an Image which is no God is all one kind of formal Idolatry Wherefore Dr. St. since he assents to this Doctrine Parallels the Veneration of Images practised by the Roman Church to the Worship of False Gods and looks upon them both as one kind of formal Idolatry and certainly the Worship of False Gods as rejecting the true God is inconsistent with the Being of a True Church For what Idolatry is so if this be not In the same pag. he pretends to shew that the grossest Idolatry in the world is excusable on the same grounds whereon we excuse from Idolatry the Veneration of Christ in the Eucharist which he compares with the Idolatry of those who said Christ was the Sun and he adds pag. 136. That the Absurdities of Transubstantiation are greater than of that Doctrine which teaches the Sun to be God and in the same place he calls it as Venial a Fault The Worshipping that for the True God which is not so such is the Idolatry he Fathers upon us and terms it the Superstition of an undue way of Worshiping as the Worshipping False Gods which he stiles the Superstitian of an undue object and pag. 137. he saies thus The most stupid and senseless of all Idolaters who Worship the very Images for God which the wiser among the Heathens according to his Judgment alwayes disalowed were in truth the most excusable upon this ground upon which we excuse from Idolatry the Veneration we give to the Sacrament of the Altar and by consequence the Idolatry he Fathers upon us in this matter is in his opinion worse and less excusable than the most stupid and senseless Idolatry of the Heathens In the page immediately before he compares our Veneration of Christ in the Eucharist with the Aegyptians worshipping the Sun for God and the Israelites the Golden Calf believing it was the true God Pag. 142 143. speaking of the Veneration the Roman Church allows to Saints he adds I would willingly understand why I may not as well honour God by giving Worship to the Sun as to Ignatius Loyola or St. Francis or any other of the late Cannonized Saints And why does he not speak of the B. Virgin Mary of the Apostles of St. Augustine and of other Ancient Saints since he equally impugns the Veneration of all Saints The reason he adds is excellent I am sure saies he the Sun is a certain Monument of Gods goodness and I cannot be mistaken therein But I can never be certain of the holiness of those persons viz. the late Cannonized Saints For all that I can know Ignatius Loyola was a great Hypocrite But I am sure that the Sun is none I know the best of men have their Corruptions and to what degree it is impossible for others to understand But I am certain the spots of the Sun are no Moral Impurities nor displeasing to God How frivolous this reason is will clearly appear by this instance Dr. St. will not deny but that some Reverence Respect Esteem and Veneration may be given in this life to men by reason of their Holiness Sanctity and Honesty of Life and that one may here upon earth implore the Prayers of other men especially Holy and Honest Men or invoke them to be his Intercessours with God in his Necessities which is practised by Protestants and no more than this we ascribe to the Saints in Heaven Now according to this Reason of the Dr. to use his own words Why may I not as well honour Dr. St. 's Cat or Dog who in the common opinion of Philosophers as being Substances endowed with Life are perfecter than the Sun as Dr. St. himself or invoke them as well as him or any of the Protestant Bishops or Ministers I am sure Dr. St. 's Cat and Dog do whatever God will have them do and that they never have transgress'd any of his Commandments and I cannot be mistaken therein But I can never be certain that Dr. St. is an honest man yea I am certain that he has transgress'd Gods Commandments For all that I can know Dr. St. is a great Hypocrite and an errant Knave But I am sure Dr. St. 's Cat and Dog are none I know that Dr. St. has his Corruptions since the best of men have theirs and to what degree he has them is impossible for me or others to understand but I am certain that the Blemishes of those Creatures supposing they have them are no Moral Impurities nor displeasing to God Whence it follows that according to this Argument of Dr. St. 't is as Lawful and more laudable to Reverence upon the account of Honesty Dr. St.'s Cat or Dog to invoke their Intercession as to Reverence Dr. St. himself or to invoke his assistance by Prayers and what ever answer Dr. St. shall give to this Instance will solve the Objection he makes against us For 't is certain that the Sun is as uncapable to understand or to be made to understand our addresses or to intercede for us or to lead a moral honest life as a Cat or a Dog But Dr. St. knows too well that it is not for his interest to consider the incoherency of his Principles or the train of Absurdities which commonly wait upon his Arguments Yet for our present intent it is enough to shew that the Idolatry he endeavours to fasten upon the Roman Church in the Invocation of Saints which she allows of is in his perswasion as bad or worse than the Adoration of the Sun Page 159. he makes a large Parallel between the Veneration that Roman Catholicks afford to Saints and the Idolatry of the Heathens in Sacrificing to their Inferiour Deities or Heroes Did the Israelites saies he use solemn Ceremonies of making any capable of Divine Worship So does the Roman Church Did they set up their Images in publick places of Worship and then kneel down before them and Invocate those represented by them So does the Roman Church Did they Consecrate Temples and Erect Altars to them and keep Festivals and burn Incense before them So does the Roman Church Lastly Did they offer up Sacrifices in those Temples to the Honour of their lesser Deities or Heroes So does the Roman Church Whence it appears that Dr. St. does hold us for as great Idolaters by reason of the Honour we afford to Saints as the Heathens were in Adoring their lesser Deities All this Doctrine he had laid down in his Answer to the Questions pag. 3 4. where he has these words The same Argument whereby the Papists make the Worship of the Bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry would make the grossest Heathenish Idolatry not to be so And a little after he saies thus The Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist and the formal Invocation of Saints doth require the giving to the Creature the Worship due only to the Creator Whence it follows that Dr. St. does Charge the Roman
