reason take that proposition for granted and should I encounter an Adversary who denies the Roman Church to be a true Church I would set upon him another way and prove it to be a True Church which is not hard to do For different wayes are to be taken with different Adversaries and what is a solid proof against one is of no force against another I confess therefore that all the Arguments I have framed against Dr. St. grounded upon this Principle The Roman Church is a true Church are of no force with such as deny That Principle unless first I prove it In the same manner all the Arguments grounded upon the Authority of the Fathers and Councils are of no force against Fanaticks who slight the Fathers and Councils unless their Authority be first established Hence appears how insignificantly Dr. St. and his Cabal threaten us that if we press them out of this Principle The Roman Church is a True Church freely granted by them they will deny it and fall back from what they have yielded unto and that we shall get nothing else thereby but to make them less Charitable towards us and the difference between us wider For in the same manner they might threaten us when we argue against them out of Councils and Fathers admitted by them that if we press them they will deny their Authority Neither should any one press another out of Scripture though granted by him for fear least if he be press'd he will deny Scripture and become a Turk or a Pagan Nay since one cannot convince another but out of what he has assented unto were this way of dealing warrantable any one might easily elude all Arguments whatsoever For either we urge our Adversary or not if not how shall we convince him if so he may stave off the Conviction according to Dr. St. 's manner of dealing by threatning us that if we urge him we shall get only this of him that he will deny what already he has granted Doubtless the Scholars of the Illustrious University of Cambridge would be ashamed of their Dr. St. should they hear him say in a publick Dispute to his Adversary Do not press me for if you do I 'le deny what I have already granted Finally since this Assertion The Roman Church is a True Church is common assented unto not only by Catholicks but also by Protestants of the English Church and others of different Professions as we have seen But this other The Roman Church is Idolatrous is denyed both by Catholicks and several learned and zealous Protestants and since either the one or the other of these Assertions is to be recalled supposing they contradict one another 't is more reasonable to recal the latter than the former because caeteris paribus particular Sentiments are to yield to common Principles when they run Counter But what is the reason that Dr. St. who professes himself a mortal enemy to the Roman Church does not deny it to be a true Church recalling what heretofore he has asserted yea he is so far from recalling it that he ratifies and grants several times in this Examination of my book in plain terms what he had affirmed in his Rational Account that the Roman Church is a True Church I insinuated in my Book in the place above quoted several motives why Dr. St. and his Associates do unanimosly aver the Roman Church to be a True Church Because upon this account they ground the pretended Moderation and Charity of the English Churh wherewith they endeavour to inveigle unwary minds and if they deny the Roman Church to be a true Church either they must confess that there was no true visible Church in the world for many hundred of years be Luther and Calvins time or they are shrewdly put to it when we urge them to shew us which that true visible Church was distinct from the Roman Yet another particular reason moved Dr. St. not to recal what he had asserted concerning the Truth of the Roman Church For he could not but see that should he deny the Roman Church to be a true Church he must either deny the Protestant Church to be a true Church or seek out other grounds to prove the truth thereof different from those he laid down in his Rational Account For the Discourse he makes in that Book to establish the truth of the Protestant Religion in substance is this Whatever Church holds all such points as were held by all Christian Societies of all Ages acknowledged by Rome it self has all that is necessary to the being of a true Church and by Consequence is a True Church But such is the Protestant Church as he affirms Therefore according to his Principles it is a true Church And descending to particulars he says That all Churches which admit the Antient Creeds as the Roman Church evidently does are true Churches Now these Principles whereon the Dr. bottoms the truth of Protestancie do necessarily imply that the Roman Church is a true Church For either the Roman Church acknowledges what is sufficient to constitute the being of a true Church or not if she does she must necessarily be a true Church If she does not how can Dr. St. assert That the Roman Church with other Christian Societies acknowledges what is sufficient to constitute the being of a true Church Wherefore unless Dr. St. grants the Roman Church to be a true Church that Principle whereon he grounds the truth of Protestancie viz. That it admits whatsoever is admitted by all Christian Societies and acknowledged by Rome it self is of no force So that unless Dr. St. maintains the truth of the Roman Church he must either confess that Protestancie is no true Religion and that the Account he has hitherto given concerning the grounds of Protestancy is void and irrational or seek out other Principles to prove it Now if Dr. St. has such a pike against the Roman Church that to the end he may prove her Idolatrous or no true Church he cares not to unchurch Protestancy or at least to cancel whatever he has yet said to shew that it is a True Religion I conceive that Protestants will give him little thanks for his pains But the truth is that Dr. St. if we reflect well upon his works cares not what becomes of Protestancy nor Christianity neither so that he may according to his fancy destroy Popery But we care as little for his attempts if he cannot destroy Popery without undermining Christianity The Dr. seems in several places of his Answer slily to insinuate as if he had only been heretofore of opinion that the Roman Church is a true Church but that now he has altered his Opinion and it can be no disparagement for a man to recal what heretofore he asserted To this purpose he alledges pag. 16. the Recognitions of Bellarmin who in imitation of St. Augustin retracted some former Errours delivered by him But where I pray has D. St. made any book of
those two Revelations of the abovementioned Saints were approved of in particular by the Roman Church or in general True it is that the Roman Church declares them both to be Saints and to be famous for their Revelations but she does not therefore approve of every porticular Revelation related to have been made unto them The whole Christian Church looks upon Christ and his Apostles as famous for their Miracles and Doctrines shall we therefore hence infer that the whole Christian Church approves of every particular Miracle related of them by any Author whatsoever and of every particular Doctrine which some one or other teaches to have been delivered by them Are there not many false Miracles and Doctrines father'd upon Christ and his Apostles wherefore to the end that the Roman Church be proved Fallible by reason of the two forementioned Revelations contrary the one to the other it was necessary for Dr. St. to have shewen that they were both approved of by our Church which the Dr. has not yet done Those two Saints might be famous for their Revelations and deservedly look'd upon as such though the abovesaid two Revelations or at least one of them had been forged Moreover though one of these two Revelations as being contrary one to the other was false and the person to whom such a Revelation is sayed to have been made either deceived or was deceived supposing she affirmed that she had had such a Revelation yet it does not therefore follow that either such a Revelation was Fanaticisme or such a person a Fanatick For sure Dr. St. will not enlarge so much the roll of Fanaticks as to affirm That all such as are deceived are Fanaticks For so he must cast himself into that heard since certainly he is not so vain as to think that in no Interpretation of Scripture in no Tenet whatsoever of so many as he has laid down in his Books he has been deceived Wherefore as an unjust Warr is not Rebellion if it be countenanced by the Authority of a True and Lawful Sovereign Prince For Sovereigns may wage unjust Warrs So neither a false Revelation is Fanaticisme if it be countenanced by the Authority of the True Church supposing that the True Church may countenance such Revelations For it is Essential Fanaticisme as we have seen to be contrary to Authority I have enlarged my self upon this point of Fanaticisme because the Dr. seems to hugg it as the Benjamin of his Mimical Wit and presumes so much of his endeavours in this kind that he boldly attests as we hinted above that his Adversaries have not said so much as one wise word to clear their Church from the Aspersion of Fanaticisme The Dr. vapours pag. 59. that this Charge of Fanaticisme was a new Charge yet the Author of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stillingfleeton tells us whence he borrowed it snd neither Bellarmin Becanus or any of their old beaten Souldiers could give them any assistance they found not the Title of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church in any of their Common place Books therefore plain Mother-wit must help them 'T is a wonder that order has not been given to erect a Statue to Dr. St. for so rare an Invention as this is of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church and if his Mother-wit could help him without the assistance of Common-place Books to frame this new Charge against us well may the Mother-wit of his Adversaries help them without needing the assistance of any Staunch-Author for such he terms our Antient Writers to answer it There is a short way to answer Dr. St. 