have of St. Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis St. Ignatius and St. Teresa but it is very easie by Mimical Expressions and profane Similitudes to render them ridiculous and contemptible among those who are sure to laugh on the other side But such proceedings can signifie nothing to Wise men but only to such as have not courage to love despised Vertue nor to defend a Cause that is laughed down Come Come Dr. Stillingfleet it is too notorious to all intelligent persons what you pretend with this scurrilous drolling way of attacking the Roman Church Your aim is to bring all Religion and Vertue into Contempt and Derision however you endeavour to disguized so mischievous a design with all Artifices possible I wish from my heart I were able to impute your Misdemeanours and Miscarriages in your Controversial Books to Ignorance or Inadvertency But on the one side your Mistakes are so gross your Contradictions so palpable and your Aspersions so notoriously scurrilous that he must needs be a Fool who cannot see them and on the other side the works you have published do proclaim you no Fool that I am forced to impute your unhandsome proceedings to the Malice of your Will not the Ignorance of your Understanding The Dr. pag. 70. endeavouring to stave off the Self-contradiction charged upon him in imputing to the Roman Church Divisions in matters of Faith saies thus But the fourth and fifth Proposition viz. of my Book in this point are the most healing Principles that have yet been thought on Fie for shame Why should we and they of the Church of Rome quarrel thus long We are very well agreed in all matters of Faith as I shall demonstratively prove it from the Argument of J. W. drawn from his two last Propositions All who assent unto the antient Creeds are undivided in matters of Faith by Prop. 4. But both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds Ergo they are undivided in matters of Faith And hath not J. W. now done his business and very substantially proved the thing he intended But I hope we may enjoy the benefit of it as well as those of the Church of Rome and that they will not henceforward charge us with dividing from their Church in any matters of Faith since we are all agreed in owning the antient Creeds and seeing we are not divided from the Church but by differing in matters of Faith according to his Proposition it follows that we are still Members of the True Church and therefore neither guilty of Heresie nor Scisme By what Dr. St. sets down here any prudent man may clearly see how grossly and wilfully he mistakes himself My fourth Proposition set down by me pag. 12. whereof the Dr. makes mention in the place now quoted and to which I refer my self in the Syllogism I frame pag. 13. runs thus All those who assent to the antient Creeds are according to Dr. St. 's opinion mark those words undivided in matters and Articles of Faith and that was the Dr. 's perswasion I proved out of his Rational Account pag. 56 58. and thence I conclude pag. 13. that according to Dr. St. mark those words All those who agree to the antient Creeds are of the same Communion and undivided in matters of Faith Now this wise Dr. most grossly supposes that it is the same for me to say All those who agree to the antient Creeds are according to Dr. St. undivided in matters of Faith where I only relate Dr. St. 's opinion argue thence against him ad hominem or to say absolutely All those who agree to the antient Creeds are undivided in matters of Faith which words pronounced so without any modification import as if I were of that perswasion whereas I am very far from it neither here nor in any other place do I defend any such Doctrine Wherefore the Major Proposition in the Syllogism set down by the Dr. is in his opinion True and consequently may be subservient to prove against him but in my opinion it is false and of no force to demonstrate any thing against me and I confess that it is a very compendious way to compose the differences between me and the Dr. if one may suppose as he here does That what he saies I say and that it is the very same for me to affirm such a thing is so according to Dr. St's opinion or it is true that Dr. St. thinks so and such a thing is so or it is true what Dr. St. thinks which Propositions doubtless are very different For to the truth of the former Proposition 't is enough that Dr. St. be of that opinion whether his opinion be true or false but to the truth of the latter 't is requisite that his opinion be true and that what he saies be so as he saies it is Certainly Christians may truly affirm without forfeiting their Faith that according to the opinion of the Jews Christ is not the Messias will the Dr. therefore infer hence that Christians may truly affirm that Christ is not the Messias or that Christians and Jews are agreed in that main point Fie for shame to use your own expression you a Doctor of Divinity and cannot distinguish between Propositions so notoriously different Where is the ingenuity you so much boast of Sure you imagined that the Reader would be so silly as to take upon your bare word what you write or quote without ever examining or comparing it By what I have said in reference to the Major Proposition of his Syllogisme whereby he pretends to prove demonstratively against us That both Catholicks and Protestants are agreed in matters of Faith any one many judge what Demonstrations we are to expect from Dr. St. As concerning the Minor Proposition of the Drs. Syllogisme he supposes it to be the same with my Fifth wherein he is also wilfully mistaken For my Fifth Proposition is this All Roman Catholicks assent unto the antient Creeds whereas his Minor was this Both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds where he adds That Protestants assent unto the Antient Creeds which I never affirmed and the Dr. cannot be ignorant that Roman-Catholicks hold Protestants do not believe in that Article even of the Apostles Creed Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam which in its true and legitimate sense signifies the Roman Catholick Church and those only are to be thought to believe Scripture and the Antient Creeds who believe them in the true and legitimate sense which in our Doctrine is only that sense which is agreable or not repugnant to the exposition of the Roman Catholick Church So that Protestants according to the perswasion of Catholicks do not believe the Antient Creeds because they do not believe them rightly understood But according to Dr. St. 's opinion Roman Catholicks do believe the Scripture and the Antient Creeds rightly understood For his Rule is that whoever understands Scripture or the Antient Creeds as by his natural
faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood he thinks they are to be understood such an one rightly understands them Now Roman Catholicks understand them as the Natural Faculty in them of discerning Truth and Falshood teaches them and Dr. St. ought to believe that we do so as he will have us to believe the like of him and if we do submit to the judgment of the Roman Catholick Church concerning the true interpretation of Scripture and of the Antient Creeds the Natural Reason that is in us teaches us so to do And sure Dr. St. will not so far abase the Authority of the True Church and of her Doctors as to assert that whoever is induced by their Authority to believe such to be the true sense of such particular places of Scripture as they expound them in must needs misinterpret them Hence I infer that neither the Minor Proposition in the Drs. Syllogisme is granted by us and is not the Dr. like to demonstrate many things if such be his Demonstrations that both the Major and Minor are denied by his Adversaries is not this to do his business very substantially Yet the formentioned Syllogisme is a demonstration against the Dr. that Roman Catholicks and Protestants are undivided in matters of Faith according to his opinion and consequently must be granted by him to be both of the same Church and I concluded thence above that he must either deny the Protestant Church to be True or grant the Roman Church to be so Moreover the Syllogisme I form pag. 13. out of my Fourth and Fifth Proposition is a demonstration against Dr. St. That all Roman Catholicks as long as they remain so are undivided in matters of Faith which is all I there pretended For I never intended to prove that they were so undivided with such as are out of their Communion CHAP. XI Some Difficulties raised by the Dr. against my Judgment concerning his manner of proceeding Rejected BEfore I make an end I cannot but take notice of some Difficulties Dr. St. sets down in his particular Preface relating to the Judgment I frame of his manner of Proceeding in these words couched by me pag. 11. I verily believe that Dr. St. did his Interest byass him that way could with Lucian Porphyrius and those many Libertines of our Country the spawn of such Books as these he could I say flurt with as much picquantness and railery at Christian Religion as he does as the Roman charging Christians with Superstitions Corruptions and Dissensions What does he not say against these words He calls them a base Suggestion wherein there is no colour of Truth pag. 8. A slie Insinuation a Calumny too gross to need any farther Answer pag. 9. and that it had been better to have called him at Atheist in plain terms p. 8. I perceive the man is angry 'T is necessary to treat him mildly that he may come to himself But withal I reflect that many do endeavour to supply with Anger the want of Reason and to Hector one with Bravadoes into their opinion when they cannot draw him with Arguments Let us examin in particular what he objects against the fore-mentioned words He saies That I very honestly distinguish the Christian Religion and the Roman from each other And sure I should not deal honestly did I not distinguish the Roman Religion from the Christian as a Species from the Genus and as a part from the whole For we do not deny but that there are many vulgarly called Christians because they are truly Christened and profess to believe in Christ and acknowledge the Apostles Creed although interpreted in their way Such were Donatists Pelagians Arians and others held by us and Protestants too for Hereticks who are never owned to be Roman Catholicks I confess I have not learn'd as yet so great kindness for our Church as to make it the same Individual Church those who do so with their own Church let them answer for themselves with an Heretical nay with an Idolatrous Church Wherefore 't is manifest that the Christian Religion taken in the aforesaid sense does comprehend more than the Roman So that what I intended in the forementioned place was that the way Dr. St. takes to impugne the particular Tenets of the Roman Church does if it be of any force annul the common Principles of Christianity wherein all those who own themselves to be Christians do agree And that this was my meaning any one who was not resolved to quibble might easily have seen In the next place he asks me pag. 8. What is this verily believe of mine grounded upon Doubtless the rage my words put him into did not let him see what followed For I layed down the Reasons of what before I asserted in these words For if it be a rational way of proceeding to rally together whatever has been objected by the Enemies of a Community without making mention of the Answers given by them or the sentence pronounced in their favour and to Father upon the whole Body the misdemeanours of some members although disowned by the Major part which are the Artifices used by Dr. St. in his works against Catholicks what Community