such a Proposition for a particular Affirmative and as the true Notion of a man in general is Animal rationale so the true notion of Idolatry according to Dr. St. himself pag. 24. quoted above is giving the Honour due only to God to a meer Creature Wherefore these two Propositions are universal Affirmatives equivalent to these To be any man whatsoever is to be Animal rationale To teach any Idolatry whatsoever is to teach that the Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature The reason hereof is because as Logicians tell us an indefinite Proposition in a necessary matter such is the Notion of a Thing which must necessarily agree unto it is equivalent to an Universal as to say a man is Animal rationale is as much as to say every man is such and to say Idolatry is the giving to a meer creature the honour due only to God which is the true notion of Idolatry in general is the same as if one should say All Idolatry is such Now if this Universal Affirmative be true as it is even according to Dr. St.'s confession a Church that teaches any sort of Idolatry whatsoever does teach that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature and hence it necessarily follows That no Church that does not teach this can be guilty of any sort of Idolatry as because every man is animal rationale a rational Animal it must needs follow that nothing that is not animal rationale can be a man whoever has the least smattering of Logick cannot be ignorant of these Rules But it was not for Dr. St.'s purpose to remember any thing of Logick or of Rationality Whence I conclude that the Proposition layed down by me is an Universal Affirmative equivalent to the Proposition set down by the Dr. Since therefore no Church can teach any Idolatry without teaching that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature it is evidently inferred that no Church can teach any Idolatry without erring against the forementioned Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion which is all I pretended in my second Proposition Besides although I should grant as I do not that a Church might teach some sort of Idolatry without teaching or requiring that the Honour due only to God be given to a meer Creature yet according to Dr. St.'s own confession the Idolatry he Fathers upon the Roman Church is such that it requires the honour which is due only to God to be given to a meer Creature For in his Discourse concerning the Roman Idolatry pag. 3. he has these words The Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist and the formal Invocation of Saints doth require giving to the Creature Worship due only to the Creator So that according to this Assertion of Dr. St. which he endeavours to establish throughout that whole Discourse no Church can teach the Idolatry he fathers upon the Roman Church without teaching the giving to a meer Creature the Honor Worship due only to the Creator and consequently without erring against that Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion contained in my first Proposition which is enough for my main intent So that if my second Proposition be propounded thus To teach that sort of Idolatry which Dr. St. Fathers upon the Roman Church is to err against the forementioned Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion he will have nothing to quibble at it since he expressly asserts that such a kind of Idolatry requires the contrary to that Article whence I conclude that this second Proposition is also agreed unto by Dr. St. either absolutely or at least as far as is necessary for my purpose My third Proposition runs thus A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry To this Proposition he answers That it is very Sophistical and Captious Dr. St. seems to be possess'd with such a panick fear to be Non-pluss'd by me that had I said two and two are four in all likelyhood he would have called it a Sophistical and Captious Proposition And this is a common flaw in weak but obstinate defendants who when they have nothing to say against a Proposition they Characterise it for Sophistical But let us see in what consists the Sophistry and Captiousness of this Proposition He saies pag. 28 29. That if by Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion he means the main Fundamental points of Doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed then a Church which does own all the Fundamentals of Doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry and teach those things wherein it lies But where is Dr. St.'s ingenuity My Proposition was not That a Church which owns all Fundamentals does not teach Idolatry but that a Church which does not err against any Fundamental does not teach Idolatry which is very different because a Church may err against a Doctrine which she owns and contradict her self as has been hinted at above and Dr. St. himself agrees unto as hereafter will appear So that the Dr. does not deny my Proposition but another very different We may therefore take my Proposition for granted yea we have shewn already that any Fundamental Errour or an Errour against any Fundamental point great or little if there be any Fundamental point of little concern is destructive to the Being of a Church He goes on and saies But if by erring against an Article of Faith be meant that a Church which does not err at all in matters of Religion cannot teach Idolatry then he concludes the Proposition is true but impertinent Neither does this part of the distinction touch my Proposition For all matters of Religion are not Articles of Faith according to Dr. St. who does not think all the 39. Articles to be Articles of Faith yet he judges them all to be Articles or matters of Religion and to concern the Soundness of a Church but not the Essence nay we do not hold that all the Ceremonies of our Church and all our Ecclesiastical Precepts are Articles of Faith yet they may be called matters of Religion Wherefore these two Propositions A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith and a Chuch that does not err at all in matters of Religion are very different neither does the former Proposition contain the latter Is not this when a learned distinction wherein neither part touches the Proposition which the Author pretends to distinguish whereas according to all reason Both Members of the Distinction are to be contained in the word which is distinguished Would it not be ridiculous for one to distinguish thus the following Proposition Every man is a rational Animal if by Man be meant all kind of Animals 't is false But if by Man be meant only that kind of Animal which is man
