Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A67648
|
Dr. Stillingfleet still against Dr. Stillingfleet, or, The examination of Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet examined by J.W.
|
Warner, John, 1628-1692.
|
1675
(1675)
|
Wing W910; ESTC R34719
|
108,236
|
297
|
in proof of them is false or impertinent And what more can be required in order to wipe of from the minds of such persons the aforesaid Calumnies CHAP. III. Other Objections Answered BY what hitherto has been discuss'd it plainly appears that the instance of a Lawyer at the Bar alledged page 16. by Dr. St. is of no force against us Because should a Lawyer produce at the Bar no other proof but such as is repugnant not only to his own particular Tenets but also to the common perswasion of the Judges and of all the Learned Lawyers of the Kingdom yea and to the unanimous consent of the Parliament sure his proofs would be held for frivolous This is what succeeds in our present Case Dr. St. Charges us with Crimes repugnant as he himself now admits to this Principle The Roman Church is a True Church not only granted by him and all Roman-Catholicks but also by all Learned Divines of the English Church as suitable to her Sense and Doctrine as they themselves confess and by several other of different Professions All such persons therefore and these are all with whom we now disp … 〈…〉 hold the forementioned Accusations for void and frivolous Moreover should a Lawyer plead to prove one to be a notorious Traytour and yet at the same time should plainly declare at the Bar that he is and has ever been a Loyal and faithful Subject could Dr. St. or any other think that any account were to be made of such a Barrister who should so openly Contradict himself This is what the Dr. does He pleads to shew our Church to be Idolatrous and yet at the same time he sincerely confesses that she is a true Church standing to what he has formerly asserted and he admits at the present that the forementioned Accusation contradicts this his Assertion as really it does no less then these two Propositions do contradict one another Such a man is a notorious Traytour but yet he is a faithful Subject What account therefore can any prudent man make of this Accusation of Dr. St. or consequently of the proofs he alledges in favour thereof Finally though a Lawyer may be permitted when required thereunto by his Clyent after he has informed him of his Judgment to propose all the proofs he can in his favour though his particular opinion be that his Clyent has no right to what he pretends because the Judge who is to decide the Plea may be of a contrary perswasion Yet sure Dr. St. will not affirm that what he produces in his discourse concerning the Idolatry of the Roman Church is only to shew in order to ingratiate himself with the Presbyterians what may be said upon that Subject and not because he is of opinion that the Roman Church is Idolatrous For if so he might as well have published some book against the Divinity of our Saviour or against a Deity as he hath published the forementioned Discourse to prove the Roman Church Idolatrous and then tell us if he be urged that having received a Fee from Socinians or Atheists he did it only to shew what might be said against the Divinity of our Saviour or a Deity and not because he is of opinion that there is no God or that Christ is no God Yea he might say in like manner that what ever he has produced hitherto to prove the truth and Orthodoxness of the Protestant Religion was only to shew to the end he might promote his Interest among Protestants what might be alledged in favour of their Religion and not that he thinks it True and Orthodox The Dr. seems to value much a Case he produces pag. 20. in order to shew the Insufficiency of our manner of Answering him his words are these I will put a Case parallel to this Suppose one of the Church of Judah should have called the Church of Israel in the time of Jeroboam a true Church because they acknowledged the true God and did believe an agreement in that common acknowledgment to be sufficient to preserve the Essentials of a Church among them and afterwards the same person should go about to convince the Ten Tribes of their Idolatry in worshipping God by the Calves of Dan and Bethel Would this be thought a sufficient way of Answering him to say that he contradicted himself by granting them a True Church and yet charging them with Idolatry Whereas the only true Consequence would be that he thought some kind of Idolatry to be consistent with the being of a Church He adds that such a person might justly say that they made a very ill use of his Charity and that if they could prove to him that the Idolatry he fathered upon them did Vn-church them the Consequence of it would be that his Charity must be so much the less and that he must deny them to be a true Church This is Dr. St.'s Case whereby he pretends to evince the invalidity of our manner of Answering him But before I examin this Case of the Dr. I will put a Case Parallel to ours to shew that the way we have taken to Answer him is sufficient Suppose that a Jew for why may not a Jew be as Charitable and Zealous too as Dr. St. and yet Contradict himself as he does should out of a pretended zeal Charge Christian Religion even when it was in its greatest purity with the same kind of Idolatry as Dr. St. fastens upon us and that notwithstanding at the same time carried away with the like Charity as the Dr. is should confess that Christian Religion was then not only a True Religion but also a Pure Safe and Sound Religion and with such a Religion even Dr. St. affirms the Idolatry he Charges us with yea all kind of Idolatry to be inconsistent as will appear hereafter Now in this Case might not the Dr. in vindication of Christian Religion say and prove too for I do not aver as he seems to insinuate that it is enough to say he is guilty of self-contradiction unless one proves it that such a man did contradict himself in granting Christian Religion to be a true and sound Religion and yet Charging it with Idolatry Could he rationally say that the only true Consequence in that case would be not that such a person contradicted himself but that he thought some kind of Idolatry to be consistent not only with the Being but also with the Soundness of a Church or should he think so would he not therefore contradict himself and having proved to him that the Idolatry he fathered upon the Christian Religion was destructive to the Soundness of a Religion would the Consequence be that the Charity of such a person must be so much the less and that he must deny hereafter the soundness of Christian Religion Would it not be a suffient way of Answering such a man to demonstrate unto him that the Charge of Idolatry cast by him upon Christian Religion was false and consequently that what ever
