Dr. St. expressly affirmed that our Church is a Sound Church but only that he granted it to be a True Church which neither now does he deny or question For among other things I alledged out of the Dr. in order to this purpose I affirmed that he held our Church to be a true way to Heaven but not a safe way which signifies here the same as a true Church but not a sound Church Now Dr. St. does plainly confess that it is a Contradiction to say That the Roman Church is a Sound Church and yet an Idolatrous Church which viz. had he granted our Church to be Sound would be as he saies p. 23. the most proper sense to found a Contradiction upon in this matter of Idolatry For he freely grants that all sorts of Idolatry are inconsistent with the Soundness of a Church but not with the Truth thereof Wherefore if I can evince That all sorts of Idolatry are at least that sort of Idolatry which he fastens upon Roman-Catholicks is destructive not only to the Soundness but also to the Truth of a Church and that an Idolatrous Church is not as a man sick of the Plague who may retain the Essentials of a man if I say I can evince this it will be a contradiction not only to say That the Roman Church is a Sound Church and yet an Idolatrous but also to affirm That the Roman Church is a True Church and yet Idolatrous at least with such a kind of Idolatry as Dr. St. laies upon her for which see CHAP. V. The Doctor palpably Contradicts himself in affirming the Roman Church to be Idolatrous and yet granting her to be a True Church WHen my Book first appeared in publick several Zealous Protestants who had been pleased to peruse it were so firmly perswaded that there is a palpable Contradiction between these two Propositions The Roman Church is a True Church The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church and being moreover sensible what an affront it is for any one especially for Lerned men to grant and persist to grant palpable Contradictions they would never believe that Dr. St. whom they applauded so much for his Learning had ever granted the two forementioned Propositions Besides they being not able to deny but that he asserted The Roman Church to be an Idolatrous Church seeing he had written a whole Traetise of that Subject they concluded that he had never granted The Roman Church to be a True Church although I quoted out of him several plain places to that intent But now Dr. St. has done me justice and has cleared all doubts if any might be in this matter ingenuously confessing that he has heretofore and does still affirm The Roman Church to be a true Church And why should he plainly confess that he had affirmed any such thing so disadvantagious unto him were it not so manifest he had done so that it could not be questioned especially when he is forced to winde himself all the waies he can to disentangle the contradiction objected against him whereas had he never granted the Roman Church to be a true Church all appearance of Self contradiction in this point would have vanished Nay he confirms clearly he same Doctrine in several places of this his Examination of my Book For pag. 21. he saies thus We acknowledg that they Roman Catholicks still retain the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith That there is no dispute between them and us about the True God and his Son Jesus Christ as to his Death Resurrection and Glory and being the proper Object to Divine Worship We yeild that they have true Baptism among them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and we looking upon these as the Essentials of a true Church do upon that account own that Church to be so Where without doubt he judges the points here mentioned to be all the Fundamental and Essential points of a true Church otherwise he would not own our Church to be a true Church precisely because she holds the forementioned points For a Church that fails but in one Essential point of a true Church although it be the least of all is no true Church And here by the way I cannot but Advertise that Dr. St. without perhaps reflecting on it has set down a particular Catalogue of all the Fundamental points of the True Religion which protestants commonly are loth to do Page 23. he saies Those which we account the Essentials of a Church we deny not to it that is to the Church of Rome and a Church that retains all the Essentials of a true Church must needs be so In the same place he compares our Church over-run as he saies with such Corruptions in Worship to a man that has the Plague upon him who yet still remains a true man Pag. 22. when we alow saies he the Church of Rome to be a True Church we are far from understanding by that a sound or good Church which words expressly signifie that he and his Partizans allow our Church to be a True Church which is all we now pretend But more at large he confirms this Doctrine pag. 29. § 4. where he has in the Margin these words In what sense the Church of Rome is owned by him and other Protestants as a true Church which manifestly imports that they own her as such Pag. 30. he speaks thus Whatever Church owns those things which are Antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church and in the same page immediately before he insinuates that those things only are necessary Antecedently to the Being of a Church which are required to be believed in order to Salvation and pag. 31. he saies Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian Societies but such things which by all those Societies i. e. Christian Societies and consequently by the Roman Church who is one of them are abknowledged antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church pag. 32. he makes and confessed he made before the Ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church the best measure of those things which are believed to be necessary to Salvation and consequently were sufficient to constitute the Essence and Being of a True Church Now 't is evident neither doth Dr. St. ever question it but
rather very often supposes it That the Roman Church doth embrace the Ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church wherefore even according to Dr. St.'s constitution of a true Church the Church of Rome is necessarily such Pag. 26. he saies We have no Controversie with them Catholicks about the Essential Doctrines of Religion which is that we mean by their being a True Church Finally pag. 33. and in other places the Dr. distinguishes between the Essence and Soundness of a Church and he several times grants that our Church holds all that is requisite to the Essence of a True Church But he denies that she holds all that is necessary to the Soundness of a Church Neither did I ever alledge Dr. St. to the contrary as above I insinuated Hence is evidently concluded that it is the unquestionable Sentiment of Dr. St. that the Roman Church even as it is now in the world is a True Church retaining all the Essential and Fundamental Points of Christian Faith All which I have sayed not because Dr. St. did ever deny it but because some of his Friends could scarce believe that he who had endeavoured with all his strength to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry should notwithstanding hold her to be a True Church See more concerning this in his Answer to my Book pag. 40 41 42. Wherefore since it cannot be questioned but that Dr. St. has heretofore and does still allow these two Propositions The Roman Church is a True Church The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church we come now to examin whether the latter Proposition contradicts the former which Dr. St. denies but we do prove in the following Discourse If the Roman Church holds any Fundamental or Essential Errour in matters of Faith it is no True Church For it is certain that some Errours are sufficient to unchurch a Community and destructive to the very Being of a True Church otherwise a Congregation that holds there is no God might yet be a True Church and if any Errours be such sure such are all Fundamental and Essential Errours For all Errours in matters of Faith even according to Dr. St. and other Protestant Divines are divided into Fundamental or Essential and into Non-fundamental or Non-essential These latter they affirm to be consistent with the Essence and Being of a True Church but not with the Soundness thereof But the former are destructive not only to the Soundness but also to very Essence of a True Church So that whoever saies that such a Church is a True Church but yot that she holds some Fundamental-Errours he commits a manifest Contradiction as if he should say such a Church is and is not True Upon this account those Protestants who grant the Roman Church to be a True Church but yet depraved with several Errours to save themselves from Self-contradiction commonly affirm that the Errours of the Roman Church are not Fundamental nor Essential but only inferiour Errours Non-fundamental and Non-essential Again if the Roman Church holds any Errour necessarily destructive to any Fundamental or Essential Point of Faith she must needs hold a Fundamental and Essential Errour in matters of Faith This is also evident neither can Dr. St. deny it For an Errour is denominated Fundamental or Non-fundamental Essential or Non-essential from the nature and quality of the Truth wherewith it is inconsistent all Errour being inconsistent with some Truth So that if the Truth or any of the Truths wherewith such an Errour is inconsistent be Fundamental or Essential the Errour must needs be Fundamental or Essential But if none of them be Fundamental neither can the Error be Fundamental Now the inconsistency of a Proposition with its contradictory or of an Errour with the Truth opposite therunto does not consist in that an Errour does absolutely destroy the Truth in it self wherewith it is said to be inconsistent For it is certain this Erroneous Judgment There is no God does not destroy the Truth of its Contradictory There is a God nor in that he who gives an assent to the one part cannot possibly at the same time give his assent to the contrary part otherwise it would not be possible for any one to Contradict himself which is manifestly false as Dr. St. himself does too too well know The forementioned inconsistency therefore consists in the repugnancy in order to the Truth of both Propositions together and at the same time or in that the Truth of the one necessarily destroyes the Truth of the other So that if the Errour which is inconsistent with a Fundamental Truth should cease to be an Errour the contrary Truth would cease to be a Truth Moreover some Errours are not destructive to any Fundamental Point immediately or formally or in express terms as this Error There is no God is destructive to this Fundamental point There is a God but only mediately and by Consequences because they destroy immediately something wherewith some Fundamental point is necessarily connexed which being once destroyed such a Fundamental point must necessarily fall as supposing that it is a Fundamental point of Christian Faith that Christ is God Consubstantial to his Father this Errour Christ is a meer Creature is beyond debate Fundamental although it does not destroy immediately the former Truth but only mediately and by Consequence because it immediately destroyes its Contradictory viz. Christ is not a meer Creature which being destroyed the former Fundamental Truth does necessarily fall For whatsoever is God either is no Creature or at least no meer Creature Wherefore 't is a Fundamental Errour whatsoever necessarily destroyes a Fundamental Truth whether mediately or immediately For the malice and malignity of a Fundamental Errour consists in its Destructiveness to a Fundamental point and what destroyes it mediately does truly destroy it but destroies with it some other thing One may beat down a Steeple either by shooting immediately at the Steeple or at the Tower that upholds the Steeple and in both Cases the Steeple is equally beaten down but with this difference that in the second case the Tower also is beaten down with the Steeple Yea Dr. St. himself pag. 24. confesses the second way of Worship mentioned there by him to be destructive mediately only and by Consequence to the Existency of a true God and yet it is inconsistent doubtless with the Being of a true Church since by such a Worship the Vnity of the Godhead is denyed and many False Gods are joyned with him in the same Worship and to teach a multiplicity of Gods is beyond debate to teach an Errour by reason of its opposition to the Vnity of the Godhead destructive to the Being of a Church Besides I said that an Errour which is necessarily destructive to any Fundamental point whatsoever it be must needs be Fundamental and inconsistent with the Essence of a True Church For an Errour as other Negations is malignantis naturae of a malignant nature such as destroying any Essential part or