is there so holy which may not easily be traduced All this the Dr. very handsomly omits without so much as answering a word thereunto For he is too wise to take notice of any thing that may prejudice his design and only is pleased to divert the Reader with impertinent Questions as whether This verily believe of mine be grounded upon the Authority of our Church or rather upon some Vision or Revelation made by some of our Saints Whereas in the forementioned words the Motives of that my belief are clearly set down The Dr. cannot deny but that among Christians even of the Primitive Church there were committed Incest Simony Adultery and several other horrid Crimes worse than those which the very Heathens did commit as may be gathered out of the Gospel the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles and that there were Heresies among them as that of the Nicolaites Wherefore if the misdemeanours of some Members may be fathered upon the whole Community although disowned by the Major part this absurdity would follow that the Christan Religion even when it was in its Primitive purity might be called an Incestuous Simonical Adulterous Heretical and a worse Religion than Paganisme Again 't is certain that many Enormous things were objected by the Jews against our Saviour as he was a Blasphemer a Seducer a Drunkard and that he Preached Sedition and that he was possess'd by the Devil and that the Religion he founded was a ridiculous scandalous and Superstitious Religion Now should one of a picquant and malicious wit represent these and several other blemishes objected against Christ his Religion without taking notice of the Answers given them nor of the pregnant Arguments produced in favour and vindication of Christ and his Religion what a low opinion what an aversion from Christian Religion
low opinion of Christian Religion even when it was in its greatest purity since they think it so hard that being faced with the Roman Religion which seems to them to be so full of Corruptions Superstitions and abominations the one may be distinguished from the other or that the Roman Religion is not so ridiculous and ill-favoured as they represent it to be since it is so like the Christian Religion even in its greatest Purity that being compared together 't is extream difficult to know which is which and that by such a parallel men are incited either to embrace them both or reject them both The Dr. goes yet farther and endeavouring to supply with counterfeited zeal the difficiency of true and solid reasons puts down these words pag. 11. I would fain know of these men whether they do in earnest make no difference between the Writings of such as Mother Juliana and the Books of Scripture between the Revelations of St. Bridgit St. Catherin c. and those of the Prophets between the actions of St. Francis and Ignatius Loyola and those of the Apostles if they do not I know who they are that expose our Religion to purpose If they do make a difference how can the representing their Visions and practises reflect dishonour upon the other so infinitely above them so much more certainly conveighed down to us with the consent of the whole Christian world In answer to this Objection I would fain know of the Dr. whether he does in earnest make no difference between a Door a Vine a Worm a Lamb a Shepheard c. and Christ our Saviour If he does not then Christ is no better than a Door a Vine a Worm a Lamb a Shepheard which to affirm is Blasphemy if he makes a difference how does the Scripture compare Christ to things so infinitely beneath him Now if he saies that these things though infinitely beneath Christ yet in some of their Properties may resemble him and his virtues and upon that account he is compared unto them without any blemish or reflexion upon his honour why might not we without reflecting any dishonour upon Christ say that Saint Francis Saint Ignatius and other Canonized Saints of the Roman Church do in their Virtues Miracles and Practises resemble those of Christ and his Apostles though infinitely above them Besides 't is manifest that Christ and his works as being an infinite value derived from the dignity of the person were far more above the Apostles and their works than those were above the particular Saints of the Roman Church and their practices notwithstanding we have the same Inducements and Topicks to believe the matters of Fact of the Apostles and Prophets as those of Christ though so far beyond them and whoever should deny the former without doubt he would open a way to deny the latter Although therefore the practises and Revelations of the particular Saints of the Roman Church be in several Circumstances inferiour to those of the Apostles and Prophets yet there may be the same Motives and Inducements we speak antecedently to Scripture taken as the word of God as when we prove against Pagans the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles to believe the one as the other So that should one deny the Virtues Revelations and Practises constantly related and believed concerning the Roman Saints and approved by our Church for of such Virtues Revelations and Practises we speak in this present debate he would doubtless give a great occasion to Pagans to deny or question the Virtues Revelations and Practises of the Apostles and Prophets The reason is because the same Motives Inducements and Topicks may serve for the belief of things very different one from another which is what I pretended and if they are of no force in the one neither are they in the other Yet one would think that the harder the thing is and the more sublime the stronger Inducements are requisite to believe it So that if the unanimous consent of so many learned and pious men is not sufficient to induce a Protestant to believe the practises and transactions of St. Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis and St. Ignatius handed down by so general a Tradition and of a far fresher date how shall the like consent be sufficient to induce Pagans to believe the works of Christ and his Apostles far more wonderful and of a staler date For commonly matters of Fact of a fresh date are more easily prov'd and believed than of a staler The difference therefore inculcated by Dr. St. between Christ and his Apostles on the one side and the proper Saints of the Roman Church on the other and the Superminency of the former above the latter is so far from diminishing the force of our Argument that it rather increases it Again Dr. St. and his Partizans commonly defend that the certainty we have that such Books are Scripture and that they were penned by such Writers whose names are prefixed unto them is of the same nature with the certainty that we have that such Books were written by Titus Livius or Plutarch which are unanimously assented unto as Titus Livius or Plutarch's Works and the certainty we have that there have been such men as Christ his Apostles and that they did such and such things which are commonly ascribed unto them with the certainty we have that there have been in the world such men as William the Conquerour Julius Caesar and Henry the Eighth and that they have done such things as unanimously are attributed unto them So that whoever should deny all such meer Humane Histories would be in a fair way to deny that ever there have been such men as Christ and his Apostles or that they have done such things which Christians unanimously ascribe unto them This Doctrine supposed whether true or false I do not now dispute I would once more fain know of the Dr. whether he does in earnest make no difference between the Books of Scripture and the Books of Livy and Plutarch between Christ and his Apostles and their Practises and William the Conquerour Julius Caesar Henry the Eighth Practises if not then we know who they are that expose Christian Religion to purpose if he does make a difference how does he make this Parallel between things so far estranged the one from the other and if he saies the Parallel he makes is not between the persons or things themselves but between the certainty of the one and the other and there may be without doubt the same kind of certainty concerning things very different let him apply to the same answer to his Argument made against us and he will see how it comes to nothing For what we pretend is that there is the same or the like certainty the same or the like motives and inducements we speak here antecedently to Scripture held to be the word of God for such it is not held to be by Pagans to believe that there have been such men as St.
by several waies to prevent the errour of our Imaginations But the latter are voluntary This difference or disparity is very insignificant For as it proceeds from the necessary weakness of a mans understanding that we cannot represent God in our Conceptions and Imaginations but in a way far beneath his Greatness so it proceeds also from the necessary weakness of all humane Art and Learning that we cannot represent him either by Words or Corporeal Images but in a manner very unsuitable to his Majesty And as I have insinuated several times 't is certain that there are as unhandsome and unworthy Representations of God and as far beneath his Greatness in Imaginations and in words as in Corporeal Images For what are Images or Pictures as I hinted pag. 20. but mens conceptions and Idea's either cut out in Stone or set down in Colours And as God does procure to prevent the Errours of our Imaginations relating to him by securing us that he is far greater than we can imagin so he does procure in like manner to prevent the Errours in our Words and Images concerning God by securing us that he is far greater than he can be exprest either by Words or Images Moreover if the Dr. understands for neither he himself seems to know what he would be at by the difference assigned here by him that we may chuse whether we will make Corporeal Images of God or not but we cannot chuse but think of God and by consequence Thoughts of God are necessary but Corporeal Images of God are voluntary Then I reply that this disparity dos not solve the difficulty concerning the expression or representation of God in words which is as voluntary unto us as the representations of him in Images And yet Dr. St. will not say either that we cannot speak of God without committing Idolatry or that we are able to express in words his ineffable Majesty as it deserves to be expressed Again many times to think of God is in some manner free unto us because it is free unto us whether we will hear Sermons read Books and recite Prayers wherein several expressions of God are contained and consequently they excite in us Thoughts of God as represented by them And although the first Thought of God be not free unto us yet the continuation thereof is so nay sometimes Corporeal Pictures of God occur unto us when by chance we light upon them without more freedome on our part then the Thoughts of God so that were there no other disparity than what the Dr. here hints at 't would in that case be no less Idolatry to adore God represented by our Imaginations than by Corporeal Images Another disparity he insinuates is That our Conceptions although they reach not the Greatness of God yet they are Spiritual Representations of his Nature but Images are Corporeal Resemblances and it is a great disparagement to God to bring him down to the meanness of a Corporeal Image This answer is also very frivolous First because words are Corporeal Representations yet it is no Idolatry to adore God as represented unto us in the words of Scripture Neither will Dr. St. dare to affirm the contrary although by such words God be represented unto