't is true For as a man does not signifie all kind of Animals but only a certain kind So neither an Article of Faith does signifie all matters of Religion but only certain points So that Dr. St.'s distinction comes to be this If by Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion be understood not only Articles of Faith and Fundamental points but also other points which are neither Articles of Faith nor Fundamental i. e. if by these words he understood what they do not signifie then very wisely the Dr. saies pag. 28. The Proposition is true but impertinent as certainly it is impertinent But who makes it so But if by Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion be only understood Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion as whoever has any understanding in him must needs understand Then what then he saies not a word to the Proposition layed down by me viz. A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry Whereas according to the common Rules of distinguishing Propositions he should have told us whether our Proposition qualified with that part of the Distinction was true or false But he coggs in another Proposition very different saying That a Church which does not own all Fundamentals of Doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry Let any one judge whether this be not downright juggling Whence the Reader may easily see to what extremities this poor man is brought to make good against us his pretended Charge of Idolatry and to clear himself from Self-contradiction Moreover either he does admit other Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion besides those which are contained in the Apostles Creed or not if he does admit others then the Distinction would run thus If by not erring against any Article of Faith be understood that a Church which does not err against some certain Articles of Faith cannot teach Idolatry i. e. if in place of my Proposition which is an Vniversal Negative be put in another Proposition very different viz. a Particular Negative then the Proposition which he puts in may be false as certainly it may be for a Church may teach Idolatry without erring against every Artiticle of Faith as the Heathens who admitted a Deity and a Religion did not err against every Article of Faith though they taught Idolatry But this cannot hinder the truth of my Proposition which was an Vniversal Negative viz. not erring against any when as his Proposition would be a particular Negative viz. not erring against some As this universal is true a man that does not transgress any of Gods Commandments is a good man but this other particular may be false A man that does not transgress some certain Commandments of God viz. those which concern immediately the honour of God is a good man neither could the falsity of this latter Proposition obstruct the truth of the former But if Dr. St. admits no Articles at all of Faith nor Fundamental points which are not contained explicitely nor implicitely in the Apostles Creed then he must needs reduce to the Apostles Creed the Article quoted in my first Proposition viz. The honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature since he grants this to be an Article of Faith and a Fundamental point of Religion as has been seen and doubtless 't is a main Fundamental point too And this is enough for the truth of our third Proposition For if a Church does not err against any Article of Faith even of those which the Dr. grants to be such she does not err against the forementioned Article which even the Dr. places amongst Articles of Faith and if it does not err against this Article it does not teach Idolatry at least that kind of Idolatry which he is pleased to father upon us For to teach any sort of Idolatry at least that which the Dr. laies to our charge is to err against the aforesaid Article which not only in our opinion but also in the opinion of the Dr. and other Protestants is an Article of Faith as does manifestly appear by what has been handled in our Second Proposition My fourth Proposition was framed thus The Church of Rome does teach Veneration of Images Adoration of the Hoast and Invocation of Saints To this Dr. St. page 29. answers That it is agreed on by both sides without adding any more Now I see the Dr. takes heart and dares to grant a Proposition set down by me without stigmatizing it either before or after for Sophistical and Captious Hence I infer that the Veneration of Images Adoration of the Hoast and Invocation of the Saints are Doctrines of the Roman Church and by consequence they are not meer practices of Roman Catholicks For when a practice of the members of any Chuch is taught and approved by the Church her self then such a practice comes to be the Doctrine of that Church This I have said because sometimes Dr. St. does seem to look upon the forementioned points as meer practices of Roman-Catholicks and it is certain that a Church may be a True Church and yet the Members thereof practice some things contrary to the Doctrine and Tenets of the Church whose members they are For the Dr. will not deny that among Protestants there are some nay many who although they assent to the Tenets of the Protestant Church do contradict in their practice the Doctrine they profess to believe being Adulterers Thieves Perjurers and Drunkards living as if there were no God according to that of St. Paul Titus 1.16 quoted by Dr. St. pag. 25. speaking of some who profess that they know God but in works they deny him And yet sure the Dr. will not therefore affirm that the Protestant Church is not a true and sound Church However should she teach Adultery Thieving and Perjury to be lawful or that there is no God certainly the Dr. in that case would not hold her for a True much less for a Sound Church Our present debate therefore is concerning the Doctrines of the Roman Church and whether Dr. St. does not Contradict himself by asserting that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet that she does teach Idolatry or those things wherein it lies My fifth and last Proposition goes thus The Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion Dr. St. does confess pag. 29. That this is his Concession from whence all the force of our Argument is taken and we do not deny but that this Concession of the Dr. is of great concern in order to our present Design All the endeavours therefore of the Dr. are bent to shew in what sense this Concession is made by him and of what force it is in this present Debate I prove this to be Dr. St.'s Sentiment which some did question when my book first came forth as I insinuated above