's Books without needing to read Antient Authors Read only his Books and you will find the Answer to whatever he objects against us so full they are of self-contradictions They are like to certain venemous Beasts that breed in themselves the Antidote against their own poison I have lately read a perfect Character of Dr. St's proceedings in charging Roman Church with Fanaticisme drawn by himself in a Sermon preached before his Majesty 24. of February last 1674. Where shewing how licentious people among the Gentiles heretofore as in these times among Christians brought Vertue into Contempt and having assigned for the first Medium they laid hold of to effect their wicked design viz. The seperating Religion and morality from each other he adds page 11. These words The next thing was to make it vertue to appear ridiculous which was a certain way to make Fools out of love with it who do not consider what is fit to be laughed at but what is so When Socrates at Athens undertook with many sharp and cutting Ironies to reprove the vices of his age and with a great deal of Wit and Reason to perswade men to the sober practice of vertue the licentious people knew not what to do with him For they were not able to withstand the force of his Argments At last Aristophanes having a Comical Wit whereby he was able to make any thing seem ridicalous although he knew very well the Wisdome and Learning of Socrates yet to please and humour the people he brings him upon the Stage and represents his grave instructions after such a manner as turned all into a matter of laughter to the people of Athens This is the method which men take when they set their wits against Vertue and Goodness They know it is impossible to argue men out of it but it is very easie by ridiculous postures and mimical gestures and profane Similitudes to put so grave and modest a thing as Vertue is out of countenance among those who are sure to laugh on the other side I do not think that such things can signifie much to wise men but when was the world made up of such and therefore it signifies very much to the mischief of those who have not the courage to love despised Vertue nor to defend a cause that is laughed down Thus far the Dr. All which may be easily applied to Dr. St. himself For the main task of the Dr. in his Treatise of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church was to render ridiculous the Religious practices of the Roman Catholicks and of so many Saints famous throughout the world for their Zeal and Piety which to use his own words was a certain way to make fools out of love with our Church who do not consider what is fit to be laughed at but what is so He could not be ignorant of the great reputation even the modern Saints of our Church deservedly enjoy upon account of their Vertue far beyond what Socrates had yet like another Aristophanes having a Comical and Drolling Wit whereby he is able to make any thing though never so Sacred to seem ridiculous only to please and humour Licentious people he represents their grave Instructions and their Charitable and devout practices in such a manner as he turns all into a matter of Laughter He knows it is impossible to argue judicious men out of the opinion they
treason p. 239. l. 20. that was r. that this was p. 249. l. 23. as he r. as that he p. 265. l. 15. being an r. being of an p. 269. l. 2. eighth practises r. eighth their practises ib. l. 14. to the same r. the same CHAP. I. On supposition Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all the Charges he casts upon the Roman Church are false and all their proofs void AFter Dr. St. had prefixed two Prefaces to his Book the one of 82 pages the other of 12 he sets upon the examination of my Treatise which with Introduction Answer and Appendix contains only 21 pages though in a closer letter He designes to prove two things against me 1. That on supposition he did contradict himself in the way I insist upon yet that would be no sufficient Answer to his Book Page 14. 2. That he is far enough from contradicting himself in any one of the things I charge him with In reply to these two Points I shall shew 1. What follows if the Dr. Contradicts himself and hence will appear whether on supposition he contraicts himsef in the way I insist upon I answer his Book or not 2. That he palpably contradicts himself in the forementioned Charges he lays upon the Roman Church And that the Dr. may see I have a mind to deal fairly with him I am very willing to be tried by the Learned men of our Two Famous Universities where there are many as ingenious as Dr. St. and far more ingenuous not only whether I have not proved that the Dr. contradicts himself but also whether this being once proved in the way I insist upon I do not invalidate and annual all the above-mentioned Charges he lays against the Roman Church with all the Reasons and Proofs he produces or can produce to make them good To commence therefore the first Point of this Reply If I have proved that Dr. St. has contradicted himself in the aforesaid Crimes he imputes to the Roman Church which is the supposition wherein he and we speak in this first part it manifestly follows that I have obtained the design of my Book couched in the Title thereof viz Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet and if I moreover shew that he still contradicts himself I compleat also the Subject and Title of this Rejoynder Dr. Stillingfleet still against Dr. Stillingfleet For nothing else is aimed at in these Titles but only to evince that the Dr. did contradict and persists to contradict himself This is apparent from what I insinuated at the beginning of my Book in these words page 1. My aim therefore in this short Paper only is to lay open the palpable contradictions of Dr. St. in imputing to the Roman Church the forementioned Calumnies And what more can be expected from a Writer than to fill up the Subject and Designe of his Discourse Especially if the Designe be of great Consequence as this is according to what now follows Again Self-contradiction being proved as Dr. St. himself grants p. 15. overthrows the authority of the Person who stands convicted thereof Now I conceive that a sheet and half of Paper was not ill-imployed in overthrowing had it no other effect the authority of one who pretends to be a Pillar of the Protestant Church and who gains more upon his Devotees by authority than by reason So that even according to Dr. St's confession self-contradiction being once evidenced against him we ought not to believe him in any thing he says or alledges unless he recalls himself For to believe one is to take a thing upon his authority and sure no body ought to take any thing upon the authority and credit of one who has lost all authority and credit Besides whoever forces his Adversary to grant manifest Contradictions or shews that he grants them according to the rigour of Logique and close arguing he puts him in a sack he brings him to a Non-plus and in plain vulgar English he makes an Ass of him or shews him to be so unless he recants And can more than this be required of one to confute and confound his Adversary or can one press him further than to a Non-plus Finally Whoever grants and persists to grant palpable Contradictions he may justly be posted up for a Mad-man Should one for instance infected with the Plague say and repeat that he is in very good health but withal that he is deadly sick of the Plague could there be a clearer Symptome that such a man's brains were distemper'd than to hear him harp upon so palpable a contradiction And there is no wise man who will have to do with Mad-men no not in their Lucid Intervals as Dr. St. in his Pref. p. 11. gravely observes For though Mad-men Fools may sometimes say shrew'd things yet no body who is perswaded they are such can in prudence think himself bound to confute them but rather to pity them nor to solve their Objections but to slight them though it does not follow because they are so that all their Arguments are false and their Objections null This I have said because I perceive there are several who are not sensible what gross absurdities do follow from self-contradiction Nevertheless the Dr. still urges That all this is no sufficient answer to his Book For though he confesses that self-contradicition being once evidenced against him all his authority and credit is worth nothing and consequently he is not to be believed or credited in any thing he quotes or alledges and all his Arguments which depend upon the truth of his Quotations are not to be valued nay neither is one bound to make enquiry whether his Quotations be true or not For who is bound to make inquiry into the truth of what a Mad-man or one that hath forfeited all his credit does say or alledge Yet after all this he affirms and vapours in almost every leaf of this first part that his Arguments especially such as do not depend upon the truth of his Allegations and how few has he of such Arguments remain firm solid and unanswered Now to disabuse the Doctor and his Partizans in this Point I shall demonstrate that in the present Supposition viz. That he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon by laying to our charge the above mentioned crimes not only all the aforesaid Aspersions but also all the Arguments which he produces or can produce either from Authority or Reason in proof of them are void and of no force And to this purpose I set down these following Principles which though appertaining only to Logique this Dr. of Divinity seems to be ignorant of 1. When two Propositions contradict one another both cannot be true but either the one or the other must needs be false This is a manifest Principle of Natural Logique wherefore if these two Propositions The Roman Church is a true Church the Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church do contradict one another as now we suppose
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.