intrinsical condition must needs destroy the whole So that a Church to be True must have all her Essentials but to be absolutely False 't is enough that any one of them be wanting according to those common Axioms of Philosophers Bonum ex integra causa malum autem ex quolibet defectu Death destroies the Essence of a man and yet it neither destroies the Soul nor the Body immediately but only the Union between them both which is the least considerable thing in a mans Essence Finally because we discourse now what Errours are Essential in matters of Faith and inconsistent with the Being of a True Church we must reflect that according to Divines there are two sorts of Errours the one Privative the other Positive A Church does err privatively against the Essence of a True Church by not holding all the positive Essential points requisite thereunto although she should not positively hold any thing contrary to such points A Congregation of Men who should not believe there is a God although they should not positively believe that there is no God would beyond all question be no true Church But a Church errs positively against the Essence of a true Church when she positively holds and asserts something inconsistent with an Essential point whatever else she affirms Doubtless a Church or Congregation which teaches that there is no God cannot be a true Church whatever else she teaches Both these sorts of Errours are destructive to the Essence of a Church and the latter is rather worse than the former For it is worse to believe that there is no God than not to believe that there is a God Hence I infer that to the constitution of a true Church 't is not enough to assert the positive Articles requisite to the Being of a Church but 't is also necessary not to hold any Errour incoâ—sistenâ— with any of such Articles as 〈…〉 several persons who deny either mediately or immediately those very points which they confess These things being premised I go on to shew that if the Roman Church does hold any kind of Idolatry what kind soever it be to be lawful as Dr. St. expressly affirms she does she must needs hold an Errour destructive a to Fundamental and Essential point of Faith and by consequence a Fundamental Errour inconsistent with the Essence of a true Church And since 't is certain that no kind of Idolatry is lawful if the Roman Church holds any kind of Idolatry as lawful she must needs hold an Errour inconsistent with some Truth as all Errour is Now it is not possible that the Roman Church should hold any sort of Idolatry whatsoever as lawful unless she holds that some Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature For the notion of Idolatry in general does necessarily contain this even as Dr. St. himself confesses in this Book pag. 24. where he saies thus I agree in general that the true notion of Idolatry is giving the Honour due only to God to a meer Creature but he adds presently these words I desire no greater advantage against the Church of Rome in order to prove her Idolatrous than from such a Concession which is as much as if I should say I desire no greater advantage against Dr. St. in order to prove him a Knave than that he should grant as doubtless he does that the Notion of a Knave in general is he who makes it his business to cheat others For I am certain that it is far easier to shew that this notion of a Knave does agree to Dr. St. than that notion of Idolatry to the Roman Church But for my present purpose it is enough that Dr St. grants that to be the true notion of Idolatry in general For so 't is evident that let the kinds of Idolatry be never so many they must needs participate the forementioned notion because all the Species or different kinds must needs participate the general notion under which they are contained as for instance because it is the general notion of an Animal to be vivens sensibile a living Substance endowed with a sensitive power let the Species or differences be never so many 't is impossible that there should be any sort of Animal which is not vivens sensibile So that whatsoever is not vivens sensible is not Animal and whatsoever Worship is such that thereby the Honour due only to God is not given to a meer Creature such a worship cannot be any sort of Idolatry Hence I infer that 't is impossible the Roman Church should teach or hold any kind of Idolatry whatsoever it be gross or not gross but she must hold supposing the Notion of Idolatry in general to be such as has been insinuated expressly or implicitly in the same manner as she holds Idolatry That some Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature which Errour for evidently 't is an Errour is inconsistent with the contrary Truth viz. No Honour due to God may be given to a meer Creature And what Truth is this Fundamental and Essential or Non-fundamental and Non-essential without debate it is a Fundamental and Essential point of Religion For what point is such if this be not Nay Dr. St. himself does absolutely grant it pag. 26. in the Answer to my first Proposition as hereafter will appear and p. 21. he accounts among the Essentials of a true Church and the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith this very proposition viz. That God and his Son Jesus Christ are the proper object of Divine Worship or which is the same no Divine Worship or no Honour due only to God is to be given to any one but God Since therefore all Idolatry is inconsistent with the forementioned Fundamental and Essential point 't is manifest the Church of Rome cannot hold any kind of Idolatry whatsoever without holding a Fundamental Errour destructive to the very Essence and Being of a True Church Wherefore Dr. St. by granting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with Idolatry does commit a palpable Contradiction and in one breath blows cold and hot asserting that she is a True Church and yet that she holds something inconsistent with the very Being and Essence of a True Church To draw this Argument into a narrower circle I form this Dilemma Either by the Idolatry Dr. St. Fathers upon our Church Some Honour due only to God is given to a meer Creature or not If not then it is no Idolatry as not participaring the general Notion of Idolatry If so then it is destrrctive to an Essential point of Religion and consequently to the Essence of a True Church So that Dr. St. by distinguishing two sorts of Idolatry one destructive to the Being of a Church another not-destructive to the Being of a Church does as much as tell us There are two sorts of Idolatry one that is Idolatry another that is not Idolatry of the former
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
from several places quoted out of his Rat. Account amongst the rest I alledged the page 54 55. where he affirms adding that this is the sense of the English Church That those points which they defend in opposition to the Roman Church and wherein only they impeach us of Errours agreeing with us in the rest are meer pious Opinions and inferiour Truths which no body is obliged to believe either necessitate medij or necessitate praecepti and consequently that they are not Articles of Faith or Fundamental points of Religion every one being obliged either necessitate medij or necessitate Praecepti to believe all such points and he expressly asserts in the forementioned pages praising thence the moderation of the English Church that she does not acknowledge any thing as an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged as such by Rome it self Since therefore 't is manifest that Rome does not acknowledge as Articles of Faith those Points which the English Church maintains in opposition to her it evidently follows according to Dr. St.'s Concession that neither the Church of England does acknowledge such points as Articles of Faith Whence I shew'd the truth of this our Proposition against Dr. St. and his Cabal The substance of the Argument is this The Church of Rome does not err nor cannot err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion unless the points at least some of them against which she is supposed to err be Articles of Faith or Fundamental points of Religion This is evident But none of these points against which Dr. St. supposes the Roman Church to err are in his opinion either Articles of Faith or Fundamental points of Religion as manifestly appears by what we have quoted even now out of him for he supposes her to err only against those points wherein the Church of England differs from us which in his opinion are no Articles of Faith Therefore according to Dr. St.'s opinion the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion which is the Proposition set down by me Neither can the Dr. say that although the Church of Rome does err immediately only against those points which the English Church defends in opposition unto her yet these points being connexed with Articles of Faith she cannot err against these without erring mediately and by consequence against Articles of Faith he cannot I say affirm this For otherwise he would never grant this our Fifth Proposition as he does Because to err mediately against an Article is to err against that and another point too and so he should absolutely have denyed That the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith which he does not In the like manner it would be ridiculous to affirm That one did not kill such a man because he did not immediately destroy the Union between the Soul and the Body in the dissolution whereof death formally consists but only mediately and by consequence because he destroyed some disposition necessary to the conservation of that Union as if one Arraigned for having killed a man should answer That he did not kill him That he only cut off his Head Nay if those particular Tenets of the Protestant Church are so connexed and linked with Articles of Faith that whoever denies or destroies the former must also deny and destroy the latter one would be obliged necessitate medij or praecepti not to dissent from such points Because we are obliged not to deny any Article of Faith and consequently not to deny any thing which being once denyed an Article of Faith is also denyed and cashiered which is contrary to what he asserts in the place above quoted where he affirms that men are prohibited to oppose them particular Tenets of the English Church exteriourly but not to dissent from them interiourly So because men are prohibited to kill others they are obliged not to destroy any Disposition whereon the life of man necessarily depends Nor is this Fifth Proposition laid down by me only as Dr. St.'s and his Associates opinion but as I proved in my Book it is also the common assertion of other Protestants some of them averring This to be the judgment of all Learned Protestants accusing the contrary party of their Brethren of an ignorant Zeal and King James adds they are worthy to be burnt Hence is that common speech of Protestants boasting of their Charity therein that the Roman Church doth not teach any Errour Fundamental Damnable or Destructive to Salvation That she does not err in the Foundations but in the Supurstructures nor in Fundamentals but only in Not-fundamentals nor against Articles of Faith but against inferiour Truths only Now to err in Fundamentals or to admit a Fundamental Errour is to err against a Fundamental Truth Whence I conclude that according to the constant perswasion not only of Dr. St. and his Partizans but also of all Learned Protestants The Roman Church does not Err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion which was the very Proposition I laid down in the fifth and last place Let 's examin yet farther how Dr. St. still boggles at the forementioned Proposition All that in substance he saies is this That he never granted the Roman Church to be a Sound Church or consequently that she did not err in some matters of Religion requisite to the Soundness and Integrity of a Church neither can he shew that I alledged him to the contrary neither does this fifth Proposition express any such thing as is manifest What therefore here and in other places he confessedly grants is That our Church is a True Church unerring against all Fundamental and Essential points of Religion and against all Articles of Faith which is all that is necessary to the absolute Truth of the forementioned Proposition Wherefore as it would be very absurd to answer one who intending only to prove such a person not to be dead should take this Proposition Such a person is yet a true man retaining all the Essentials of a man to answer I say that what he avouches of him is true but that such a person is not a sound man So it is very impertinent when I proposed only to him that the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion requisite to the Essence of a True Church as all Fundamental points are to tell me that the Roman Church does err against some points of Religion requisite only to the Soundness of a Church such as he fancies the particular Tenets of the Protestant Church to be which is to tell me in plain English That what I say is true but what I say not is false which answer is very impertinent and good for nothing but to trifle away the time And hence will appear of what force this Concession of Dr. St. is to our present Design which is to shew him guilty of Self-contradiction by granting our Church
