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
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
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-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
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
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
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
difficulties Does he therefore mean by it a Church qualified with such Laws that whoever keeps close to them till death and let the way to Salvation be never so secure yet if one does not keep to it 'till death what will it avail him will certainly be saved If this be his meaning there is no True Church which is not sound and secure in this sense For a True Church must contain all things necessary to Salvation both in order to our Belief and Practice as is certain neither does Dr. St. deny it and sure whoever dies having discharged all things necessary to his Salvation as well in reference to his Belief as Practice will certainly be saved as is manifest from those words of our Saviour Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata which is a much as if he had said whoever observes my Commandments shall certainly be saved and doubtless no Body can do all that is necessary to Salvation without observing Gods Commandments Does he mean by it a Church that does not teach any thing whatsoever as an Article of Faith which is either an Errour or Corruption This seems to be his meaning But neither is it possible that any Church whatsoever should be a True Church and yet not sound and secure in this sense For it is a manifest Contradiction to affirm That such a Church is a True Church but yet that she fathers upon God or teaches God to be the Author of some Errour or Corruption as necessarily she must if she teaches any Errour or Corruption as an Article of Faith A True Church must not err against any Fundamental point of Faith as is certain nor consequently against this point God is not the Author of any Errour or Corruption whatsoever which doubtless is Fundamental A true Church therefore must not teach any Errour or Corruption as an Article of Faith or which is the same must not teach God to be the Author of any Errour or Corruption For to teach this is to err against the forementioned point Does he mean by it a Church that does not require or enjoyn any Practice or any other thing destructive to Salvation as doubtless all Idolatry is whether she teaches it as an Article of Faith or not But how can a Church be true and yet not sound nor secure in this sense also A true Church must lead men to Salvation and certainly it cannot lead men to Salvation if it enjoyns and requires them to do things destructive thereunto Wherefore I cannot see what Dr. St. is able to mean by a Sound and Secure Church which does not prove either that there is not in the world any Church True and Sound or that there is no Church True which is not Sound and secure and we are so far from confounding a True Church with a Sound and Secure Church in the first sense abovementioned i. e. with a Church free from all dangers and difficulties as Dr. St. will needs suppose we do that we constantly affirm that there is no True Church in the world Sound and Secure in that sense according to what I set down in my Book pag. 5. But the Dr. did not think fit to take notice thereof From what has been agitated in the precedent Discourses it manifestly appears that Dr. St. is guilty of Self Contradiction by asserting that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet charging her with Idolatry yea the grossest Idolatry of the world and as I promised at the beginning I am willing to admit as Judges in this plea the Learned men in our two famous Universities CHAP. IX The Doctor 's Answer to my Appendix proved Frivolous I Come now to consider what Answer Dr. St. is pleased to afford to the Appendix of my Book which he Attacks in the next place wherein to confirm the former Doctrine concerning the Nullity of the Charge of Idolatry cast upon the Roman Church I proved that either his Principles whereon he bottoms the forementioned Charge were not good or that he himself was an Idolater and the greatest part of his Answer being contained in less than three leaves in Octavo is stuffed up with Scoffs gawdy expressions jingling Metaphors superfluous Digressions Railery and such like Chaff the common Ingredients of his Books After I had declared each premise by it self I summed up the substance of my Argument in this manner Whoever Worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness is an Idolater according to Dr. St.'s main Principle whereby he pretends to make good the Charge of Idolatry laid upon us in the Veneration of Images But whoever Worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by Images by words or by Imagination he worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness as is manifest Therefore whoever Worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by Words or Images or by his own Imagination as is ding to Dr. St.'s Principles is an Idolater but Dr. St. does worship God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by words by Images or his own Imaginations as is evident if he Worships God at all Whence I conclude that he is an Idolater according to his own Concessions Now Dr. St. cannot deny the Consequences if he once grants the Premises neither can he deny the Premises without eating his own words or denying some manifest Principle For certainly he is not so wicked as to confess that he never Worships God nor so Phanatically pround as to say That he does enjoy the Beatifical Vision Whence it follows that he must grant that he Worships God represented unto him in some manner beneath the Beatifical Vision For it is certain that all other Representations of God different from the Beatifical Vision must necessarily fall beneath it Hence I infer that all Representations of God excepting the Beatifical Vision which is an Intuitive Knowledg of God are inferiour to his Greatness For all such Representations as the Apostle teaches us are Enigmatical and per speculum not representing God on the part of the object sicuti est as he is but as Scholastical Divines term them inadequate and abstractive per species alienas by Idea's alien and far estranged from the Nature of God and consequently infinitely beneath his Greatness For whatsoever is not God must necessarily be infinitely beneath him Since therefore all Representations of God not as he is but by alien Species and Idea's such are all Representations of God by words by Images or by abstractive and imperfect Imaginations are far inferiour to his Greatness and Majesty it is manifestly inferred that whoever Worships God represented unto him in either of the forementioned manners must needs worship him represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness Neither does Dr. St. in his Answer to this point any where refute this Doctrine but rather confirms it confessing plainly pag. 39. That his Conceptions cannot reach the Greatness of