18. That he never vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry in his Defence of Archbishop Lawd which is the Book wherein he confesses the Church of Rome to be a true Church But what does he mean by saying That he never vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry does he mean that he never writ any Treatise on this Subject That I confess to be true But sure to commit Contradiction 't is not necessary to have written Treatises in vindication of each or either part of the Contradiction Had he said in express terms The Church of Rome is a true Church and is not a true Church would he not have Contradicted himself unless he had published Books or Treatises in defence of the one or the other part of such a palpable Contradiction as this To Contradict ones self 't is enough to affirm and to deny the same thing although he has never writ or produced Arguments to prove the one or the other part Does he therefore mean that in defence of Archbishop Lawd he has not laid down any Principle nor asserted any thing which if true does not clear the Church of Rome from Idolatry and consequently contradicts the Charg he laies upon her in his Discourse of Idolatry This I have shewn to be false because in the Defence of Archbishop Lawd he grants the Church of Rome to be a true Church which concession does evidently clear her from Idolatry wherewith he charges her in his other Book neither has he yet vindicated himself from this Contradiction as we shall see by examining the shifts whereby he pretends to clear himself pag. 18. He adds in the same place that it fell out very happily that in his Defence of Archbishop Lawd pag. 596.606 he had made a Discourse to the same purpose proving the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints and the Worship of Images But what does this help to shew that what he saies in his Defence of Archbishop Lawd does not contradict what he Asserts in his Discourse of Idolatry which is his main design in the present Answer Is not this as if one should have affirmed what Dr. St. saies in one part of his Defense of the Archbishop does contradict what he saies in another part of the same Book Therefore what he saies in his Defence of the Archbishop does not contradict what he asserts in his Discourse of Idolatry Is not Dr. St. like to have a good cause if such Inferences as these be warrantable To contradict himself in the very self same Book is more detestable and can be no medium to prove that he does not contradict himself in different Books Neither was I ignorant of the forementioned contradiction committed by him in his former Book but because my Design in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet was to annul the Charges laid upon the Roman Church in his Discourse of Idolatry I took notice only of the Contradiction betwen his former Book and latter Discourse never intending to deny that in the same book he did contradict himself For the Dr. does so stuff up his works with Contradictions that it is not necessary to turn over many Books nay nor many Chapters nor sometimes many leaves to meet with them He saies farther in the same page 18. that I do not pretend to gather out of his Books any Contradiction in Terms or a Formal Affirmation and Negation of the same Object but only by Consequence and I desire to know of him whether if I do shew as I have already shewn That what he asserts in his Rational Account does by good Consequence contradict and annul the Charges laid upon us in his Discourse of Idolatry All those Inferences mentioned above which follow from Self-contradiction in the way I insist upon do not by good consequence fall heavy upon him and if so whether this be not enough to confute him To declare the better the inanity of these Evasions he makes use of to Vindicate himself from Contradictions let us put case that one who heretofore had confest Dr. St. to be an Honest man should now upon some pick although retaining yet the former good opinion of his honesty affirm him to be a Knave and that some of the Dr.'s Friends to vindicate him from so foul an Aspersion should charge his Adversary as justly they might with Contradiction in affirming Dr. St. to be an Honest man and yet a Knave can he or any one else imagin that such a man would sufficiently clear himself from the Crime of Contradiction by saying That he never vindicated the Honesty of Dr. St. although he has heretosore and did still hold him to be an Honest man That it had happily fallen out that when heretofore he acknowledged him to be an honest man even at the same time he had published him for a Knave and finally that to say he is an Honest man and yet a Knave is no Formal Contradiction in terms since he does not Formally say that he is and is not an Honest man or affirm and deny the same thing This Case is parallel to the Vindication Dr. St. makes here for himself and so clear that any one without difficulty may make the Application And yet there is no more Contradiction in affirming that one is an Honest man and yet a Knave than in saying that the same Church is a True Church and yet Idolatrous and the Contradiction in both Cases is so palpable that it appears to any one who understands what he saies without needing to draw it out by Consequences In the next page in order to the farther clearing himself from Self-contradiction pag. 19. he carges me with Disingenuity because forsooth as he saies I barely oppose a judgment of Charity concerning our Church such he stiles this Concession of his The Roman Church is a true Church to a judgment of Reason concerning the nature of Actions and such he will needs have this his Assertion to be The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church Is not this a pretty way to save all Contradictions let them be never so palpable For in all Contradictions the one part is favourable which upon thaat ccount may be called a Judgment of Charity or Kindness and consequently according to this excellent Principle of Dr. St. cannot without Disingenuity be put in opposition to the other part which is grounded or pretended to be grounded upon other respects for both parts of a Contradiction cannot have the same enducements Suppose that Dr. St. had expressly granted The Roman Church to be and not to be an Idolatrous Church which sure is to grant palpable Contradictions if it is possible that there should be any such would the Dr. in this Case think it a satisfactory Answer to say That the one of these Judgments is of Charity and the other of Reason and that accordingly one cannot be opposite to the other and to urge the instance produced above should one be charged with Self-contradiction
for asserting Dr. St. to be an Honest man and yet a Knave certainly no prudent person can think that such a one would sufficiently clear himself by saying That he granted him to be an Honest man out of meer kindness but that he affirmed him to be a Knave upon good and solid Reason and that therefore no body could without disingenuity oppose the one Judgment against the other These pittiful shifts of Dr. St. make one exclaim O how unhappy a thing it is to engage in a bad Cause What will not some say rather than unsay themselves and confess their Errours Again either Dr. St. thinks this Concession of his The Roman Church is a true Church to be grounded upon good and solid Reason as really it is or he does not think it such now if he think it such it is not a Judgement of Charity only but of Reason also and consequently he unjustly charges me with disingenuity for opposing a Judgment of meer Charity against a Judgment of Reason since both in his opinion are Judgments of Reason If he does not think this his Concession to be grounded upon Reason how can it be a Judgment of true and real Charity Can it be true Charity to tell us That we are in a true way to Salvation That our Church does not teach us any damnable Errour or any thing destructive to our Eternal Wellfare and yet to tell us all this without any Reason to think it so Such a Charity of this if it must be called so is rather a meer Cheat than Charity Nay since the Dr. has declared himself an implacable Enemy to the Roman Church bespattering her with so many foul Aspersions 't is not credible he would grant her to be a True church did not good and solid Reasons force him thereunto and we have seen above that the very same grounds whereby he pretends to establish the Truth of the Protestant Church evince also the Truth of the Roman Church So that he must either confess That he grants his own Church to be true out of meer Charity without any solid ground for to grant it or he must acknowledge our Church to be a true Church upon good and solid Reasons at least in his Opinion And because Dr. St. and his Associates do so often vapour of their Charity in allowing Roman-Catholicks a possibility of Salvation endeavouring some of them thence to prove That their Religion is better than ours which does not allow so much to Protestants 't will not be amiss to examin the depth of this their Charity and sure if we consider how those who deny our Church to be a true Church are puzzled and to what shifts they are put concerning the continuation of the True Church for so many years before Luther and Calvin their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and several other points of highest concern objected against them we may prudently believe that when they acknowledge our Church to be a true Church they do it not so much out of any kindness they have for us as for their own proper Interest and Concern Again if that Religion has the greatest Charity and upon that account is to be held for the best Religion that makes the way of Salvation widest the Religion of the Libertines and Latitudinarians who affirm all Religions to be true and sufficient to Salvation whether Christianism Judaism Paganism or Mahometism would be the best of all Religions which certainly Dr. St. will never grant although he burns with so great Charity Moreover leaving both parties Catholicks and Protestants to their proper Tenets 't is greater Charity