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
the Church of Rome does own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Antient Creeds yet she debauches those very Principles which she professes to own pag. 34. This objection is also annulled by what we have laid down above First Dr. St. does not only grant that the Roman Church does embrace all the Essentials points of Christian Faith and consequently amongst the rest this point viz. The Honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature which he confesses to be one of them But also he allows that she does not err against any Fundamental point of Faith this being my Fifth Proposition which he assents unto and calls in his Concession Now to say That the Roman Church does not err against any Fundamental point as he saies she does not and yet that she teaches Idolatry which is to err against a Fundamental point even according to his Principles is a palpable contradiction Secondly When Dr. St. grants our Church to be a True Church as he does without doubt he takes a True Church as contradistinct from a False Church or from a Church which is not True otherwise he would interpret in a quite contrary sense this his Concession The Roman Church is a True Church i.e. The Roman Church is no true Church which interpretation cannot but seem to any prudent man very ridiculous Now a Church may fail to be a True Church either because she does not positively embrace some Essential point or because she denies some Essential point and errs against it and to the Essence of a True Church it is requisite not only to embrace positively all Fundamental points but also not to err against any one of them as I have demonstrated above Neither do I think that Dr. St. will deny it otherwise he would doubtless have denyed our Fifth Proposition Whoever therefore affirms that our Church is a True Church and yet that it errs against a Fundamental point as necessarily it must if it maintains Idolatry does as much as affirm it is True and not True Thirdly let 's suppose since 't is possible for a Church to contradict her self that a Church embracing all the ancient Creeds with the Articles contained in them should notwithstanding contradict her self denying some of the main points couched in those Creeds and owned by her sure Dr. St. will not say that such a Church is a True Church and that by contradicting those main Articles of Faith she does only debauch them but not ruine or destroy them Certainly every Contradictory ruins it Contradictory and every Contrary destroys its Contrary Will the Dr. affirm that the grossest of the Heathens Idolatry did only debauch and not destroy this Prindiple owned by them viz. The honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature and after the Dr. has taken so much pains to shew that the Veneration of Images owned by the Roman Church is point blank against their 2d Commandment will he say now it only debauches it but does not destroy it Wherefore Dr. St. cannot defend that the Roman Church does teach Idolatry without granting that she contradicts and destroys a Fundamental point of Religion neither can he grant that she contradicts a Fundamental point of Religion and yet allow that she is a True Church So that to maintain on the one side that she teaches Idolatry and on the other that she is a True Church is to commit a manifest Contradiction I insinuated in my Book the similitude of a way from one place to another hinted at also by the Dr. pag. 50. which may contribute much to clear this matter Suppose as the custome is in some Almanacks which set down the true waies from one place to another one should describe a True way how we may go from London to York and setting down all the Towns which others commonly mention should intermingle them with other places that lie either the quite contrary way or at least quite out of the way as for instance from Stamford which lies in the ordinary way to the Fennes thence to Salisbury thence to Plimouth thence to the West Indies and if you please to East-Indies also for you are alwayes in a true way from London to York only with this general advice that whensoever you go out of the true way you must turn back again without specifying which places are out of the way which not but setting them down all as parts of the True way So that whoever does not go through all the places put down in the forementioned description does not follow the way therein contained Would not such a description of a True way from London to York be extream ridiculous could there be a better piece of Drollery than this for Poor Robins Almanack or can any man of common sense knowing that so many places set down in the aforesaid description lie quite out of the way from London to York call the way there described a True way from London to York For certainly whoever understands what he saies must needs understand by a True way from London to York a way that not only contains all the principal places from the one City to the other but moreover does not contain any place quite out of the way This is just our case with Dr. St. He freely confesses that the Roman Church is a True Church and a True way to Salvation but withal he affirms that she does not only contain those main points which he thinks sufficient to constitute a True Church but also other particular points which he looks upon as gross Idolatry and open Violations of the Divine Law and consequently destructive to the Salvation of men which particular points the Roman Church delivers not as Errours but as Truths and Articles of Faith which all are bound to assent unto So that whoever denies any of those particular points can no more be a Roman Catholick than if he denyed some of the main points of Christianity common both to Catholicks and Protestants Now since Dr. St. is of this perswasion that the Roman Church teaches and requires gross Idolatry and open violations of Gods Laws how can he say without manifestly contradicting himself that notwithstanding all this she is a True Church and a True way to Heaven Can a True way to Heaven be made up of a high way to Hell as certainly Idolatry is or is not Idolatry as far out of the way to Heaven as the West-Indies is out of the way from London to York The answer of the Dr. in effect is this If you be a Roman Chatholick you are in a True way to Heaven and yet if you be a Roman Catholick you are quite out of the way to Heaven and whether this be not pure non-sense I leave it to the judgment of any impartial person whatsoever Whence I conclude that all men of Reson must needs understand by a True Church a Church that does not only positively embrace all
difficulties Does he therefore mean by it a Church qualified with such Laws that whoever keeps close to them till death and let the way to Salvation be never so secure yet if one does not keep to it 'till death what will it avail him will certainly be saved If this be his meaning there is no True Church which is not sound and secure in this sense For a True Church must contain all things necessary to Salvation both in order to our Belief and Practice as is certain neither does Dr. St. deny it and sure whoever dies having discharged all things necessary to his Salvation as well in reference to his Belief as Practice will certainly be saved as is manifest from those words of our Saviour Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata which is a much as if he had said whoever observes my Commandments shall certainly be saved and doubtless no Body can do all that is necessary to Salvation without observing Gods Commandments Does he mean by it a Church that does not teach any thing whatsoever as an Article of Faith which is either an Errour or Corruption This seems to be his meaning But neither is it possible that any Church whatsoever should be a True Church and yet not sound and secure in this sense For it is a manifest Contradiction to affirm That such a Church is a True Church but yet that she fathers upon God or teaches God to be the Author of some Errour or Corruption as necessarily she must if she teaches any Errour or Corruption as an Article of Faith A True Church must not err against any Fundamental point of Faith as is certain nor consequently against this point God is not the Author of any Errour or Corruption whatsoever which doubtless is Fundamental A true Church therefore must not teach any Errour or Corruption as an Article of Faith or which is the same must not teach God to be the Author of any Errour or Corruption For to teach this is to err against the forementioned point Does he mean by it a Church that does not require or enjoyn any Practice or any other thing destructive to Salvation as doubtless all Idolatry is whether she teaches it as an Article of Faith or not But how can a Church be true and yet not sound nor secure in this sense also A true Church must lead men to Salvation and certainly it cannot lead men to Salvation if it enjoyns and requires them to do things destructive thereunto Wherefore I cannot see what Dr. St. is able to mean by a Sound and Secure Church which does not prove either that there is not in the world any Church True and Sound or that there is no Church True which is not Sound and secure and we are so far from confounding a True Church with a Sound and Secure Church in the first sense abovementioned i. e. with a Church free from all dangers and difficulties as Dr. St. will needs suppose we do that we constantly affirm that there is no True Church in the world Sound and Secure in that sense according to what I set down in my Book pag. 5. But the Dr. did not think fit to take notice thereof From what has been agitated in the precedent Discourses it manifestly appears that Dr. St. is guilty of Self Contradiction by asserting that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet charging her with Idolatry yea the grossest Idolatry of the world and as I promised at the beginning I am willing to admit as Judges in this plea the Learned men in our two famous Universities CHAP. IX The Doctor 's Answer to my Appendix proved Frivolous I Come now to consider what Answer Dr. St. is pleased to afford to the Appendix of my Book which he Attacks in the next place wherein to confirm the former Doctrine concerning the Nullity of the Charge of Idolatry cast upon the Roman Church I proved that either his Principles whereon he bottoms the forementioned Charge were not good or that he himself was an