he produced in proof thereof was void and to demonstrate this unto him would not be enough to shew that such a charge did contradict a Principle viz. the Soundness of Christian Religion true in it self and assented unto by both parties This is just our case with Dr. St. For as that Jew does contradict himself by granting Christian Religion to be a sound Religion and yet charging it with Idolatry So Dr. St. Contradicts himself by affirming the Roman Church to be a true Church and yet Idolatrous as we have proved and he now admits and as it would doubtless be a sufficient way of answering that Jew to prove unto him that the charge of Idolatry he laid upon Christian Religion was false as contradicting a Principle true in it self and assented unto by both parties So the way we have taken to answer Dr. St. being the very same must needs be sufficient and finally the Quibbles Dr. St. makes at our manner of Answering are or might be made by the forementioned Jew at the like manner of Answering him and consequently they are insignificant in both Cases or in neither Now to the Case proposed by Dr. St. my Answer is That it would be a sufficient way to Answer that person of Judah for those of Israel to prove to him as the easily might that if the Church of Israel was in those times a True Church as they both affirmed though erroneously it was not Idolatrous and that if it was not Idolatrous what ever he alledged to prove it such was void and of no force This I say would have been a sufficient way of Answering that person of Judah but not others who deny as we do the Church of Israel to have retained in that time the Essentials of a true Church and it is no wonder that what is a sufficient Answer to one be not a sufficient Answer to another Because different Adversaries go upon different Principles Let 's now see what Answer the Dr. makes to the Instance I produced of a Witness pag. 1.14 who being once Convinced of Self-Contradiction in the evidence he alledges renders himself unworthy to be heard any more in the Court at least till he has repaired his Reputation and whatever he produces void and of no force Besides the condign punishment he is liable unto To this Dr. St. Answers ingenuously confessing as has been hinted above page 15. That Self contradiction being proved overthrows the Authority of the person who stands convicted thereof and where things depend meerly upon Authority it is a good Argument and nowhere else I willingly accept of what Dr. St. so liberally grants and hence conclude that if he contradicts himself as we both now suppose he does all his Quotations and all the Arguments he grounds upon them and he has scarce any Argument which is not grounded upon some Quotation or other signifie nothing because they depend meerly upon his Authority which as he confesses is overthrown by Self-contradiction neither does he deserve to be heard any more in matters that depend of Authority till he has recruited his Credit All this according to Dr. St.'s own confession follows from Self-contradiction once proved against him And though one may seek out the Testimonies he aledges in their proper fountains at least till then and till one has found them to be faithfully quoted and who has examined all his Quotations he is not bound to give any credit unto them and should one take the pains to examin the Testimonies he alledges in their proper places he would easily see that they are either frivolous or false as the Learned Author of Catholicks no Idolaters who was pleased to examin some of them has already partly discovered Besides no body in prudence can think himself bound to examin in their proper places the allegations of one who is evidently convicted of Self-contradiction As for instance to go on in the same similitude of a Witness should one before a judge impeach another of High-Treason and in proof thereof name the complices and alledg that there might be found in such a place of his house store of Armes and in his Closet Letters of secret Intelligence with Rebels and Traitours yet withal should manifestly contradict himself averring before the same Judge and at the same time that the person whom he impeached of Treason was and had always been a faithful Subject to his Majesty Can Dr. St. imagin in this case that such a judge would be bound upon the meer Testimony of a Witness who had so palpably Contradicted himself to send Officers to Apprehend the Conspiratours named by him and to search the house of the person impeached to see whether what the Witness alledged was true or not or rather that he ought not in prudence to look upon the Evidence of such a Witness as null and of no force no less than if a Madman had put in the like accusation And yet such a Witness might plead for himself in the same terms wherein Dr. St. pretends to vindicate his own proceedings For he might say That though he should contradict himself it does not therefore follow as certainly it does not that all his Evidences are false and whatever he shall hereafter say in the same matter invalid That he never was so vain as to make use of his own authority to prove a thing to be true because he believ'd it or that his saying alone makes a thing to be true That he does not desire any one to follow his Opinion because it is his but he offers evidences for proof of what he saies assigning the places where they may find manifest Arguments of Treason That if these be good and true in themselves they do not therefore cease to be so because they are inconsistent with what he saies in favour of the person he impeaches That such persons as are constituted by publick Authority as all Judges are to provide for the security of his Majesties Royal Person when they hear one impeached of High Treason the Complices nominated and the place assigned where the Instruments of the conjuration may be found ought not presently to conclude all these Allegations are false and of no force meerly because the person who makes use of them does judge so charitably of the Traitour as to suppose he still retains the Essentials of a Faithful Subject and that therefore they make very ill use of his Charity but however that they are more concern'd in proving the person he impeached not guilty of Treason than he is in defending his Charitable Opinion of him That what they will get by charging him with Contradiction is only that hereafter he shall not think so Charitably of the persons he impeaches Finally that when he saies that such a person whom he impeaches is a Traitour but yet a faithful and loyal Subject the only true Consequence that thence may be inferred is not that he contradicts himself but that he thinks some kind of High-Treason to