in Catholicks towards Protestants to tell them they are in the wrong than in Protestants towards Catholicks to tell them they are in the right or in a true way to Salvation For the most that Protestants can effect in Catholicks with this their Concession is to encourage them to go on with more alacrity in the way wherein they are since they see that even their greatest Enemies do grant them to be in a true way to Heaven when as Catholicks by telling Protestants they are in the wrong may bring many of them to the right and save them from Damnation Since they cannot but be much moved seeing that so many Learned men who are ten to one for Protestants do affirm with so great asseveration and constancy producing several solid grounds in proof of what they affirm That protestants are in the wrong way And beyond debate it is far greater Charity to save one from Damnation than only to encourage him to obtain his Salvation So it is greater Charity to tell one whom we know to be out of the way That he is in the wrong than to tell one whom we know to be in the true way That he is in the right Because the one unless he be told of his Errour will probably go on and never come whither he intended when as the other encouraged by our advice will only come sooner to his journey's end whither he would have arrived although we had told him nothing Besides when our Adversaries are pinched with the inferences we deduce from this their Concession they do so mince and clip their Charity that it scarce retains any shew or mark thereof as appears by what Archbishop Lawd Dr. Stillingfleet and others assert in this matter For they say That all Learned men among us are damned if they continue in Communion with the Roman Church Nay the same they affirm of all those who understand the pretended Absurdities they are pleased to oppose against us which in their opinion are so clear and manifest that no body who is not a meer Fool or a Madman and consequently in a condition not capable of Malice may easily understand them That scarce any one is saved amongst us That only an invincible ignorance which is not easily presumed in matters so clear as they will needs have our Errours to be and wherein every one is so much concern'd can excuse us from eternal Damnation That we are all flat Idolaters and as gross as the grossest of the Heathen and by consequence That this Proposition A Roman-Catholick may be saved hath no more truth in it than this An Idolater may be saved Finally that Roman-Catholicks may be saved upon condition they repent of their Errours as also Jews Turks and Pagans may be saved upon the like Condition Now if we compare with these their Assertions concerning Roman Catholicks what we affirm of Protestants in order to their Salvation or Damnation we shall evidently see that there is little or no difference between us and them in relation to this point and that they have no cause to make such Bravadoe's of their Charity towards us For between these two Propositions scarce any one is saved and all are damned there is so scant a difference that there is very little reason to boast thereof Neither do we deny but that some Protestants have an invincible ignorance of the Errours
of their Religion and consequently upon that account are no less excusable from Damnation than they say we are Besides Catholicks do not affirm That those Protestants who are in a condition not capable of Malice as meer Fools Madmen and Children are more liable to damnation than Catholicks of the same condition Yet farther we never assert that this Proposition Protestants are damned has more truth in it than this Idolaters are damned and consequently it is as true That a Protestant may be saved as that an Idolater may be saved Neither do we deny but Protestants may be saved if they repent Where then is the difference between their Charity and ours that may give them any cause of Vapouring In Fine if things be well considered it will manifestly appeare That Protestants damn more Catholicks than Catholicks do Protestants For it is certain that there are at least twenty Roman-Catholicks in the world for one Protestant of the English Church with which is our present debate Now since they affirm that scarce any Catholick is saved let 's put the case that only one in twenty is saved and all the rest are damned according to this computation they damn nineteen where we damn one Supposing that we damn all Protestants or believe them to be damned if they continue in that Profession and they scarce save any Chatholick or believe him to be saved if he lives and dies in the Communion of the Roman Church So that concerning the Damnation or Salvation of Contrary Party we have more reason to glory of our Charity than they And hence evidently appears the inanity of their pretended Charity which they often cast in our Teeth this being a common Topick whence they have framed many Sermons and Discourses against us Yet I cannot deny but that the Charity of Dr. St. is enhanced to a high degree For he has made the bounds of the True Church so wide that it contains not only the most notorious Hereticks but also the greatest Idolaters Was it not therefore very ill done of me to make so bad a use of so wonderful a Charity And all this he does out of his exceeding great kindness for Protestant Religion and because he cannot find a way how to bring her within the verge of the True Church without letting in with her the grossest Idolaters of the world both in Doctrine and Practice But whether Protestants will think themselves bound to render the Dr. Thanks for his excess of his Charity I leave it to the judgment of the Learned and Zealous men amongst them One step only is wanting to make this Charity perfect indeed and that is to enlarge the Pale of the True Church so far as that it may take in flat Atheists which he may do with as much ease as he does other things In the pages 19 20 21 22. he mingles many things which do not tend to prove that he does not contradict himself which was the proper subject in this second part of his Answer but only that on svpposition he should contradict himself in the way I insist upon yet this would not be a satisfactory answer nor annull the Reasons he produced in order to make good the charges he laies against us All which has been already answered above in the first part of our Reply As concerning his Vindication from Self-contradiction he saies pag. 20 21 That by granting us a True Church and yet charging us with Idolatry it does not follow That he contradicts himself but the only true consequence is That he thinks some kind of Idolatry consistent with the Being of a True Church For what shadow of Contradiction is it they are the Dr.'s words pag. 21. to say That the Roman Church is a true Church and yet is guilty of Idolatry supposing he believes some sort of Idolatry which is very sinful not to be yet of so high a nature as to unchurch those that practise it A strange Answer so that if one has so good an opinion of himself and who has not as to believe or think that what he affirms is in some sort consistent with what he denies let him affirm or deny what he pleases according to this admirable evasion of Dr. Stillingfleet he will be free from Self-contradiction Whoever joynes two terms that really contradict one another whatever he thinks he commits a Contradiction Should one affirm another to be a notorious Traitor but yet a Loyal Subject which is the instance above insinuated could the Dr. prudently say in this case that such a person did not contradict himself but that the only true consequence that hence might be inferred was That he thought some sort of notorious Treason to be consistent with Loyalty or could he justly exclaim What shadow of Contradiction is it to say That one is a notorious Traitor but yet a Loyal Subject supposing that who saies this believes some sort of Treason though very notorious not to be yet of so high a nature as to destroy Loyalty Neither should the Dr. have supposed pag. 22. as he does but proved that the Idolatry introduced by Jeroborm among the Israelites was not destructive to the being of a True Church Several protestants among other precedents produce the Church of Israel infected with the Idolatry of Jeroboam to shew that the true visible Church may cease and consequently they believed the Church of Israel to have ceased to be a true Church by reason of the Idolatry she committed otherwise they could never have made use of the said instance to that intent and accordingly they look't upon that Idolatry as destructive to the Being of a True Church For how can a Church cease to be true upon the account of an Idolatry not destructive to the Being of a True Church Yea the Apostle Rom. 11. does not obscurely insinuate that the Idolatry practised by the Israelites did unchurch them yet they were not all infected therewith For God told Elias when he complained that he was left alone in Israel that seven thousand of them had not bowed their knees unto Baal The Evasions produced hitherto by the Dr. are as we have seen ineffectual to clear him from Self-contradiction and such as had they any force in them would prove it impossible that any one should contradict himself especially if he believed he does not which is evidently false So that the Dr. to shew himself guiltless of Self-contradiction takes the same way as if to prove himself an honest man he should alledge no better Reasons than such as prove if they prove any thing that there have never been nor are any Knaves in the world but that all are and have been honest men But this is a common Artifice of Dr. St. So that he may produce any Arguments that seem to prove his intent he cares not whatever else they prove with the same force and so he may shoot home he matters not how much he over shoots himself though one may miss as much of the