Idolater and the greatest part of his Answer being contained in less than three leaves in Octavo is stuffed up with Scoffs gawdy expressions jingling Metaphors superfluous Digressions Railery and such like Chaff the common Ingredients of his Books After I had declared each premise by it self I summed up the substance of my Argument in this manner Whoever Worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness is an Idolater according to Dr. St.'s main Principle whereby he pretends to make good the Charge of Idolatry laid upon us in the Veneration of Images But whoever Worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by Images by words or by Imagination he worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness as is manifest Therefore whoever Worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by Words or Images or by his own Imagination as is ding to Dr. St.'s Principles is an Idolater but Dr. St. does worship God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by words by Images or his own Imaginations as is evident if he Worships God at all Whence I conclude that he is an Idolater according to his own Concessions Now Dr. St. cannot deny the Consequences if he once grants the Premises neither can he deny the Premises without eating his own words or denying some manifest Principle For certainly he is not so wicked as to confess that he never Worships God nor so Phanatically pround as to say That he does enjoy the Beatifical Vision Whence it follows that he must grant that he Worships God represented unto him in some manner beneath the Beatifical Vision For it is certain that all other Representations of God different from the Beatifical Vision must necessarily fall beneath it Hence I infer that all Representations of God excepting the Beatifical Vision which is an Intuitive Knowledg of God are inferiour to his Greatness For all such Representations as the Apostle teaches us are Enigmatical and per speculum not representing God on the part of the object sicuti est as he is but as Scholastical Divines term them inadequate and abstractive per species alienas by Idea's alien and far estranged from the Nature of God and consequently infinitely beneath his Greatness For whatsoever is not God must necessarily be infinitely beneath him Since therefore all Representations of God not as he is but by alien Species and Idea's such are all Representations of God by words by Images or by abstractive and imperfect Imaginations are far inferiour to his Greatness and Majesty it is manifestly inferred that whoever Worships God represented unto him in either of the forementioned manners must needs worship him represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness Neither does Dr. St. in his Answer to this point any where refute this Doctrine but rather confirms it confessing plainly pag. 39. That his Conceptions cannot reach the Greatness of
clear himself from Self-Contradiction in this point we are willing to declare him free from that imputation in the other points mentioned in my Book Secondly Because we have seen That the Dr. does confessedly grant the Roman Church to be a True way to Heaven a True Church unerring in all Articles of Faith and hence follows as already we have evidenced that she teaches nothing as an Article of Faith which is either a Falsity or Corruption and that she neither requires nor approves of any thing destructive to Salvation And yet after all this Dr. St. maintains that the Roman Church teaches and requires Damnable Errours and gross Violations of Gods laws which doubtless are destructive to Salvation and herein according to his Aspersion consists the danger of Salvation in living and dying in the Communion of the Roman Church That she teaches and allows of particular Enthusiasms contrary to the Law of God and countenances Rebellion contrary to the Duty due to Lawful Superiours which Duty is an Article of Divine Faith And herein he constitutes the pretended Fanaticisme of the Roman Church and finally that she teaches and countenances Divisions in matters of Faith which she cannot do without countenancing Heresies and Errours against Articles of Faith Whence I conclude that Dr. St. palpably contradicts himself by granting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with danger of Salvation in her Communion Fanaticisme and Divisions in matters of Faith Thirdly because one notorious Contradiction being evidenced against any person is enough to overthrow all his authority and credit and to vacate consequently all the Arguments which depend upon his Authority and Faithfulness as the Dr. himself confesses Since therefore Dr. St. stands convicted of a palpable Self contradiction in a matter of so great a moment as is the Charge of Idolatry layed to the Roman Church and since the other Charges above mentioned depend upon his credit and faithfulness in the Quotations he produces out of our Authors and whereon he grounds such Charges we infer that the aforesaid Charges are Null till he has wiped off the Self-contradiction whereof he is Convicted or at least till those who peruse his Books have found out that his Quotations are faithful and effectual to his purpose I have read not long since in the Catholick Apology Third Edition the Right Honourable Author whereof has handled all matters of Fact objected against us so accurately and perspicuously that whoever is not resolved to be obstinate cannot but remain satisfied I have read I say in that elaborate Book pag. 269. What Gondamour observed in one of his Letters to Olivarez He saies that being out of curiosity once with King James at Chappel he perceived the Auditory extreamly attentive to their Minister yet nevertheless they would not he found trust him a whit For no sooner had be cited a place of Scripture but they all ran to their Bibles to see whether it were so or not Now if Protestants will not trust their Ministers and are taught even by the Ministers themselves not to trust them when they quote or rather read places out of their Bible which they have before them citing the Book the Chapter and the Verse and when every one or at least the greatest part of the Auditory have their Bible with them so that if the Minister should forge any thing or be mistaken in the least kind his forgery or mistake would presently be discovered to his Eternal disgrace for forging or mistaking Gods own word and not the word of men If I say even in these Circumstances where there is so little reason to suspect any forgerie or mistake they are taught not to trust their own Ministers why should they trust them in the Allegations against the Roman-Catholicks till themselves have found out that what they alledge against us is as they alledge when many times the Minister does not so much as name the Author for the thing he quotes or names the Author but not the Book or the page when he has not the Author before him nor perchance has ever seen him but what he quotes he has received at a second or third hand or if he has seen him it has been only perfunctoriously or a long time since and so he may have forgotten the words when none of the Auditory have the Book with them nor in any times know where to find it nor if they find it perhaps most of them do not understand the Language wherein it is written so that the forgery or mistake if there be any is not easily detected and at most is a forgery or mistake in the word of man not of God should the Protestants observe only this rule which they are taught by their own Ministers even in Circumstances where there is suspicion of some forgery or mistake viz. not to trust them but to suspend their Judgment till they have consulted the books themselves and find that what their Ministers alledge is true most of the Calumnies urged against us would vanish to nothing and if this is to be observed with other Ministers even according to their own Doctrine much more with Dr. St. who by standing convicted of Self-contradiction has forfeited all his Authority and Credit The Dr. seems very fond of his Treatise concerning the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church wherefore 't will not be amiss to add something in particular in reference to this point He saies pag. 51. That to prove that Fanaticisme does necessarily contain a Resistance against Authority I unhappily quote these his words p. 141. in his Discourse concerning the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church By Fanaticisme we understand either an Enthusiastick way of Religion or resisting Authority under pretence of Religion Now I thought that Dr. St. in the forementioned words had given us two different Notions or Descriptions of Fanaticisme but I was mistaken For the Dr. as it seems intended only in that place to assign two sorts of Fanaticisme The reason of my mistake was because I supposed that the Dr. proceeded like a Scholar and that accordingly beginning to treat of Fanaticisme he would give us some Description thereof But he very illogically tells us how many sorts of Fanaticisme there are without ever telling us what it is I hope he will pardon this mistake and I promise never more to be mistaken in him upon that account nor ever to suppose that he proceeds like a Scholar Neither does this mistake of mine obstruct the truth of the abovementioned Proposition layed down by me which I proved from the common perswasion of Mankind For no body judges that to be Fanaticism which is not grounded upon a private Spirit and Judgment contrary to Authority Neither does nor can the Dr. deny it Hence I inferred that the very constitution of the Roman Church which we both suppose to be a True Church is destructive to Fanaticisme because she does not leave every one to be guided by his private
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
faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood he thinks they are to be understood such an one rightly understands them Now Roman Catholicks understand them as the Natural Faculty in them of discerning Truth and Falshood teaches them and Dr. St. ought to believe that we do so as he will have us to believe the like of him and if we do submit to the judgment of the Roman Catholick Church concerning the true interpretation of Scripture and of the Antient Creeds the Natural Reason that is in us teaches us so to do And sure Dr. St. will not so far abase the Authority of the True Church and of her Doctors as to assert that whoever is induced by their Authority to believe such to be the true sense of such particular places of Scripture as they expound them in must needs misinterpret them Hence I infer that neither the Minor Proposition in the Drs. Syllogisme is granted by us and is not the Dr. like to demonstrate many things if such be his Demonstrations that both the Major and Minor are denied by his Adversaries is not this to do his business very substantially Yet the formentioned Syllogisme is a demonstration against the Dr. that Roman Catholicks and Protestants are undivided in matters of Faith according to his opinion and consequently must be granted by him to be both of the same Church and I concluded thence above that he must either deny the Protestant Church to be True or grant the Roman Church to be so Moreover the Syllogisme I form pag. 13. out of my Fourth and Fifth Proposition is a demonstration against Dr. St. That all Roman Catholicks as long as they remain so are undivided in matters of Faith which is all I there pretended For I never intended to prove that they were so undivided with such as are out of their Communion CHAP. XI Some Difficulties raised by the Dr. against my Judgment concerning his manner of proceeding Rejected BEfore I make an end I cannot but take notice of some Difficulties Dr. St. sets down in his particular Preface relating to the Judgment I frame of his manner of Proceeding in these words couched by me pag. 11. I verily believe that Dr. St. did his Interest byass him that way could with Lucian Porphyrius and those many Libertines of our Country the spawn of such Books as these he could I say flurt with as much picquantness and railery at Christian Religion as he does as the Roman charging Christians with Superstitions Corruptions and Dissensions What does he