a Dr. or of Divinity should not be ignorant of them and all that he does in this kind is as appears by the instances above produced First he feigns me to speak what I do not and then he affirms that I speak Sophistically and Captiously Thirdly 't is the common stile of our Polemical Divines here in England whether Catholicks or Protestants to use this Syllogistical way both in their Books and conferences concerning matters of Religion when they will write or speak close to the Subject they handle Let my Adversary be a president who in his Answer to the two Questions proposed by one of the Church of Rome he reduces almost all his Discourses to formal Syllogisms although he laboured that Answer only for the satisfaction of a Lady and Ladies do not use to be much verst in Artificial Logick or formal Syllogisms And in the late Disputes betwen the Annabaptists and Quakers the greatest of their Auditory being made up of Women and Tradesmen who have not frequented Universities yet their Arguments were framed in a Syllogistical way Since therefore I had never heard this common method of treating Controversies reprehended in our Divines Protestants or Catholicks and being moreover inclined thereunto as having been bred the greatest part of my life in Famous Universities where a Scholastick and Dialectical method is most in vogue I thought no just exception would be made against me should I indulge my self in a thing nothing extravagant and suitable to my inclination especially when I intended my Book particularly for learned men who are not unacquainted with Syllogisms And for the satisfaction of Protestants in this matter 't will without doubt be enough to see that my Adversary Dr. St. although he seems to have been resolved to pardon me in nothing which he could find to be any way obnoxious to his Reproofs has not carped at me upon this account However if any one be not satisfied with these Reasons he may pass over the Formal Syllogisms laid down at the closing of each point in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet only I desire him to make the Deduction by himself in the manner he shall think best The Two Syllogisms therefore wherewith out of the Propositions above mentioned and assented unto by the Doctor I demonstrated the Roman Church to be free from Idolatry in the Veneration of Images Adoration of the Hoast and Invocation of Saints were these A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry See Prop. 3. But the Roman Church is a Church that does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion See Prop. 5. Therefore she does not teach Idolatry But she does teach Veneration of Images Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist and Invocation of Saints See Prop. 4. Therefore none of these Practices as taught and allowed of by the Roman Church are Idolatry We may add this farther Discourse A Church that does not err against this Fundamental point viz. The Honour due only to the Creator is not to be given to the Creature does not teach Idolatry all Idolatry being destructive to the forementioned point See Prop. 3. But such is the Roman Church as is evident by the fifth Proposition Therefore she does not teach Idolatry And hence manifestly appears how palpably Dr. St. Contradicts himself in charging the Roman Church with Idolatry and yet granting her to be a True Church unerring against all Fundamentals For it is as much as if he had said she does not err against any Fundamental point yet she does err against some CHAP. VIII Several Quibbles against the aforesaid Doctrine removed FRom what we have hitherto set down may easily be answer'd several Quibbles which Dr. St. others do or may object against the Doctrine above established The Doctor often insinuates that there are two sorts of Idolary The one consistent with the Being but not with the Soundness of a Church The other inconsistent with the very Being of a Church and he makes the Roman Church guilty of the former kind of Idolatry and not of the latter Whence he concludes that he does not commit any Contradiction by charging the Roman Church with this sort of Idolatry and yet granting her to be a true Church But this objection vanishes to nothing because we have shewn that the general notion of Idolatry allowed by the Dr. is inconsistent with a Fundamental and Essential point of Religion and consequently with the very Being of a True Church And since there can be no kind of Idolatry which does not participate the general notion of Idolatry as is evident it manifestly follows that all sorts possible of Idolatry are inconsistent with the Being of a Church Moreover we have already demonstrated that Dr. St. affirms in the places quoted above the Idolatry allowed of by the Roman Church to be as bad nay worse than the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens Now if the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens be destructive to the Being of a Church as certainly it is neither does nor can Dr. St. deny it how is it credible that an Idolatry yet worse than that should be consistent with the Being and Essence of a True Church The Dr. might as well with the subtlety of his wit distinguish two Antichrists the one that is contrary to Christ the other though worse than the former that is not contrary to Christ but his intimate Friend For I am confident that one may as easily find out an Antichrist not contrary to Christ as an Idolatry not dstructive to the Being of a True Church In the like manner he might say and therein he would highly oblige the Libertins of our Nation that there are two sorts of Debauchery the one inconsistent with a good life the other though far worse than the former yet consistent with it and then tells us that one cannot be a good and pious man and yet a Debauchee in the former sense But that if one be a Debauchee in the latter sense which is yet far more horrible than the former he may very well be a good and pious man without the least shew of Contradiction and then laugh at us as half-witted men because we cannot understand these Niceties Certainly there has never been yet in the world a man who has more obliged Idolaters than Dr. St. has done I and many more with me have alwayes believed that there is no Idolatry which is not Idolatry and that all Idolatry is inconsistent with the Being of a True Church But the incomparable Dr. St. has found out one Idolatry that is no-Idolatry another Idolatry which kills a Church another though worse than the former that makes her only sick and another finally that is an Essential perfection and a necessary ingredient of a True Church as we shall see when we come to examin his Answer to our Appendix Now since the Dr. has invented such pretty kinds of Idolatry