rather very often supposes it That the Roman Church doth embrace the Ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church wherefore even according to Dr. St.'s constitution of a true Church the Church of Rome is necessarily such Pag. 26. he saies We have no Controversie with them Catholicks about the Essential Doctrines of Religion which is that we mean by their being a True Church Finally pag. 33. and in other places the Dr. distinguishes between the Essence and Soundness of a Church and he several times grants that our Church holds all that is requisite to the Essence of a True Church But he denies that she holds all that is necessary to the Soundness of a Church Neither did I ever alledge Dr. St. to the contrary as above I insinuated Hence is evidently concluded that it is the unquestionable Sentiment of Dr. St. that the Roman Church even as it is now in the world is a True Church retaining all the Essential and Fundamental Points of Christian Faith All which I have sayed not because Dr. St. did ever deny it but because some of his Friends could scarce believe that he who had endeavoured with all his strength to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry should notwithstanding hold her to be a True Church See more concerning this in his Answer to my Book pag. 40 41 42. Wherefore since it cannot be questioned but that Dr. St. has heretofore and does still allow these two Propositions The Roman Church is a True Church The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church we come now to examin whether the latter Proposition contradicts the former which Dr. St. denies but we do prove in the following Discourse If the Roman Church holds any Fundamental or Essential Errour in matters of Faith it is no True Church For it is certain that some Errours are sufficient to unchurch a Community and destructive to the very Being of a True Church otherwise a Congregation that holds there is no God might yet be a True Church and if any Errours be such sure such are all Fundamental and Essential Errours For all Errours in matters of Faith even according to Dr. St. and other Protestant Divines are divided into Fundamental or Essential and into Non-fundamental or Non-essential These latter they affirm to be consistent with the Essence and Being of a True Church but not with the Soundness thereof But the former are destructive not only to the Soundness but also to very Essence of a True Church So that whoever saies that such a Church is a True Church but yot that she holds some Fundamental-Errours he commits a manifest Contradiction as if he should say such a Church is and is not True Upon this account those Protestants who grant the Roman Church to be a True Church but yet depraved with several Errours to save themselves from Self-contradiction commonly affirm that the Errours of the Roman Church are not Fundamental nor Essential but only inferiour Errours Non-fundamental and Non-essential Again if the Roman Church holds any Errour necessarily destructive to any Fundamental or Essential Point of Faith she must needs hold a Fundamental and Essential Errour in matters of Faith This is also evident neither can Dr. St. deny it For an Errour is denominated Fundamental or Non-fundamental Essential or Non-essential from the nature and quality of the Truth wherewith it is inconsistent all Errour being inconsistent with some Truth So that if the Truth or any of the Truths wherewith such an Errour is inconsistent be Fundamental or Essential the Errour must needs be Fundamental or Essential But if none of them be Fundamental neither can the Error be Fundamental Now the inconsistency of a Proposition with its contradictory or of an Errour with the Truth opposite therunto does not consist in that an Errour does absolutely destroy the Truth in it self wherewith it is said to be inconsistent For it is certain this Erroneous Judgment There is no God does not destroy the Truth of its Contradictory There is a God nor in that he who gives an assent to the one part cannot possibly at the same time give his assent to the contrary part otherwise it would not be possible for any one to Contradict himself which is manifestly false as Dr. St. himself does too too well know The forementioned inconsistency therefore consists in the repugnancy in order to the Truth of both Propositions together and at the same time or in that the Truth of the one necessarily destroyes the Truth of the other So that if the Errour which is inconsistent with a Fundamental Truth should cease to be an Errour the contrary Truth would cease to be a Truth Moreover some Errours are not destructive to any Fundamental Point immediately or formally or in express terms as this Error There is no God is destructive to this Fundamental point There is a God but only mediately and by Consequences because they destroy immediately something wherewith some Fundamental point is necessarily connexed which being once destroyed such a Fundamental point must necessarily fall as supposing that it is a Fundamental point of Christian Faith that Christ is God Consubstantial to his Father this Errour Christ is a meer Creature is beyond debate Fundamental although it does not destroy immediately the former Truth but only mediately and by Consequence because it immediately destroyes its Contradictory viz. Christ is not a meer Creature which being destroyed the former Fundamental Truth does necessarily fall For whatsoever is God either is no Creature or at least no meer Creature Wherefore 't is a Fundamental Errour whatsoever necessarily destroyes a Fundamental Truth whether mediately or immediately For the malice and malignity of a Fundamental Errour consists in its Destructiveness to a Fundamental point and what destroyes it mediately does truly destroy it but destroies with it some other thing One may beat down a Steeple either by shooting immediately at the Steeple or at the Tower that upholds the Steeple and in both Cases the Steeple is equally beaten down but with this difference that in the second case the Tower also is beaten down with the Steeple Yea Dr. St. himself pag. 24. confesses the second way of Worship mentioned there by him to be destructive mediately only and by Consequence to the Existency of a true God and yet it is inconsistent doubtless with the Being of a true Church since by such a Worship the Vnity of the Godhead is denyed and many False Gods are joyned with him in the same Worship and to teach a multiplicity of Gods is beyond debate to teach an Errour by reason of its opposition to the Vnity of the Godhead destructive to the Being of a Church Besides I said that an Errour which is necessarily destructive to any Fundamental point whatsoever it be must needs be Fundamental and inconsistent with the Essence of a True Church For an Errour as other Negations is malignantis naturae of a malignant nature such as destroying any Essential part or
an Image which is no God is all one kind of formal Idolatry Wherefore Dr. St. since he assents to this Doctrine Parallels the Veneration of Images practised by the Roman Church to the Worship of False Gods and looks upon them both as one kind of formal Idolatry and certainly the Worship of False Gods as rejecting the true God is inconsistent with the Being of a True Church For what Idolatry is so if this be not In the same pag. he pretends to shew that the grossest Idolatry in the world is excusable on the same grounds whereon we excuse from Idolatry the Veneration of Christ in the Eucharist which he compares with the Idolatry of those who said Christ was the Sun and he adds pag. 136. That the Absurdities of Transubstantiation are greater than of that Doctrine which teaches the Sun to be God and in the same place he calls it as Venial a Fault The Worshipping that for the True God which is not so such is the Idolatry he Fathers upon us and terms it the Superstition of an undue way of Worshiping as the Worshipping False Gods which he stiles the Superstitian of an undue object and pag. 137. he saies thus The most stupid and senseless of all Idolaters who Worship the very Images for God which the wiser among the Heathens according to his Judgment alwayes disalowed were in truth the most excusable upon this ground upon which we excuse from Idolatry the Veneration we give to the Sacrament of the Altar and by consequence the Idolatry he Fathers upon us in this matter is in his opinion worse and less excusable than the most stupid and senseless Idolatry of the Heathens In the page immediately before he compares our Veneration of Christ in the Eucharist with the Aegyptians worshipping the Sun for God and the Israelites the Golden Calf believing it was the true God Pag. 142 143. speaking of the Veneration the Roman Church allows to Saints he adds I would willingly understand why I may not as well honour God by giving Worship to the Sun as to Ignatius Loyola or St. Francis or any other of the late Cannonized Saints And why does he not speak of the B. Virgin Mary of the Apostles of St. Augustine and of other Ancient Saints since he equally impugns the Veneration of all Saints The reason he adds is excellent I am sure saies he the Sun is a certain Monument of Gods goodness and I cannot be mistaken therein But I can never be certain of the holiness of those persons viz. the late Cannonized Saints For all that I can know Ignatius Loyola was a great Hypocrite But I am sure that the Sun is none I know the best of men have their Corruptions and to what degree it is impossible for others to understand But I am certain the spots of the Sun are no Moral Impurities nor displeasing to God How frivolous this reason is will clearly appear by this instance Dr. St. will not deny but that some Reverence Respect Esteem and Veneration may be given in this life to men by reason of their Holiness Sanctity and Honesty of Life and that one may here upon earth implore the Prayers of other men especially Holy and Honest Men or invoke them to be his Intercessours with God in his Necessities which is practised by Protestants and no more than this we ascribe to the Saints in Heaven Now according to this Reason of the Dr. to use his own words Why may I not as well honour Dr. St. 's Cat or Dog who in the common opinion of Philosophers as being Substances endowed with Life are perfecter than the Sun as Dr. St. himself or invoke them as well as him or any of the Protestant Bishops or Ministers I am sure Dr. St. 