not say against these words He calls them a base Suggestion wherein there is no colour of Truth pag. 8. A slie Insinuation a Calumny too gross to need any farther Answer pag. 9. and that it had been better to have called him at Atheist in plain terms p. 8. I perceive the man is angry 'T is necessary to treat him mildly that he may come to himself But withal I reflect that many do endeavour to supply with Anger the want of Reason and to Hector one with Bravadoes into their opinion when they cannot draw him with Arguments Let us examin in particular what he objects against the fore-mentioned words He saies That I very honestly distinguish the Christian Religion and the Roman from each other And sure I should not deal honestly did I not distinguish the Roman Religion from the Christian as a Species from the Genus and as a part from the whole For we do not deny but that there are many vulgarly called Christians because they are truly Christened and profess to believe in Christ and acknowledge the Apostles Creed although interpreted in their way Such were Donatists Pelagians Arians and others held by us and Protestants too for Hereticks who are never owned to be Roman Catholicks I confess I have not learn'd as yet so great kindness for our Church as to make it the same Individual Church those who do so with their own Church let them answer for themselves with an Heretical nay with an Idolatrous Church Wherefore 't is manifest that the Christian Religion taken in the aforesaid sense does comprehend more than the Roman So that what I intended in the forementioned place was that the way Dr. St. takes to impugne the particular Tenets of the Roman Church does if it be of any force annul the common Principles of Christianity wherein all those who own themselves to be Christians do agree And that this was my meaning any one who was not resolved to quibble might easily have seen In the next place he asks me pag. 8. What is this verily believe of mine grounded upon Doubtless the rage my words put him into did not let him see what followed For I layed down the Reasons of what before I asserted in these words For if it be a rational way of proceeding to rally together whatever has been objected by the Enemies of a Community without making mention of the Answers given by them or the sentence pronounced in their favour and to Father upon the whole Body the misdemeanours of some members although disowned by the Major part which are the Artifices used by Dr. St. in his works against Catholicks what Community is there so holy which may not easily be traduced All this the Dr. very handsomly omits without so much as answering a word thereunto For he is too wise to take notice of any thing that may prejudice his design and only is pleased to divert the Reader with impertinent Questions as whether This verily believe of mine be grounded upon the Authority of our Church or rather upon some Vision or Revelation made by some of our Saints Whereas in the forementioned words the Motives of that my belief are clearly set down The Dr. cannot deny but that among Christians even of the Primitive Church there were committed Incest Simony Adultery and several other horrid Crimes worse than those which the very Heathens did commit as may be gathered out of the Gospel the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles and that there were Heresies among them as that of the Nicolaites Wherefore if the misdemeanours of some Members may be fathered upon the whole Community although disowned by the Major part this absurdity would follow that the Christan Religion even when it was in its Primitive purity might be called an Incestuous Simonical Adulterous Heretical and a worse Religion than Paganisme Again 't is certain that many Enormous things were objected by the Jews against our Saviour as he was a Blasphemer a Seducer a Drunkard and that he Preached Sedition and that he was possess'd by the Devil and that the Religion he founded was a ridiculous scandalous and Superstitious Religion Now should one of a picquant and malicious wit represent these and several other blemishes objected against Christ his Religion without taking notice of the Answers given them nor of the pregnant Arguments produced in favour and vindication of Christ and his Religion what a low opinion what an aversion from Christian Religion
Dr. STILLINGFLEET STILL AGAINST Dr. STILLINGFLEET OR THE EXAMINATION OF Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet EXAMINED By J. W. LUKE XIX XXII By thine own Mouth I Judge thee Naughty Servant Printed in the Year MDCLXXV The Preface AFter eighteen Months silence Dr. Stillingfleet was pleased to publish an Answer to a Treatise of a sheet and a half penned by me with this Title Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet wherein I laid open the palpable Contradictions committed by him in charging the Roman Church with Idolatry danger of Salvation in her Communion Fanaticisme and Divisions in matters of Faith endeavouring by this way to compel him to be his own Executioner St. ag St. pag. 14. and to make havock of his Arguments with his own Weapon Hence the Dr. took a fancy to frame of me the following Character Pref. Gen. pag. 3. Forthwith there starts up a young Sophister among them Catholicks and bids them be of good heart for by letting fly at him some Squibs and Crackers he did not question but he should put this Monster Dr. St. into such a rage as to make him fall upon himself which design being highly approved in a short time came forth that dapper piece called Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet It was a notable plot and cunningly managed as the Reader may see and clearly too by the following Answer to it In one place he terms all his Adversaries Books so many empty vessels Pref. Gen. pag. 6. thrown out for him to play with In another place he calls my Answer and the Answer of that Learned Author N. O. two elaborate Pamphlets Pref. p. 1. charging me in almost every leaf with Disingenuity or Sophistry or both Sometimes he fancies me to be one of the Romantick Knights pag. 13. which do hurt nowhere but in paper and their own imagination At another time he Parallels me with a Juggler Pag. 47. Now he stiles me a half-witted man and a man without Sense Page 50. then a Popish Leviathan and then a Pusionello affirming that any man whom I encounter must be accounted a Gyant Pag 4. he saies that his Adversaries have beaten nothing but the Air and themselves p. 2. that they have not said one wise word in a just Vindication of their Church from Fanaticisme and p. 51. that they plunge those who relie upon their word into the depths of Atheisme p. 59. he compares the Roman Church with the Augean Stable p. 10. he avers that what I say is a base suggestion and a sly insinuation p. 8. absurd silly and idle stuff p. 39. vain and sophistical talk p. 64. that I designed nothing but Sophistry and trifling and p. 43. that I sought for nothing but words to raise Cavils upon In fine he closes up his Answer to me in Don Quixots stile Page 68. Go thy way then for the Eighth Ghampion of Christendome enjoy the benefit of thy illustrious Fame Sit down at ease and relate to thy immortal honour thy mighty exploits only when thou hast done remember thou hast encountred nothing but the Wind-mills of thy own imagination and the man whom thou thoughtest to have executed by his own hands stands by and laughs at thy ridiculous attempts Notwithstanding this and much more railing and scoffing language wherewith he lards all his works the good man out of his exceeding great humility does plainly confess in his answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle Apologetical in the Preface to the Benedictines Page 4. That he is yet to learn the Art and Terms of Railing What yet to learn the art and terms too of Railing well then we may conclude that he will never learn this art for I am confident there cannot be found in the world a man who is able to teach him A Juggler a man without sense an empty vessel a Leviathan a Pusionello base suggestions sly insinuations absurd silly and idle stuff vain and sophistical talk and such like are it seems in this Drs. Dialect terms only of pure civility 'T is in vain to examin what Reason Dr. St. had to fasten upon my Companions and my self such scurrilous expressions For we must not expect from him any Reason or Proof for what he saies By these and such like Romantick Phrases which are the chief Ornament that sets off his works we may easily guess in what books this Dr. of Divinity has spent his time and that he is well verst in Don Quixot the Seven Champions and other Romantick Stories Sure he erred in his Vocation had he quitted all serious matters and dedicated himself wholly to Drollery and Romances with two or three years under Hudibras he would have been a Master in that Faculty the Stage might have been a gainer by it and the Church of England would have been no loser But who would imagin that in the very same book and within some few leaves where he Characterizes his Adversaries in such reproachful language he should have the confidence to affirm Pref. p. 5. I have learn'd of him who when he was reviled reviled not again not only to forbear reproaching them his Adversaries in the same manner is it because he reproaches them in a far higher manner but to return them good for evil and to pray for them while they calumniate me What language is reproachful if the forementioned expressions be not If such be Dr. St's Prayers who will be so mad as to desire the Dr. to pray for him or what Contradiction can there be more palpable than to revile us in such a manner and then to tell us that he does not revile us but only pray for us Suppose that one of as hot a temper as Dr. St. should call him a Trifling Sophister an empty Vessel a Juggler a man without sense a half-witted man a Romantick Knight a Socinian Leviathan a Pusionello the 8th Champion of Christendom and a leader into Atheisme for such fine Epithets as these he is pleased to bestow either upon all Catholicks in general or upon some in particular should one I say draw such a Character of Dr. St. and then tell him Sir after all this I have no intention to revile you God forbid I should I do only pray for you What opinion could any rational man conceive of such a person who should so palpably and so notoriously contradict himself But alas poor Dr. I pity him he is so possest with the Spirit of Self-contradiction that he can scarce write some few leaves without falling into one of his Fits and even in this book where he had made it his business to clear himself from so foul an imputation he could not forbear to afford us fresh proofs and instances thereof Neither am I ignorant at what Dr. St. aims with this manner of dealing He would fain have me contest with him either at Drolling or Railing and then he would be sure to have the better of me and between Railing and Drolling we should both