Disciples of the Pharisees and Officers of Herod came to tempt our Saviour Mat. 22. they proposed unto him a question and our Saviour starting a new question and raising a new Difficulty solved the question proposed unto him and silenced his Adversaries But had Dr. St. been with the Enemies of Christ in that occasion he would have suggested unto them That it was a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavelling humour in order to answer one question to start another Besides what question or difficulty do I start I take for granted that the Roman Church is a true Church as Dr. St. has heretofore and does still grant and hence I prove the nullity of the Charge he laies against us which is the common way of confuting an Adversary viz. Out of Principles granted by him to infer the contradictory of what he maintains But Dr. St. had charged me with Sophistry and Captiousness and he must make it good the best way he can which is to feign his Adversary to say what he does not CHAP. VII The Invalidity of the Doctor 's Answers to our Propositions in Particular LEt us see now for the greater satisfaction of the Reader what he Answers to every particular Proposition I laid down in order to prove him guilty of Self contradiction in Charging us with Idolatry and to clear our Church from so foul an Aspersion my first Proposition was this 'T is an Article of Faith and a Fundamental point of Religion That the Honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature This Proposition the Dr. absolutely grants without any distinction saying pag. 26. His first Proposition I agree to He adds afterwards That there is no dispute between us whether that Honour which is due only to God may be given to a Creature and finally he grants this Proposition to be in it self true But after he had absolutely granted it without any distinction he begins to quibble at it But I desire he would tell me whether the exception he afterwards makes against it does hinder or not the absolute truth thereof If it does not what more can I or any one else desire when we lay down Principles or Propositions than that the Proposition we advance be absolutely true If it does hinder the absolute truth of the aforesaid Proposition why did he grant it absolutely without any distinction But what is the exception he makes against us in this Proposition He saies We should have discust what that Honour is which is due only to God Wherein he adds there is a great dispute between them and us So that it seems he would have had us lay down among the Principles which we advanced against him some thing that is disputed between us which is point blank against the very notion of a Principle which ought to he agreed unto by all or at least by the Adversary with whom we deal So that he accuses us that we proceed Sophistically and Captiously and why Because forsooth we do not lay down for a Principle that which is not a Principle which doubtless is a frivolous accusation Neither was there any need we should discuss in particular what that Honour is which is due only to God For the Honour we give to Images or Saints either is due only to God or not If the Dr. saies it is then it is a palpable Contradiction for the Dr. to affirm that our Church is True and yet that she allows Saints and Images such an Honour If he saies it is not then how can he accuse our Church of Idolatry because she gives to Saints and Images such an Honour Wherefore without descending to the particular Honour due only to God we prove that either Dr. St. must confess that our Church is free from the aforesaid Idolatray or that he contradicts himself which was my proper task in that place and is not this enough He adds pag. 27. That it cannot excuse us from Idolatry to say That we acknowledge it to be Idolatry to give that Honour which we suppose to be due only to God to a meer Creature in case that he can prove that we give to meer Creatures any part of that Honour which is due to God I do confess that were it once proved that we give any Honour duly only to God to a meer Creature such an acknowledgment would not excuse us from Idolatry as it did not excuse the Heathens from the like Crime although they acknowledged the same Truth But here we must reflect That sometimes the Dr. saies that 't is Idolatry to give to a meer Creature the Honour due only to God and in that he saies the truth Othertimes as in this place he omits only and speaks of Honour due to God For some honour is due to God but not only to God As when our Saviour was upon earth without doubt the Honour of kneeling down before him was due unto him which Honour notwithstanding is due unto a King and to ones Father But what is all this that Dr. St. sets down in this Paragraph to clear himself from Self-contradiction in asserting our Church to be a true Church and yet charging her with Idolatry which was the design in this second part of his Answer and my immediate intention in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet was to prove him guilty of Self-contradiction as he saies page 28. His immediate intention was not to clear their Church from Idolatry but to accuse me of Contradiction yet I have shewn above that if I evince that he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon I do manifestly clear our Church from Idolatry and that this part was of my design My 2d Proposition was as follows To teach Idolatry is to err against the forementioned Article of Faith Fundamental point of Religion i.e. as he saies to teach Idolatry is to teach That the Honour which is due only to God is to be given I sayed may be given to a meer Creature To this second Proposition he Answers thus pag. 27. That this is to teach Idolatry no one questions but he adds that they who do not teach this i. e. that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature may yet teach Idolatry and therefore he saies We should if we had proceeded as we ought to have done have laid down an universal Negative viz. No Church that does not teach this can be guilty of Idolatry and not a particular Affirmative as he fancies this Proposition of mine to be To teach Idolatry is to teach that the Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature Hence we may discover how great a Logician Dr. St. is I wonder how he should fancy that Proposition of mine to be a particular Affirmative and not an Universal Is this Proposition a particular Affirmative To be a man is to be Animal rationale Sure no body that understands any thing of Rationality can take
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