's Cat and Dog do whatever God will have them do and that they never have transgress'd any of his Commandments and I cannot be mistaken therein But I can never be certain that Dr. St. is an honest man yea I am certain that he has transgress'd Gods Commandments For all that I can know Dr. St. is a great Hypocrite and an errant Knave But I am sure Dr. St. 's Cat and Dog are none I know that Dr. St. has his Corruptions since the best of men have theirs and to what degree he has them is impossible for me or others to understand but I am certain that the Blemishes of those Creatures supposing they have them are no Moral Impurities nor displeasing to God Whence it follows that according to this Argument of Dr. St. 't is as Lawful and more laudable to Reverence upon the account of Honesty Dr. St.'s Cat or Dog to invoke their Intercession as to Reverence Dr. St. himself or to invoke his assistance by Prayers and what ever answer Dr. St. shall give to this Instance will solve the Objection he makes against us For 't is certain that the Sun is as uncapable to understand or to be made to understand our addresses or to intercede for us or to lead a moral honest life as a Cat or a Dog But Dr. St. knows too well that it is not for his interest to consider the incoherency of his Principles or the train of Absurdities which commonly wait upon his Arguments Yet for our present intent it is enough to shew that the Idolatry he endeavours to fasten upon the Roman Church in the Invocation of Saints which she allows of is in his perswasion as bad or worse than the Adoration of the Sun Page 159. he makes a large Parallel between the Veneration that Roman Catholicks afford to Saints and the Idolatry of the Heathens in Sacrificing to their Inferiour Deities or Heroes Did the Israelites saies he use solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of Divine Worship So does the Roman Church Did they set up their Images in publick places of Worship and then kneel down before them and Invocate those represented by them So does the Roman Church Did they Consecrate Temples and Erect Altars to them and keep Festivals and burn Incense before them So does the Roman Church Lastly Did they offer up Sacrifices in those Temples to the Honour of their lesser Deities or Heroes So does the Roman Church Whence it appears that Dr. St. does hold us for as great Idolaters by reason of the Honour we afford to Saints as the Heathens were in Adoring their lesser Deities All this Doctrine he had laid down in his Answer to the Questions pag. 3 4. where he has these words The same Argument whereby the Papists make the Worship of the Bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry would make the grossest Heathenish Idolatry not to be so And a little after he saies thus The Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist and the formal Invocation of Saints doth require the giving to the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator Whence it follows that Dr. St. does Charge the Roman
such a Proposition for a particular Affirmative and as the true Notion of a man in general is Animal rationale so the true notion of Idolatry according to Dr. St. himself pag. 24. quoted above is giving the Honour due only to God to a meer Creature Wherefore these two Propositions are universal Affirmatives equivalent to these To be any man whatsoever is to be Animal rationale To teach any Idolatry whatsoever is to teach that the Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature The reason hereof is because as Logicians tell us an indefinite Proposition in a necessary matter such is the Notion of a Thing which must necessarily agree unto it is equivalent to an Universal as to say a man is Animal rationale is as much as to say every man is such and to say Idolatry is the giving to a meer creature the honour due only to God which is the true notion of Idolatry in general is the same as if one should say All Idolatry is such Now if this Universal Affirmative be true as it is even according to Dr. St.'s confession a Church that teaches any sort of Idolatry whatsoever does teach that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature and hence it necessarily follows That no Church that does not teach this can be guilty of any sort of Idolatry as because every man is animal rationale a rational Animal it must needs follow that nothing that is not animal rationale can be a man whoever has the least smattering of Logick cannot be ignorant of these Rules But it was not for Dr. St.'s purpose to remember any thing of Logick or of Rationality Whence I conclude that the Proposition layed down by me is an Universal Affirmative equivalent to the Proposition set down by the Dr. Since therefore no Church can teach any Idolatry without teaching that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature it is evidently inferred that no Church can teach any Idolatry without erring against the forementioned Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion which is all I pretended in my second Proposition Besides although I should grant as I do not that a Church might teach some sort of Idolatry without teaching or requiring that the Honour due only to God be given to a meer Creature yet according to Dr. St.'s own confession the Idolatry he Fathers upon the Roman Church is such that it requires the honour which is due only to God to be given to a meer Creature For in his Discourse concerning the Roman Idolatry pag. 3. he has these words The Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist and the formal Invocation of Saints doth require giving to the Creature Worship due only to the Creator So that according to this Assertion of Dr. St. which he endeavours to establish throughout that whole Discourse no Church can teach the Idolatry he fathers upon the Roman Church without teaching the giving to a meer Creature the Honor Worship due only to the Creator and consequently without erring against that Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion contained in my first Proposition which is enough for my main intent So that if my second Proposition be propounded thus To teach that sort of Idolatry which Dr. St. Fathers upon the Roman Church is to err against the forementioned Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion he will have nothing to quibble at it since he expressly asserts that such a kind of Idolatry requires the contrary to that Article whence I conclude that this second Proposition is also agreed unto by Dr. St. either absolutely or at least as far as is necessary for my purpose My third Proposition runs thus A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry To this Proposition he answers That it is very Sophistical and Captious Dr. St. seems to be possess'd with such a panick fear to be Non-pluss'd by me that had I said two and two are four in all likelyhood he would have called it a Sophistical and Captious Proposition And this is a common flaw in weak but obstinate defendants who when they have nothing to say against a Proposition they Characterise it for Sophistical But let us see in what consists the Sophistry and Captiousness of this Proposition He saies pag. 28 29. That if by Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion he means the main Fundamental points of Doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed then a Church which does own all the Fundamentals of Doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry and teach those things wherein it lies But where is Dr. St.'s ingenuity My Proposition was not That a Church which owns all Fundamentals does not teach Idolatry but that a Church which does not err against any Fundamental does not teach Idolatry which is very different because a Church may err against a Doctrine which she owns and contradict her self as has been hinted at above and Dr. St. himself agrees unto as hereafter will appear So that the Dr. does not deny my Proposition but another very different We may therefore take my Proposition for granted yea we have shewn already that any Fundamental Errour or an Errour against any Fundamental point great or little if there be any Fundamental point of little concern is destructive to the Being of a Church He goes on and saies But if by erring against an Article of Faith be meant that a Church which does not err at all in matters of Religion cannot teach Idolatry then he concludes the Proposition is true but impertinent Neither does this part of the distinction touch my Proposition For all matters of Religion are not Articles of Faith according to Dr. St. who does not think all the 39. Articles to be Articles of Faith yet he judges them all to be Articles or matters of Religion and to concern the Soundness of a Church but not the Essence nay we do not hold that all the Ceremonies of our Church and all our Ecclesiastical Precepts are Articles of Faith yet they may be called matters of Religion Wherefore these two Propositions A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith and a Chuch that does not err at all in matters of Religion are very different neither does the former Proposition contain the latter Is not this when a learned distinction wherein neither part touches the Proposition which the Author pretends to distinguish whereas according to all reason Both Members of the Distinction are to be contained in the word which is distinguished Would it not be ridiculous for one to distinguish thus the following Proposition Every man is a rational Animal if by Man be meant all kind of Animals 't is false But if by Man be meant only that kind of Animal which is man
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