Recognitions recalling his former Errours though he might make a just Volume upon that Subject and begin it with the Recantation of what he sets down in his Irenicon destructive to the Episcopal Dignity which he is loth to do for he sees that book endeared him to the Presbyterian party whom he seems to Court I confess that it is no blemish for a man when he is better informed to recal the Errours which heretofore he assented unto For to err is a frailty of men but to persevere obstinately in an Errour as necessarily he must do who persists in a palpable Contradiction is a brutish obstinacy and what greater disparagement than this can there be for a rational man Now Dr. St. not only heretofore but even in this present book after he had Charged the Roman Church with gross Idolatry affirms that she is a true Church as shall hereafter appear without having ever yet recalled that Proposition and consequently he persists to contradict himself as he now admits Whence follows that the Allegation of Bellarmin's Recognitions or Recantations was nothing to the purpose For it is as if one should argue thus Bellarmin though he erred yet because he recalled his Errours making a Book of Recognitions did not lose his Reputation neither did he deserve that we should slight what he saies Therefore Dr. St. who has erred and does persist to err who has and does still contradict himself without ever having recalled his Errours does not deserve we should slight what he affirms or thus Saint Peter though he sinned grievously yet because he did sincerely repent was a great Saint Therefore such as have sinned grievously and never repent are great Saints Let Dr. St. imitate Bellarmin and recal his former Errous and he will lose nothing no not his Authority which notwithstanding as he himself affirms Self-contradiction being once proved especially if it be insisted upon is utterly overthrown But we must reflect That such as recal their former Opinions or Tenets are in two sorts Some recal Tenets heretofore assented unto because they find them inconsistent with Errours which they are resolved to defend as if one for instance who being not able to vindicate the General Principles of Christianity without confessing the particular Tenets of the Roman Church to be true should out of hatred to such particular Tenets deny the General principles of Christianity which before he had yielded unto Such men as these are far from deserving any Commendation for recalling their former perswasions but rather shew an inveterate obstinacy and odium against the Truth and amongst such men Dr. St. must be enrolled should he to defend the Idolatry of the Roman Church deny her to be a true Church contrary to the Truth he has so often acknowledged and to the very Grounds whereon he builds the truth of Protestancy For though I do not allow of his Grounds yet I Assent to the Truth of the Roman-Catholick Religion which is evidently thence inferred Others to embrace the Truth which in process of time they have discovered recal former Tenets contrary thereunto as St. Augustin and Bellarmin did So do many who finding Protestant Religion to be false relinquish it and embrace the Roman opposite thereunto Such men as these shew great ingenuity and sincerity and by revoking such Opinions with all Wise men rather gain than lose Authority or Reputation And among these men Dr. St. would deserve to be listed if he would be pleased to recant and declare plainly to the world that when he Charged the Roman Church with Idolatry Fanaticism Divisions in matters of Faith danger of Salvation in her Communion and other Corruptions he over shot himself as several even of his own Friends confess he did at least in the Charge of Idolatry Besides when one recalls an Opinion as inconsistent with the Truth to which he had heretofore assented he also virtually recalls all the proofs thereof acknowledging them to be either false or unconcluding And since what St. Augustin and Bellarmin stood to after their Retractations contradicted what they held before 't is manifest that their proofs either on the one side or other were void and consequently recalling such Opinions they recalled also their proofs of them And here I cannot but reflect that Dr. St. seems to list me pag. 14. among such as he terms Revolters from the Church of England Thanks be to God I was bred a Roman-Catholick my Parents and Ancestors were of the same Religion and suffered much for their constancy therein And I can assure the Dr. that for all I have seen in him I am so far from being startled in my Religion that I am rather confirmed therein For a weak impugnation of the Truth is a confirmation thereof and if God shall be pleased to give me his Grace not to quit the General Principles of Christianity I shall never upon the account of what Dr. St. saies relinquish the particular Tenets of the Catholick Church Many ask me what matters it that Dr. St. palpably contradicts himself and persists so to do which is the same as if they should ask me what matters it if Dr. St. be a Madman And to say the truth it matters very little for the Publick good that he be so but it matters very much that being so he should be commonly reputed a Wiseman For what greater damage can be imagined than that the people be guided by a Madman in affairs of so great concern as those of Religion are Neither can one do a greater service to the Common-wealth than to discover their Guides to be mad if really they be so Neither can there be a better way to discover it than by shewing they grant and persist to grant palpable Contradictions Moreover they might say the same in case I had attacked any other particular Doctor of the Protestant Church for Dr. St. carries as great a vogue as any other asking me what matters it if I force such a Doctor to manifest Contradictions and by consequence bring him to a Non-plus So that were this Objection justifiable it would prove that it is of no concern to defeat and bring to a Non-plus any particular Adversary which is certainly false and repugnant to the common practice of all Learned and Zealous men Besides had I proved only that the Charges which Dr. St. saies upon us did contradict some particular Tenet held only by the Dr. and some few of his Partizans though that would have been sufficient to have baffled him yet it would not have been of so great moment But I have shewn that the Aspersions he casts upon us do contradict General Principles assented unto not only by Dr. St. and all Roman-Catholicks but also by all Learned Protestants Members of the English Church and by many others of different Professions and consequently I convince all such that the forementioned Aspersions are false as being repugnant to True and General Principles granted by them and that whatever is produced
be consistent with Loyalty and that if they could prove to him all sorts of High Treason to be inconsistent with Loyalty the Consequence of it would be that his Charity must be so much the less but the danger would be the same Behold here the Vindication of the forementioned Witness drawn up in the same terms and upon the same grounds whereon Dr. St. in his Controversie builds his own Vindication And yet what prudent man is there that would not look upon the aforesaid Vindication of a Witness convicted of such a manifest Self-contradiction as frivolous and insignificant Yea we have shewed already upon another account that on supposition he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all his Arguments grounded either upon Authority or meer Reason if he has any such wherewith he pretends to make good the Charges cast upon us are false or impertinent The same is to be affirmed of whatever he shall hereafter object against our Church in matters of Faith as long as he holds it to be a True Church For nothing can be objected against our Church in that kind which does not contradict the forementioned Principle Now 't is very pretty to consider how the Dr. sports with the forementioned instance of a Witness whereof I made use grounding all his quibbles upon so gross an ignorance as is to confound Parities with identities and the being one thing like to another with being the same which Topick is very frequent in the Dr.'s Books For because a Witness must make an Affidavit before the Masters of the Chancery he presently fancies that a Writer of Controversies supposing this parity to be good must make an Affidavit and no other Obligation will suffice him before Masters of the Court of Controversies and because whatever is said by a Witness at the Bar is taken upon his Oath he imagins in the same supposition that whatever a Writer of Controversie saies must be taken also upon his Oath and in no other manner and because a Witness who stands Convicted to have forsworn himself according to the Laws of this Kingdom is to be set in the Pillory p. 27. with his Accusation on his Forehead he imagines himself as being proved guilty of Self-contradiction to be set in the Pillory with this Accusation on his forehead Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet not being able to conceive that any other punishment can be inflicted upon one who contradicts himself in matters of moment Are not these Fancies of Dr. St. wonderfully witty what fine Stuff will the Dr. make with Scripture wherein Christ is compared to a Worm to a Door to a Lamb to Lyon and to several other things infinitely below his Greatness if he be permitted to use this manner of quibbling and to make identities of parities or Parables Had not the Dr. made it his Study not to understand us he might clearly have seen that what we intended by the aforesaid instance was that whoever stands convicted to have Contradicted himself most notoriously in matters of so great concern as those of Religion are deserves no credit should be given him in such matters till he has recanted his Errour which the Dr. himself does grant I am not acquainted with the Stile of the English Church nor of our Universities yet I conceive that there would be no absurdity nor any thing done contrary to the practice of other Countries and Universities that Doctors of Divinity and publick Preachers should take their Oath to Teach and Preach the Truth in matters of Religion And in this Case should they palpably contradict themselves they would be guilty of Perjury And though they do not take their Oaths yet a natural Obligation lies upon every one not to commit gross Contradictions in matters of so high concern Some there are who though they confess that the way we have taken is sufficient to confound our Adversaries yet because they think we argue ad hominem they do not look upon this way as effectual to clear the Roman Church from the Aspersions cast upon her For Arguments ad hominem are good to confound an Adversarie but not to evince the Truth To this I Answer that an Argument ad hominem properly speaking is when one proceeds upon a Principle which he judges to be false yet because it is granted by his Adversary he endeavours to confute him thereby As for example when a Catholick argues against a Protestant out of such Versions of the Protestant Bible which are false and contrary to the Chatholick Bible to confute the particular Tenets of Protestancy whence I conclude that the way I made use of against Dr. St. was not properly ad hominem For I proceeded upon a Principle which I my self with all other Roman-Catholicks and several others of different professions hold to be true viz. The Roman Church is a true Church and which is granted by Dr. St. Neither is it of any concern that some deny the Roman Church to be a true Church For if all Arguments are ad hominem which are grounded upon some premise that is denied by some almost all Arguments are ad hominem For what is there that some do not deny Should I have defeated all Dr. St.'s Objections out of plain Scripture admitted both by him and us no body could rationally have objected that I did argue only ad hominem or slight my proofs upon that account and yet how many are there that deny the very Scripture which we and Dr. St. agree upon To close up therefore the first part of my Reply By what hitherto has been laid down it evidently appears that on supposition Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insict upon not only all the Charges of Idolatry Fanatiscisme danger of Salvation in our Communion and Divisions in matters of Faith which he pretends to fasten upon our Church fall to nothing but also all the proofs whether drawen from Authority or Reason wherewith he endeavours to make good such Charges are invalidated and annull'd which is all I did pretend in my Answer to the Dr. and whether this be not a sufficient Answer to his Book I leave to the judgment of any judicious man whatsoever Yea the Dr. himself being Conscious as it seems how ill a cause he had should he grant himself guilty of Self-contradiction in matters of so great Concern passing to the second part of his pretended Answer saies thus pag. 17. I had best stand upon my defence and utterly deny that I have contradicted my self in any thing in which J Ws. has charged me And to pass also unto the second part of my Reply let 's now consider how he does vindicate himself from the Contradictions charged upon him CHAP. IV. The Evasions of the Dr. to clear himself from Self-contradiction in Charging the Roman Church with Idolatry Examined COncerning the clearing himself from Contradiction in imputing to the Roman Church Idolatry and yet granting her to be a True Church he saies pag.