Church with an Idolatry of an undue Object Because the Worship due only to God is given by us as he fancies to a meer Creature and not only with Idolatry of an undue and prohibited man-manner of Worship which are two sorts of Idolatry he makes mention of In the same page to confirm the former Doctrine he saies thus In the Worship of God by Images wherewith he Charges us the Worship due to God and I suppose he speaks of a Worship due only to God is terminated wholly on the Creature Wherefore if this be Idolatry it must be Idolatry of an undue Object Much more to the same purpose might be alledged out of him But what already I have produced is sufficient From what hitherto has been quoted out of Dr. St. 't is manifest that the Idolatry he Fathers upon the Roman Church is in his opinion as bad nay worse than the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens Now since the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens is beyond debate and Dr. St. alwaies supposes it is so is I say inconsistent with the Being and Essence of a True Church and a true Religion and since the Malice of Idolatry is to be scaned by the opposition it has with Religion this being so is it not a madness to say and confess that the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens is inconsistent not only with the Soundness but also with the Essence of a true Church but yet that the Idolatry of the Papists although as bad nay worse than the grossest of the Heathens is inconsistent only with the Soundness of a Church and not with the Essence Is not this as if one should say If you cut off the head of a man you will kill him but if you give him another wound as bad or worse if you run him through the heart if you cut him all in pieces you will only make him sick What sence can there be in affirming that the Heathens are not members of the True Church because they are Idolaters in so high a degree and yet that Roman Catholicks though grosser Idolaters than the Heathens are Members of the True Church That the Heathenish Idolatry at least some is of a nature high enough to unchurch Heathens and yet that the Roman Idolatry though grosser and higher than any Heathenish is not of a nature high enough as he saies pag. 22. to unchurch Romanists If this be not Non-sense what is Moreover from what we have alledg'd out of the Dr. 't is evident that he ascrib's unto us Idolatry of an undue Object and sure all such Idolatry is inconsistent with the very Being of a True Church For Dr. St. when he would excuse the Idolatry he Fathers upon us from being destructive to the very Essence of a true Church he endeavours to say that it is only Idolatry of an undue manner of Worship which shews that he holds Idolatry of an undue Object to be destructive to the Essence of a Church Since therefore he confesses in the places above mentioned that the Idolatry of the Roman Church is Idolatry of an undue Object he makes her guilty of an Idolatry inconsistent with the Essence of a true Church Again Dr. St. seems to suppose that an Idolatry which brings in a multiplicity of Gods is destructive to the Essence of a Church and why Because it is destructive at least by consequence and mediately to a Fundamental point of Religion viz. the Unity of the Godhead Since therefore the Idolatry he fathers upon us is destructive at least mediately to this Fundamental point The Honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature assented unto even by Pagans it must be inconsistent with the Being of a Church For an Errour destructive to any Fundamental point of Religion whatever is destructive to the Being of a Church as has been demonstrated Yea an Idolatry accompanied with the acknowledgment of one onely God such is the Idolatry he imputes to us may doubtless be inconsistent with the Being of a Church as for instance the Idolatry of such who accknowledging one only God should adore no other God but the Sun Yet farther the Adoration of a red Cloth which the Laplanders use either is destructive to the Being of a Church or not Sure Dr. St. is not so mad as to say it is not Now if it be destructive to the Essence of a Church as certainly it is is not Dr. St. ashamed to say that the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist is worse and less excusable than that of the Laplanders and yet that it may be consistent with the Being of a True Church Can any one require a more convincing Argument to prove that such a Church is no true Church then if he can shew that she adores or requires the Adoration of a red Cloth for God or something as bad or worse Lastly Dr. St. affirms that the Roman Church does not only teach an Idolatry as bad or worse than the grossest of the Heathens but also that she teaches it as an Article of Divine Faith Fathering it upon God and making him the Author thereof For the Roman Church delivers as Articles of Divine Faith the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist the Invocation of Saints and the Veneration of Images as both he and we confess The Dr. moreover maintaines all the forementioned practices and Doctrines to be flar Idolatry as much or more detestable than the grossest Heathenish Idolatry Now certainly 't is a Fundamental and Essential point of Religion That God is not the Author of any Superstition whatsoever much less of so gross an Idolatry as he will needs have the Roman Idolatry to be and consequently 't is impossible that the Roman Church should teach God to be the Author of such an Idolatry as necessarily she must if she teaches it as an Article of Faith without erring against the aforesaid Fundamental point and by consequence without incurring a Fundamental Errour destructive to the very Being of a Church 'T is manifest therefore that Dr. St. does commit a palpable Contradiction by asserting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with an Idolatry as bad or worse than the grossest of the Heathens I know not whether these lines will fetch blood from Dr. St. for as he saies Pref. Gen. he was threatned with such lines from his Adversaries But I am sure that if he has any blood in him and has not lost all sense of his honour they will fetch the blood into his face and make him blush After the Dr. had proved unsuccessful in shewing my way of proceeding disingenuous he endeavours to prove it sophistical and captious saying pag. 23. That the starting of a new Objection or the raising a new Difficulty answers no Argument and that this manner of proceeding of mine is a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavilling humour rather than of any intention to satisfie an inquisitive mind To this I answer When the
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
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
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