God and he would be a Fanatick should he assert rhe contrary Now since Dr. St. worships God represented unto him by his own Conceptions these remaining far beneath his Greatness we conclud that Dr. St. worships God represented unto him in a way inferiour to his Grandeur and Majesty Wherefore to save himself from being an Idolater he must necessarily deny this Principle to be true viz. Whoever worships God represented unto him in a way inferiour to his Greatness is an Idolater Yet this is the main Principle whereon he grounds the Charge of Idolatry cast upon the Roman Church in the Veneration of Images and hence is manifestly proved that the aforesaid Charge as bottomed upon a false and Sandy Principle is altogether groundless and frivolous which was what I intended by this Appendix made in confirmation of what I had laid down before to prove our Church guitless of Idolatry Let 's now examin what Artifices the Dr. uses to clear himself from this imputation of Idolatry drawn up against him out of his own Principles and to prevent the Train as he saies pag. 35. laid to blow him up fetch'd from his own Stores First he seems to have been inclined to suspect that this Charge of Idolatry cast upon him was intended only for a piece of Drollery This is a pretty way to stave off all Arguments ab absurdo which are very concluding and frequent among Learned men when to prove the inanity of some Principle produced by the Adversary they lay open the absurdities which thence ensue A compendious Answering to all such Arguments according to this incomparable Doctors way of answering is to tell those who frame them That they are in jest and that without doubt they intend only to Droll But if this manner of Answering be warrantable 't will be sufficient to tell Dr. St. That his whole Discourse of Idolatry and Fanaticism charged upon the Roman Church and almost all his other works were intended only for pieces of Drollery Aperson of Quality and no Roman-Catholick could find no fitter place in his Library for Dr. St.'s Discourse of the Roman Idolatry than to put it among the Play-books After this to annul the aforesaid Charge of Idolatry he betakes himself to admiration What saies he pag. 35. is it come to this at last and am I become an Idolater too who was never apt to think my self inclined so much as to Superstition I marry Sir This is a speedy way indeed to dispatch Arguments with no more than an Admiration What! Dr. Stillingfleet and Idolater Dr. Stillingfleet that Zealous man for Religion who knows not how to defend his own Church to be True without laying down Principles that prove all Churches never so Heretical or Schismatical to be true and Orthodox Dr. Stillingfleet that pious and godly Protestant who has so great a kindness for the Protestant Church that he makes her the very same with an Idolatrous Church and with such a kind of Idolatry that is worse than the adoring a red Cloath for God! Dr. Stillingfleet so Religious a man that by all we can guess by his Principles alledged above we cannot determin whether he be of any or of no Religion What such a man as this an Idolater no God forbid And why Because forsooth he was never apt to think himself inclined that way Excellent just as if one should say The Heathens did not think themselves Idolatrous nor inclined that way Therefore they were no Idolaters I wonder why Dr. St. who boasts so much of his Charity does not go to Newgate to instruct the Malefactors there how they may defend themselves when they are Arraigned for Thieves or Murderers telling them with one sole Exclamation they may invalidate all the Evidences brought in against them What They Thieves They Murderers They take away mens Goods and Lives too who were never apt to think themselves inclined but to works of Piety and as coming instructed by so good an Advocate they would doubtless be instantly discharged But if this be the Champion of the English Church as he is cryed up to be she is in as miserable a condition any of her Enemies con wish her Such Defenders as these have brought the English Protestancy so low that 't is no wonder they should in a every Session of Parliament give her a Cordial to keep her alive Such Ministers contribute far more to the ruine of Protestancy than any Roman Priests Yea if this manner of answering be solid it follows also that the Charges of Idolatry and Fanaticisme wherewith he impeaches our Church are without difficulty repealed saying only What The Church of Rome Idolatrous That Church which has banished Paganisme from the greatest part of the World Should she introduce an Idolatry more detestable than the grossest Idolatry of the Pagans That Church which even Protestants themselves confess to have been the only visible Church of Christ for above 1000 years and acknowledge her to be the Mother Church the Patriarchal Church of the West the first See prima Sedes a true Member at least of the Catholick Church unerring in all Articles of Faith the very same with their own Church from whom they pretend to derive the Ordination of their Bishops and by whom have been handed down to them the Books of Scripture upon which alone they ground their Religion that such a Church and acknowledged as such should be impeached by Protestants and among the rest by Dr. St. who in most things agrees to the former Character given of her Should I say be impeached of an Iddolatry more detestable than the Adoration of an Animal a Statue or a red Cloth for God is indeed a thing worthy of Admiration and whereof several moderate Protestants are ashamed But why should any one wonder that Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Stillingfleet I say should be an Idolater and only because he was never apt to think himself inclined that way Although I never absolutely accused him of Idolatry but only on supposition that the Principles whereon he pretends to establish the Charge of Idolatry cast upon us were warrantable which is very different as presently shall be made to appear He goes on and saies pag. 53. That all the comfort he found left was towards the conclusion of my Book wherein as he affirms I confess That the same Argument proves the Prophets Evangelists and the Holy Ghost himself to be Idolaters and then he adds that he hoped there was no great harm to be feared in so good Company But Dr. St. very disingenuosly leaves out this Clause contained in my Book viz. or it proves nothing which renders the sense very different fcom what those words as quoted by the Dr. may seem to import For sure he will not deny but that it is a very different thing to say absolutely Dr. St. is an Hypocrite without adding any thing more or to say Dr. St. is an Hypocrite if he holds one Religion in his heart and professes another
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