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
Disciples of the Pharisees and Officers of Herod came to tempt our Saviour Mat. 22. they proposed unto him a question and our Saviour starting a new question and raising a new Difficulty solved the question proposed unto him and silenced his Adversaries But had Dr. St. been with the Enemies of Christ in that occasion he would have suggested unto them That it was a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavelling humour in order to answer one question to start another Besides what question or difficulty do I start I take for granted that the Roman Church is a true Church as Dr. St. has heretofore and does still grant and hence I prove the nullity of the Charge he laies against us which is the common way of confuting an Adversary viz. Out of Principles granted by him to infer the contradictory of what he maintains But Dr. St. had charged me with Sophistry and Captiousness and he must make it good the best way he can which is to feign his Adversary to say what he does not CHAP. VII The Invalidity of the Doctor 's Answers to our Propositions in Particular LEt us see now for the greater satisfaction of the Reader what he Answers to every particular Proposition I laid down in order to prove him guilty of Self contradiction in Charging us with Idolatry and to clear our Church from so foul an Aspersion my first Proposition was this 'T is an Article of Faith and a Fundamental point of Religion That the Honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature This Proposition the Dr. absolutely grants without any distinction saying pag. 26. His first Proposition I agree to He adds afterwards That there is no dispute between us whether that Honour which is due only to God may be given to a Creature and finally he grants this Proposition to be in it self true But after he had absolutely granted it without any distinction he begins to quibble at it But I desire he would tell me whether the exception he afterwards makes against it does hinder or not the absolute truth thereof If it does not what more can I or any one else desire when we lay down Principles or Propositions than that the Proposition we advance be absolutely true If it does hinder the absolute truth of the aforesaid Proposition why did he grant it absolutely without any distinction But what is the exception he makes against us in this Proposition He saies We should have discust what that Honour is which is due only to God Wherein he adds there is a great dispute between them and us So that it seems he would have had us lay down among the Principles which we advanced against him some thing that is disputed between us which is point blank against the very notion of a Principle which ought to he agreed unto by all or at least by the Adversary with whom we deal So that he accuses us that we proceed Sophistically and Captiously and why Because forsooth we do not lay down for a Principle that which is not a Principle which doubtless is a frivolous accusation Neither was there any need we should discuss in particular what that Honour is which is due only to God For the Honour we give to Images or Saints either is due only to God or not If the Dr. saies it is then it is a palpable Contradiction for the Dr. to affirm that our Church is True and yet that she allows Saints and Images such an Honour If he saies it is not then how can he accuse our Church of Idolatry because she gives to Saints and Images such an Honour Wherefore without descending to the particular Honour due only to God we prove that either Dr. St. must confess that our Church is free from the aforesaid Idolatray or that he contradicts himself which was my proper task in that place and is not this enough He adds pag. 27. That it cannot excuse us from Idolatry to say That we acknowledge it to be Idolatry to give that Honour which we suppose to be due only to God to a meer Creature in case that he can prove that we give to meer Creatures any part of that Honour which is due to God I do confess that were it once proved that we give any Honour duly only to God to a meer Creature such an acknowledgment would not excuse us from Idolatry as it did not excuse the Heathens from the like Crime although they acknowledged the same Truth But here we must reflect That sometimes the Dr. saies that 't is Idolatry to give to a meer Creature the Honour due only to God and in that he saies the truth Othertimes as in this place he omits only and speaks of Honour due to God For some honour is due to God but not only to God As when our Saviour was upon earth without doubt the Honour of kneeling down before him was due unto him which Honour notwithstanding is due unto a King and to ones Father But what is all this that Dr. St. sets down in this Paragraph to clear himself from Self-contradiction in asserting our Church to be a true Church and yet charging her with Idolatry which was the design in this second part of his Answer and my immediate intention in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet was to prove him guilty of Self-contradiction as he saies page 28. His immediate intention was not to clear their Church from Idolatry but to accuse me of Contradiction yet I have shewn above that if I evince that he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon I do manifestly clear our Church from Idolatry and that this part was of my design My 2d Proposition was as follows To teach Idolatry is to err against the forementioned Article of Faith Fundamental point of Religion i.e. as he saies to teach Idolatry is to teach That the Honour which is due only to God is to be given I sayed may be given to a meer Creature To this second Proposition he Answers thus pag. 27. That this is to teach Idolatry no one questions but he adds that they who do not teach this i. e. that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature may yet teach Idolatry and therefore he saies We should if we had proceeded as we ought to have done have laid down an universal Negative viz. No Church that does not teach this can be guilty of Idolatry and not a particular Affirmative as he fancies this Proposition of mine to be To teach Idolatry is to teach that the Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature Hence we may discover how great a Logician Dr. St. is I wonder how he should fancy that Proposition of mine to be a particular Affirmative and not an Universal Is this Proposition a particular Affirmative To be a man is to be Animal rationale Sure no body that understands any thing of Rationality can take
not to err against any Fundamental point of Religion and yet affirming that she teaches Idolatry and such gross Idolatry For to teach Idolatry especially such a gross Idolatry as he is pleased to Father upon us is according to his own express assertion to teach or require that the Honour or Worship due only to the Creator be given to to a Creature and to teach this is to err against the contrary Truth viz. The Honour which is due only to the Creator is not to be given to a Creature as is evident and consequently it is to err against a Fundamental point of Religion For such does Dr. St. acknowledge to be the aforesaid Truth Whence I conclude that to say our Church does not err against any Fundamental point and yet that she does teach such gross Idolatry as he is pleased to fasten upon her is to say That she does not err against any and yet that she does err against some which is a palpable Contradiction Were the Idolatry he Fathers upon us destructive only to something requisite meerly to the Soundness of a Church and to some Non-fundamental point his distinction would have been to some purpose But since the Idolatry he laies to our Charge is destructive according to our own Concession to something requisite to the very Being of a Church viz. to a Fundamental and Essential point the forementioned Distinction of the Truth and Soundness of a Church is altogether frivolous Finally Dr. St. pag. 32. speaking in particular concerning our fifth Proposition saies That if this Assertion The Church of Rome does not err against any point necessary to Salvation be only meant of those Essential points of Faith which he supposes antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church he denies it not and he makes the antient Creeds of the Catholick Church before he had made mention only of the Apostles Creed to be the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to Salvation But he adds That he does not see of what use the forementioned Concession of his can be to us in the present debate unless we can shew which he supposes we are never able to doe that whatever Church does embrace the antient Creeds and own all the Articles of Faith which are contained in them cannot be guilty of Idolalatry But this answer of the Dr. is lyable to the same exceptions we produced against him in the Explanation of our Third Proposition For 't is a very different thing to say A Church that embraces and owns all Essential points of Faith which is the Dr. 