low opinion of Christian Religion even when it was in its greatest purity since they think it so hard that being faced with the Roman Religion which seems to them to be so full of Corruptions Superstitions and abominations the one may be distinguished from the other or that the Roman Religion is not so ridiculous and ill-favoured as they represent it to be since it is so like the Christian Religion even in its greatest Purity that being compared together 't is extream difficult to know which is which and that by such a parallel men are incited either to embrace them both or reject them both The Dr. goes yet farther and endeavouring to supply with counterfeited zeal the difficiency of true and solid reasons puts down these words pag. 11. I would fain know of these men whether they do in earnest make no difference between the Writings of such as Mother Juliana and the Books of Scripture between the Revelations of St. Bridgit St. Catherin c. and those of the Prophets between the actions of St. Francis and Ignatius Loyola and those of the Apostles if they do not I know who they are that expose our Religion to purpose If they do make a difference how can the representing their Visions and practises reflect dishonour upon the other so infinitely above them so much more certainly conveighed down to us with the consent of the whole Christian world In answer to this Objection I would fain know of the Dr. whether he does in earnest make no difference between a Door a Vine a Worm a Lamb a Shepheard c. and Christ our Saviour If he does not then Christ is no better than a Door a Vine a Worm a Lamb a Shepheard which to affirm is Blasphemy if he makes a difference how does the Scripture compare Christ to things so infinitely beneath him Now if he saies that these things though infinitely beneath Christ yet in some of their Properties may resemble him and his virtues and upon that account he is compared unto them without any blemish or reflexion upon his honour why might not we without reflecting any dishonour upon Christ say that Saint Francis Saint Ignatius and other Canonized Saints of the Roman Church do in their Virtues Miracles and Practises resemble those of Christ and his Apostles though infinitely above them Besides 't is manifest that Christ and his works as being an infinite value derived from the dignity of the person were far more above the Apostles and their works than those were above the particular Saints of the Roman Church and their practices notwithstanding we have the same Inducements and Topicks to believe the matters of Fact of the Apostles and Prophets as those of Christ though so far beyond them and whoever should deny the former without doubt he would open a way to deny the latter Although therefore the practises and Revelations of the particular Saints of the Roman Church be in several Circumstances inferiour to those of the Apostles and Prophets yet there may be the same Motives and Inducements we speak antecedently to Scripture taken as the word of God as when we prove against Pagans the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles to believe the one as the other So that should one deny the Virtues Revelations and Practises constantly related and believed concerning the Roman Saints and approved by our Church for of such Virtues Revelations and Practises we speak in this present debate he would doubtless give a great occasion to Pagans to deny or question the Virtues Revelations and Practises of the Apostles and Prophets The reason is because the same Motives Inducements and Topicks may serve for the belief of things very different one from another which is what I pretended and if they are of no force in the one neither are they in the other Yet one would think that the harder the thing is and the more sublime the stronger Inducements are requisite to believe it So that if the unanimous consent of so many learned and pious men is not sufficient to induce a Protestant to believe the practises and transactions of St. Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis and St. Ignatius handed down by so general a Tradition and of a far fresher date how shall the like consent be sufficient to induce Pagans to believe the works of Christ and his Apostles far more wonderful and of a staler date For commonly matters of Fact of a fresh date are more easily prov'd and believed than of a staler The difference therefore inculcated by Dr. St. between Christ and his Apostles on the one side and the proper Saints of the Roman Church on the other and the Superminency of the former above the latter is so far from diminishing the force of our Argument that it rather increases it Again Dr. St. and his Partizans commonly defend that the certainty we have that such Books are Scripture and that they were penned by such Writers whose names are prefixed unto them is of the same nature with the certainty that we have that such Books were written by Titus Livius or Plutarch which are unanimously assented unto as Titus Livius or Plutarch's Works and the certainty we have that there have been such men as Christ his Apostles and that they did such and such things which are commonly ascribed unto them with the certainty we have that there have been in the world such men as William the Conquerour Julius Caesar and Henry the Eighth and that they have done such things as unanimously are attributed unto them So that whoever should deny all such meer Humane Histories would be in a fair way to deny that ever there have been such men as Christ and his Apostles or that they have done such things which Christians unanimously ascribe unto them This Doctrine supposed whether true or false I do not now dispute I would once more fain know of the Dr. whether he does in earnest make no difference between the Books of Scripture and the Books of Livy and Plutarch between Christ and his Apostles and their Practises and William the Conquerour Julius Caesar Henry the Eighth Practises if not then we know who they are that expose Christian Religion to purpose if he does make a difference how does he make this Parallel between things so far estranged the one from the other and if he saies the Parallel he makes is not between the persons or things themselves but between the certainty of the one and the other and there may be without doubt the same kind of certainty concerning things very different let him apply to the same answer to his Argument made against us and he will see how it comes to nothing For what we pretend is that there is the same or the like certainty the same or the like motives and inducements we speak here antecedently to Scripture held to be the word of God for such it is not held to be by Pagans to believe that there have been such men as St.
Spirit and Judgment in matters of Religion and in the Interpretation of Scripture but obliges all to submit to her judgment as is manifest neither can the Dr. question it since he oftentimes complains of the Tyranny as he is pleased to term it of the Roman Church in this point See Doctor Stillingfleet against Doctor Stillingfleet pag. 10. all which he passes over in silence Pag. 52. the Dr. wonders why I do not speak a word of the Fanatick Principles of Rebellion owned as he will needs have it by the Jesuitical party viz. The King 's deriving his power from the people and the people's Authority to call the King to account and if they see good to take away his Power and to chang the Government and not only so but to take away his Life too which pestilent Principles he had quoted out of Mariana a Jesuit and to shew that not only the Jesuits but also the Roman Church does approve these Principles which was his main task he adds that the party which owns these Principles Jesuits is to this day the most countenanced and encouraged at Rome So that he not only Fathers the forementioned Principles upon the whole Body of the Jesuits because they were delivered by one of their Community but also upon Rome because it favours the Jesuits which Argument of the Dr's is as conclusive as if you should Argue thus Hugh Peters a Member of the University of Cambridge preached in the late Wars Rebellious Principles Therefore not only the University of Cambridge but his Majesty also who hath shewen a a particular kindness for that University do countenance such Principles Who would not contemn such a Consequence And yet the University of Cambridge has not made a more publick detestation of those Rebellious Principles of Hugh Peters than the Body of the Jesuits has made of the forementioned Doctrines of Mariana Besides the Pope even in the common opinion of Protestants is a Sovereign Temporal Prince of Rome and its adjacent Territories and as zealous or more if we believe Protestants of his civil Authority as ony other Temporal Prince whatsoever how then is it credible that he should countenance so much the Jesuits as the Dr. saies he does if they did allow such Rebellious Principles destructive to the Sovereignty of Temporal Princes Moreover that party Dr. St. speaks of is countenanced by several Kings who would be loth to be deprived of their Kingdoms But alas for them poor Princes they do not understand the Intrigues of the Jesuits though they converse often with them neither have they men about them able to discover such pernicious Doctrines King Henry the 4th of France his Majesties Grandfather and the present French King both favourers of the Jesuits are unacquainted with matters of State and Civil Government but Dr. Edward Stillingfleet the great Polititian of the world comprehends clearly the true interest of Princes and though he has scarse ever had any converse with Jesuits yet with the sublety of his private Spirit whereby he is able to discover in a moment what Scriptures are Canonical and which is their legitimate sense he has learned their Intrigues and pestilent Principles Finally those who understand the temper of Rome better than Dr. St. affirm that the Dominicans and Clergy are as much or more countenanced there than Jesuits and yet the Dominicans and Clergy if we believe Dr. St. are no great friends to Jesuits In the same page he saies That if J. W. answer again let him speak out like a man concerning those Rebellious Principles abovementioned Well then J. W. speaks out like a man and tells the Dr. plainly That he would be very sorry were he not perswaded that he detected the