would such a man breed in those who either by reason of their Education or upon some other account were ignorant of the true condition of Christian Religion and had already some prejudice against it That these are the Artifices used by Dr. Still against Roman Catholicks might be evidenced by several instances taken out of his works One of the proofs that he alledges to evince the Roman Church to be guilty of Fanaticisme for that was his intent are the extravagancies of the Alumbradoe's and Fratricelli who were not only disowned but condemned by the Prelates of the Roman Church Moreover he pretends to father upon the Roman Church the Gun-powder Treason though detested by Roman Catholicks and without so much as taking notice of the Sentence that King James who was most concerned in that plot gave in Vindication of Catholicks in his own Declaration about it saying That the generality of his Catholick Subjects did abhor such a detestable Conspiracy no less than he himself If such Artifices therefore as these be warrantable what Community is there so holy I say again which may not easily be traduced Should God permit Dr. St. as certainly he may to declare himself a Jew or an Atheist he has already laid up good store of Arguments wherewith according to his manner of proceeding to traduce Christianity Fathering upon the Christian Religion all the horrible sins that ever have been committed by any Christian whatsoever Protestant or Catholick And if he should want matter to fill up his Volumes as following this way of attacking his Adversary he scarce ever can he may suppose Christians either to teach Crimes which they do not teach or what they do teach to be Crimes which is the way he commonly takes to oppugne Roman Catholicks Since therefore the same Topicks and Reasons drawn from them wherewith Dr. St. endeavours to traduce the particular Tenets of the Roman Religion may without difficulty be levelled against the general Principles of Christian Religion That he has been pleased to make use of those Arguments rather against the former than the latter could not proceed out of more Reason for the one than for the other and consequently it proceeded from some Interest which has so great an Adscendent over the hearts of men or other passion that byass'd him that way Whence I affirmed that had the same passion of Interest byassed him against Christian Religion which made him so malicious against the Roman it is very credible that he would have shewen himself as pievish against the one as the other All this I have said to signifie what it was that this verily believe of mine was founded upon In confirmation of what was couched in the forementioned words I added immediately But this Dr. is so unfortunate as well in vindicating the Protestant as in attacking the Roman Church that he neither produces any thing in vindication of Protestancy but the same or the like may be alledged in defence of Socinianisme and other Heresies condemned as such by Protestants See the Guide in Controversies Discourse 4. nor opposes any thing against the Roman Religion but the same or the like may be objected by Jews or Pagans against the Christian which according to Scripture is a scandal to the former and a derision to the latter So that whoever will be pleased to reflect seriously upon his Discourses he may clearly see that his Proofs for Protestancy will assoon make one a Socinian as a Protestant and his objections against Catholicks will assoon make one no Christian as no Catholick And what does the Dr. answer to all this All that he could which is just nothing not taking so much as notice of the forementioned words although they contain two main points which are proved at large by several Catholick Authors and do utterly enervate whatsoever Dr. St. brings for himself or against us and do moreover force the Dr. himself to salve whatever he produces against Catholicks if he will be a Christian and to confess the inanity of whatever he alledges for Protestants as such if he will not be a Socinian The first point is that he alledges nothing in defence of Protestancy as Protestancy which may not be alledged and with the same force too in vindication of Socinianisme or any other herefie This point has been discuss'd at large by those two famous and solid Divines the Author of Protestancy without Principles and The Guide in Controversies Disc 4. now quoted wherein is contained a Plea between a Protestant and a Socinian And although Dr. St. has had at last the courage to offer at an answer to the forementioned Books yet he has not dared to touch this point which is no small confirmation of the opinion some have conceived that Dr. St. is a Socinian and yet the Church of England looks upon Socinians as Hereticks The second point is That Dr. St. produces nothing against the particular Tenets of the Roman Church but the same or the like may be objected by Jews Turks Pagans or Libertins against the Common Principles of Christianity Neither is he ignorant but that some Pagans look upon our Scriptures as Fables no less than Dr. St. looks upon the Legends of our Saints as such The Jews also denyed the New Testament and the Turks make our Scripture to truckle under to their Alcoran This point is solidly discuss'd in that erudite Book Reason and Religion and although the Dr. pretends to answer it yet he prudently waves this point or very slightly touches it spending the far greater part of his Answer in scoffing at the Miracles of the Roman Church even those which have been authentically approved in particular by her in the Canonization of Saints thinking this a fit subject for his drolling Wit Yet what he there saies concerning this Argument is a new confirmation of this our second point For he objects nothing material against the Miracles of the Roman Church but the same or the like is or may be objected by Libertins against the Miracles of Christ the Prophets and the Apostles as the same Author in his late reply does make apparent Yet the Dr. to shew us that he is a Christian saies pag. 8. That he has made it his business to assert the Truth of Christian Religion in a large Discourse several years since published by him But to this he himself answers bringing the Example of Vanninus who writ for Providence when he denied a Deity pag. 9. he concludes thus In plain terms I know but one way to satisfie such as you are but I will keep from it as long as I can and that is to go to Rome and to be burn'd for my Faith For that is the kindness there shewed to those who contend for the purity of Christian Religion against the Corruptions of the Roman But the Dr. must pardon me if I tell him plainly that I cannot believe he would ever be burn'd for defending the particular Tenets of the Protestant Church
Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis St. Ignatius and that they have done such things as are unanimously attributed unto them by Roman Catholicks without any hesitation as that there have been such men as Christ and his Apostles and that they have done such things as are universally ascribed unto them by Christians So that whoever should deny that there was ever such a man as St. Bennet or that he ever founded any Order of Religious men he might easily in the like manner be brought to question or deny that there ever was any such man as Christ or that he ever founded Christian Religion there being the same or the like evidence for the one as for the other antecedently to Scripture owned as the Word of God viz. a constant Tradition of men although Christ and Christian Religion be far above St. Bennet and his Order I do not deny but that there is a more Universal Tradition for the Miracles and Transactions of Christ and his Apostles than for the particular Actions and Miracles of the forementioned Roman Saints But what then may there not be several degrees in the same kind of certainty Protestants aver as we have seen that there is the same kind of certainty and evidence against a Pagan for the Miracles of Christ as for the Actions of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar though these are attended upon by a more Universal Tradition since Jews and Pagans who deny Christs Miracles assent unto the Actions of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar and yet both we and Protestants affirm that they may as well deny or question the one as the other Moreover there is Tradition enough to induce a Moral certainty for all and every Book of the Scripture and yet doubtless there is a more general Tradition for some Books of Scripture than for others for the Old Testament than for the New and for some parts of the New than for others In the like manner though the Tradition for Christs and his Apostles Miracles be more general than for the Miracles of the above-mentioned Roman Saints approved of by our Church yet the Tradition for these is so general that it renders them Morally certain so that whoever proceeds rationally upon the account of Humane Tradition will either allow both or neither Let 's suppose that there are in the world a hundred Millions of Christians and that threescore Millions of them are Roman Catholicks For even Protestants confess that Roman Catholicks alone make up the Major part of Christendome Now whoever has the confidence to deny the Miracles of St. Bennet though assented unto by so many Millions of Roman Catholicks and for the space of above a Thousand years he would not stick should the like passion carry him that way to question the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles though agreed on by the whole Body of Christians and for the space of above a Thousand and six Hundred years Can we imagin that any prudent man does now believe the Miracles of Christ because there is such a precise number in the world and no lesser of Christians who assent unto them or rather because there is a vast number of Christians that unanimously assert them and certainly the number of Catholicks alone is a vast number Or would it not be a madness for one to say That were there no more Christians in the world to attest the Miracles of Christ than there are Roman Catholicks he would not think himself obliged to believe them upon account to Tradition and consent in their favour when as 't is certain there was a time when there were no more Christians in the world than now there are Roman Catholicks and yet even then doubtless there was Tradition and Consent sufficient to render the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles unquestionable And thus far concerning the Parallel between the Miracles and Practises of Christ and his Apostles and those of Roman Canonized Saints supposing the Actions of the latter to be inferiour as really they are in several Circumstances to those of the former Yet our Saviour expressly saies John 14.12 I say unto you He that believes in me the works that I do he shall do and greater works than these shall he do which words even according to Calvin and other Sectaries extend not only to the Apostles but also to the whole Body of the Church in succeeding Ages So that not only the Miracles and practises of the Apostles but also those of modern Saints of the Roman Church considered in themselves are as great or greater than those of Christ Did Christ do Miracles raising the Dead casting out Devils curing suddenly the Lame the Deaf the Dumb and others infected with incurable Diseases So did the Apostles and several Apostolical men of the Roman Church Did Christ Foretel things to come So did the Apostles and Roman Saints Did Christ Convert many with his Preaching So did the Apostles and several Saints of the Roman Church Was Christ a Pattern of Charity Humility Patience and all other Virtues The Apostles and many famous Roman Saints have imitated his Virtues Notwithstanding what Christ did he did it by his own power being Omnipotent but what the Apostles and other Apostolical men did in this kind they did it by the vertue and power Christ liberally conferred upon them And therefore Christ was the Principal Agent of all such works Now let any one judge whether the Parallel between the Inducements we have to be Christians and those which we have to be Catholicks and the certainty of both antecedently to Scripture owned as the word of God be so unreasonable as that only with an Admiration or two Dr. St. could prudently think to blow it off Wherefore I repeat what I have already said That the Drs. Objections against Roman Catholicks will assoon make one no Christian as no Catholick And as for several Extravagant abstruse and mystical expressions he alledges out of the Revelations and Visions of Canonized Saints of the Roman Church branding them for Fanaticisme the Dr. might as I insinuated in my Book produce out of the Revelations of St. John and the Canticles which upon this account are dash'd out of the Canon of Scriptures by some Protestants quite as strange and extraordinary expressions and Practises But Dr. St. is of those men who whatever they understand not they Blaspheme and he is as unacquainted with mystical Divinity as with other Faculties which he has a greater obligation to know Now if the Canticles and Apocalypse are sufficiently cleared from Fanaticisme notwithstanding so many strange and abstruse expressions they continue because they are approved of by the greatest part of Christians also the Revelations of St. Bridgit St. Catherine and St. Teresa are cleared from the like Aspersion because they are countenanced by the Major part of Christendome viz. the Roman Catholick Church which according to Dr. St.'s concession is a True Church And sure the approbation of a True Church and so much