's Proposition and a Church that does not err against any Essential point of Faith which is our Proposition tacitely at least granted by him For a Church may contradict her self and err against those very points which she embraces and owns how can the Roman Church be a True Church as the Dr. often confesses she is unless she be free from all Fundamental Errours and how can she be free from all Fundamental Errours if she errs against any Fundamental point and finally how does she not err against a Fundamental point if she teaches Idolatry yea the grossest Idolatry of the world Whence I conclude that not only this main Proposition is granted by him in the sense I pretend viz. That the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion even of those which he acknowledges to be such but also that this his Concession is effectual to evince our present design viz. to clear the Roman Church from the Idolatry cast upon her and to prove the Dr. guilty of Self-contradiction by granting that the Roman Church does not err against any Fundamental point of Faith and yet charging her with Idolatry and with such gross Idolatry To say the truth I would never desire an Adversarie to grant me more in order to confute him than Dr. St. has and does grant in the present debate For these Five Propositions set down by me are either absolutely granted by the Dr. or at least not denyed by him in the sense I pretended as is apparent by what has been discuss'd and we take this Non-denial of the Dr. for a grant or consent according to that Maxime Qui tacet consentire videtur And certainly had he thought them false he would have denyed them whenas he does not so much as deny one of them in the sense intended but some other Propositions very different Wherefore these Propositions being granted in the conformity aforesaid the method I took was to deduce from them the contradictory of the Calumny cast upon our Church by Dr. St. For to lay down Propositions or Principles and to deduce nothing from them is as if one should lay Foundations without building the Superstructures as to make Deductions without first laying Princiciples as some do is to build without Foundation And because some cannot others will not make by themselves the deductions especially when they are contrary to what formerly they have imbibed and are resolved to maintain I thought it best to make them to their hand However because the main nay the sole exception that some persons had against my Book was because I used a Scholastick Method framing my deductions in a ridged Syllogistical form it seems to me expedient for the satisfaction of such persons to produce here the reasons that moved me thereunto which are these First Because this method I took is a close clear short and convincing way and since I desired in a matter of so great concern and not having too much time to be quick close clear and short with my Adversary in order to convince him of Self-contradiction I made choice of this Method Secondly all Discourses whatsoever loose or not loose do necessarily imply some Syllogisme wherein the truth one endeavours to prove is inferred or pretended to be inferred from some Principles And although all kinds of Discourses are obnoxious to Fallacies and Sophistry yet this difference there is between Loose or Rhetorical Discourses and Logical or not Loose that in Rhetorical Discourses as being commonly interlaced with several digressions and gay Metaphors which amuze the Reader the fallacy is easily disguised But in ridged Syllogistical Discourses devested from gaudy Expressions quaint Metaphors and unnecessary digressions the Fallacy if there be any is with far less difficulty detected And this is the reason that when we will manifest the Sophistry of a loose discourse we do commonly reduce it to a Syllogistical form the better to discover it Now because I desired to deal fairly and sincerely with Dr. St. I made use of this method to the end that were there any fallacie in my Syllogisms it might more easily appear unto him And although in almost every page he impeaches me of Sophistry Captiousness yet he do's not legally shew any one of my Syllogisms to be lyable to any of the Fallacies the Logicians make mention of and one would think that
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
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
would such a man breed in those who either by reason of their Education or upon some other account were ignorant of the true condition of Christian Religion and had already some prejudice against it That these are the Artifices used by Dr. Still against Roman Catholicks might be evidenced by several instances taken out of his works One of the proofs that he alledges to evince the Roman Church to be guilty of Fanaticisme for that was his intent are the extravagancies of the Alumbradoe's and Fratricelli who were not only disowned but condemned by the Prelates of the Roman Church Moreover he pretends to father upon the Roman Church the Gun-powder Treason though detested by Roman Catholicks and without so much as taking notice of the Sentence that King James who was most concerned in that plot gave in Vindication of Catholicks in his own Declaration about it saying That the generality of his Catholick Subjects did abhor such a detestable Conspiracy no less than he himself If such Artifices therefore as these be warrantable what Community is there so holy I say again which may not easily be traduced Should God permit Dr. St. as certainly he may to declare himself a Jew or an Atheist he has already laid up good store of Arguments wherewith according to his manner of proceeding to traduce Christianity Fathering upon the Christian Religion all the horrible sins that ever have been committed by any Christian whatsoever Protestant or Catholick And if he should want matter to fill up his Volumes as following this way of attacking his Adversary he scarce ever can he may suppose Christians either to teach Crimes which they do not teach or what they do teach to be Crimes which is the way he commonly takes to oppugne Roman Catholicks Since therefore the same Topicks and Reasons drawn from them wherewith Dr. St. endeavours to traduce the particular Tenets of the Roman Religion may without difficulty be levelled against the general Principles of Christian Religion That he has been pleased to make use of those Arguments rather against the former than the latter could not proceed out of more Reason for the one than for the other and consequently it proceeded from some Interest which has so great an Adscendent over the hearts of men or other passion that byass'd him that way Whence I affirmed that had the same passion of Interest byassed him against Christian Religion which made him so malicious against the Roman it is very credible that he would have shewen himself as pievish against the one as the other All this I have said to signifie what it was that this verily believe of mine was founded upon In confirmation of what was couched in the forementioned words I added immediately But this Dr. is so unfortunate as well in vindicating the Protestant as in attacking the Roman Church that he neither produces any thing in vindication of Protestancy but the same or the like may be alledged in defence of Socinianisme and other Heresies condemned as such by Protestants See the Guide in Controversies Discourse 4. nor opposes any thing against the Roman Religion but the same or the like may be objected by Jews or Pagans against the Christian which according to Scripture is a scandal to the former and a derision to the latter So that whoever will be pleased to reflect seriously upon his Discourses he may clearly see that his Proofs for Protestancy will assoon make one a Socinian as a Protestant and his objections against Catholicks will assoon make one no Christian as no Catholick And what does the Dr. answer to all this All that he could which is just nothing not taking so much as notice of the forementioned words although they contain two main points which are proved at large by several Catholick Authors and do utterly enervate whatsoever Dr. St. brings for himself or against us and do moreover force the Dr. himself to salve whatever he produces against Catholicks if he will be a Christian and to confess the inanity of whatever he alledges for Protestants as such if he will not be a Socinian The first point is that he alledges nothing in defence of Protestancy as Protestancy which may not be alledged and with the same force too in vindication of Socinianisme or any other herefie This point has been discuss'd at large by those two famous and solid Divines the Author of Protestancy without Principles and The Guide in Controversies Disc 4. now quoted wherein is contained a Plea between a Protestant and a Socinian And although Dr. St. has had at last the courage to offer at an answer to the forementioned Books yet he has not dared to touch this point which is no small confirmation of the opinion some have conceived that Dr. St. is a Socinian and yet the Church of England looks upon Socinians as Hereticks The second point is That Dr. St. produces nothing against the particular Tenets of the Roman Church but the same or the like may be objected by Jews Turks Pagans or Libertins against the Common Principles of Christianity Neither is he ignorant but that some Pagans look upon our Scriptures as Fables no less than Dr. St. looks upon the Legends of our Saints as such The Jews also denyed the New Testament and the Turks make our Scripture to truckle under to their Alcoran This point is solidly discuss'd in that erudite Book Reason and Religion and although the Dr. pretends to answer it yet he prudently waves this point or very slightly touches it spending the far greater part of his Answer in scoffing at the Miracles of the Roman Church even those which have been authentically approved in particular by her in the Canonization of Saints thinking this a fit subject for his drolling Wit Yet what he there saies concerning this Argument is a new confirmation of this our second point For he objects nothing material against the Miracles of the Roman Church but the same or the like is or may be objected by Libertins against the Miracles of Christ the Prophets and the Apostles as the same Author in his late reply does make apparent Yet the Dr. to shew us that he is a Christian saies pag. 8. That he has made it his business to assert the Truth of Christian Religion in a large Discourse several years since published by him But to this he himself answers bringing the Example of Vanninus who writ for Providence when he denied a Deity pag. 9. he concludes thus In plain terms I know but one way to satisfie such as you are but I will keep from it as long as I can and that is to go to Rome and to be burn'd for my Faith For that is the kindness there shewed to those who contend for the purity of Christian Religion against the Corruptions of the Roman But the Dr. must pardon me if I tell him plainly that I cannot believe he would ever be burn'd for defending the particular Tenets of the Protestant Church
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