aforesaid Principles more than the Dr. himself does for all that he can gather from his works For whatever Dr. St.'s practices have been which J. W. has not yet made it his business to enquire after yet even those very Principles whereby he pretends to clear the Protestant Church from the Crime of Scisme do vindicate had they any force in them all Rebellions and Treacherous Conspiracies though never so execrable and are most destructive to all Civil Government than any Doctrines of Mariana as will manifestly appear to whoever shall take pains to compare them And to apply the Dr.'s own words to himself in his Answer to Dr. Cressy's Apologetical Epistle p. 475. He that owns the Principles that lead to him Treason wants only an opportunity to act them So that if Dr. St. has a just and real zeal for his Majesties Interest and Security according to what he affirms pag. 52. his Principles do not lead him unto it but the prospect of some advantage thereby I proved the Roman Church to be free from Fanaticisme because all Fanaticisme as I shewed or at least that sort of Fanaticisme which maintaines rebellious Principles is against all Lawful and competent Authority as Dr. St. himself must needs confess Now what is countenanced by a competent and lawful authority is not against all such authority as is manifest and consequently cannot be Fanaticisme at least that sort of Fanaticisme that maintains rebellious Principles Since therefore the Roman Church is a True Church unerring in all Articles of Faith and since the Authority of a True Church is a lawful Authority and sufficient to clear particular waies of proceeding from Fanaticisme as with several instances I have shewen pag. 9. in the proof of my fourth Proposition though the Dr. cunningly passes them over it evidently follows That whatever the Roman Church countenances as long as she remains a True Church cannot be Fanaticisme nor Rebellion and by consequence she is free from those crimes For why should any one impute to her that which she does not countenance To this the Dr. Answers pag. 54. First That he charged as Fanaticks several persons in our Church who were never countenanced by her neither did they submit to her Authority But what answer is this to me who pretended only to clear our Church from Fanaticisme and how can she be justly impeached of Fanaticisme which she does not allow of Yea the Principal design of the Dr. in that Chapter was to Charge the Roman Church with Fanaticisme as appears from its Title But he adds that he produced those instances to prove against his Adversary T. G. That the Sects and Fanaticisms among Protestants here in England could not be the effect of the reformation since there were as wild and extravagant Fanaticisms before Good just as if he should have argued in this manner King Henry the 8th or Edward the 6th could not bring in Protestancy here in England because Luther had broached it before in Germany There have been Fanaticks heretofore among the Roman Catholicks as there are now among Protestants But with this difference That the very Constitution of the Roman Church is repugnant to Fanaticisme since it expressly prohibits men to be guided by their own private
Reason in the Interpretation of Scripture and obliges all to submit to her judgment On the contrary the Church of England as it is constituted according to Dr. St. 's Exposition favours all sorts of Fanaticisme since it permits every one to be led by his own private Spirit in the Interpretation of Scripture without obliging him to submit to the Judgment of any Church in such matters He answers secondly that if whatever is countenanced by the Authority of a True Church ceases to be Fanaticisme there flow hence monstrous Absurdities The first is that a prevailing Fanaticisme ceases to be Fanaticisme pag. 55. Is not this a strange whimsie of the Drs. and a pregnant Argument how little he values church Authority to say that because some particular way of Devotion comes to be approved and countenanced by the Authority of a True Church the approbation of the Church serves only to make it a greater and a more prevailing Fanaticisme than it was before whereas I proved in my Book pag. 9. with several instances That the approbation of a True Church is sufficient to clear particular waies of Devotion from the imputation of Fanaticisme So that the difference between Fanatick and Non-fanatick waies of Devotion does not consist in the extravagancy rather of the one and not of the other for both may be extravagant enough but in that the former are against Authority the latter according to Authority I will explain this Doctrine with the Example the Dr. alledges in the place now quoted of Treason and Rebellion What difference is there between a Loyal and Rebellious Army Both Plunder Harras Fight and Kill The difference only is that a Loyal Army proceeds according to Authority and by order of their true Sovereign But a Rebellious Army acts contrary to Authority and to the orders of their Prince As therefore it would be extream ridiculous to affirm That the approbation of a True and Lawful Prince serves only to make the proceedings of his Subjects approved by him more Rebellious or a more prevailing Rebellion so it is absurd to defend as Dr. St. does That the approbation of a True Church renders particular waies of Devotion approved by her more lyable to Fanaticisme or a more prevailing Fanaticisme But the Dr. urges That this would be an excellent way to vindicate the Fanaticisme of the late times which because countenanced by an Authority supposed competent enough by some who then writ of Obedience and Government it ceases to be Fanaticisme Speak out Doctor was Cromwell a True and Lawful Governour of this Kingdome or not if you say he was not how can you have the confidence to parallel our case with theirs since you your self defend the Roman Church to be a True Lawful Church and the very same with your own if you say that he was a True and Lawful Governour and his Authority competent where is your Loyalty As for the Writer of the Book entituled Obedience and Government let him answer for himself I detest that Doctrine neither am I responsable for what that Author affirms as neither Dr. St. will think himself obliged to own whatever Protestants did in the late Rebellion The second Absurdity he pretends to infer from our Doctrine is That Prophets and Apostles nay our Lord himself are according to this Rule unavoidably Fanaticks For what competent Authority saies he pag. 56. had they to countenance them Are you in earnest Doctor had Christ the Prophets and Apostles no competent Authority to countenance their proceedings This indeed is to cast them into the common heard of Fanaticks since no competent Authority neither Humane nor Divine did countenance or approve their Preaching Can the Dr. deny but that Christ the Apostles and Prophets were countenanced by Divine Authority manifested by unquestionable Miracles or will he say That Divine Authority manifested by these Miracles is not an Authority competent enough to vindicate such actions as it approves of from the Crime of Fanaticisme But the Dr. presses that the Jewish Church though not yet cast off while our Saviour lived did not countenance him nor his Apostles What then did I ever affirm that the Authority of a True Church was determinately necessary to clear particular practices from Fanaticisme as the Dr. most grossly supposes I did I defended indeed that the Authority of a True Church is sufficient to clear such actions from Fanaticisme but I never asserted that it was necessary yea I insinuated the contrary pag. 9. There are two waies to commission men to Preach and to Authorize their manners of Devotion Both of them sufficient but neither of them determinately necessary the one extraordinary when God by evident Miracles declares that such men are commissioned by him and in this manner Christ the Prophets and the Apostles were commissioned by him the other Ordinary when the Pastours of the True Church authorize men to Preach or approve of such particular waies of Devotion and in this sense I cleared the particular waies of Devotion countenanced by the Roman Church which the Dr. confesses to be a True Church from the Aspersion of Fanaticisme Neither can one reasonably argue that what is not countenanced in the Second and Ordinary way is not countenanced by a competent Authority since it may be approved of in an Extraordinary way And though the Jews did not follow the Doctrine of Christ yet they acknowledged his Commission and Gods Broad seal viz. evident Miracles wrought by him when in a full Assembly they affirmed Joan 11. Hic homo multa Signa facit This man Christ works many Miracles and certainly such a publick attestation as this was enough to countenance and acknowledge his Commission though out of obstinacy they would not submit to his Doctrine as Pilate declared our Saviour to be innocent and guiltless yet out of fear lest he should disgust Caesar condemned him to death I cannot omit here the two famous yet Contradictory Revelations which are said to have been made to St. Bridgit and St. Catherin concerning the immaculate Conception of our Blessed Lady To St. Bridgit that she was conceived without Original Sin To St. Catherin that she was conceived with Original Sin Dr. St. scarce publishes a Book wherein he does not insert these Revelations pretending thereby to blow up the Infallibility of the Roman Church since she Canonized for Saints both St. Bridgit and St. Catherin and approves their Revelations and consequently something that is false as necessarily one of the forementioned Revelations must be particularly he endeavours to prove hence against me That submission to the Judgment of the Church is not a Rule to judge Fanaticisme by For both these Revelations were approved of by the Roman Church and yet one of them was false and therefore Fanatical and one of those Saints either was deceived or went about to deceive and by consequence was a Fanatick See the Dr. pag. 61 62. To this I answer that the Dr. has never yet shewn That