us in the same or like manner as he is represented in a Picture viz. with Hands Arms Mouth Sitting and with such like Corporeal Expressions Secondly because since our Conceptions do not reach the Greatness of God we cannot think of God without abasing him and bringing him down to the Meanness of our thoughts Seeing therefore that according to Dr. St.'s Sentiment it is Idolatry to represent God by Corporeal Images because they cannot reach his Greatness but necessarily bring him down to mean Expressions upon the same account it would be Idolatry to represent him by our Conceptions and the difference if any would only be that the former is somewhat grosser than the latter Thirdly to adore as God any Creature whether Spiritual as an Angel or the Devil or Corporeal as an Animal or Statue is flat Idolatry neither the difference of Spiritual or Corporeal can save the one from being Idolatry and not the other and it would be very absurd to say that to adore the Devil as God is not Idolatry because the Divil is a Spirit but to adore the Sun as God is Idolatry because the Sun is a Body Wherefore in the like manner there can be no reason to affirm that the Adoration of God by our Conceptions is not Idolatry but that the Adoration of God by Images is because these are Corporeal but those are Spiritual Finally he answers pag. 38. That he had never such an Imagination of God as to apprehend him like an old man sitting in Heaven that he has no other Conception of God but of a Being infinitely perfect But with the Dr.'s leave unless he enjoyes the Beatifical Vision of God sees God face to face facie ad faciem which we have no reason to believe he does the Knowledge and Conception he frames of God must necessarily be Enigmatical as the Scripture terms it and Abstractive and consequently by the Species and Similitude of Things far estranged from God whether of an old man sitting in Heaven or of some other object it matters little Because whatever is not God is infinitely beneath him Besides when Dr. St. recites his Creed with attention to what the words signifie he must needs conceive God by the Species or Similitude of one who has a right hand when he pronounces those words Sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris Omnipotentis and it is an intolerable arrogance in Dr. St. to scorn as it seems he does to conceive God as he is represented unto us in several places of Scripture under Corporeal Similitudes and as the Prophets themselves who writ those Books conceived him their words being expressions of their Thoughts and Conceptions Moreover I desire to know from Dr. St. whether he ever lifts up his heart and Adores Christ as he conceives him in Heaven or not If not 't is no wonder he should not dare to Adore Christ in the Eucharist for fear of committing Idolatry whenas upon the same account he dares not Adore him in Heaven If so can the Dr. imagin that he conceives Christ in Heaven as really he is there with that Glory Majesty and Beauty which neither eye has seen nor ear heard nor the heart of man has been able to comprehend Is not the Conception he has of Christ in Heaven like to some Pictures we have of our Saviour in Glory which are only fancies of the Painter And if he cannot conceive the Humanity of our Saviour as he is in Heaven much less his Divinity Wherefore he must Adore Christ in Heaven if ever he Adores him considered in a manner far beneath his Greatness Neither do we deny God to be a Being infinitely Perfect which is the notion of God Yet this does not hinder but that such an Infinite Being may
be conceived by men under the Species or Similitude of some Corporeal Substance as we all confess that an Angel is a meer Spiritual substance yet we conceive and paint an Angel under the Species of a young man with wings on his shoulders when as in reality such a man is neither an Angel nor has any Physical likeness unless it be very remote with him Yet such a Picture or Idea is commonly taken to signifie an Angel And here 't is necessary to advertise what Dr. St. will not seem to reflect on That it is a very different thing to take such a Statute Picture Enigma or Embleme to signifie such an object and to take such a Statue Picture Enigma or Embleme to be the very object it self or very like thereunto In the City of London are put up three Statues of Women with such Attirement to signifie Faith Hope and Charity with whom they have no likeness at all so that those Statues are taken by the Citizens to signifie those Vertues and to put them in mind of them But sure Dr. St. will not say that the Citizens of London are so silly as to take Faith Hope and Charity to be really three Women in such a Dress or that they have any real likeness unless very remote with them The same is to be seen in all Emblems and Hieroglyphicks which are taken to signifie things very different So a Ring is an Emblem of Eternity But who does think that Eternity is a Ring In the like manner to take God to be really an old man sitting in Heaven with Hands Arms Mouth and Feet or to have a great likeness with him would beyond question be very dishonourable unto God and unworthy of him but to take the Idea or Picture of an Old man sitting in Heaven Antiquus Dierum as God is described by the Prophet or some other Corporeal Hieroglyphick contained in the Apocalypse or other places of Scripture to signifie and represent unto us God a Being infinitely Perfect is by no means dishonorable or injurious unto him otherwise the Prophets and Evangelists would be to blame for representing him under such Idea's or Expressions Neither are the Pictures of God more obnoxious to the mistakes of vulgar people then the like expressions by words contained in the Creed and Scripture as I insinuated in my Book But the Dr. thought good to pass it over Wherefore if Dr. St. has a more subtilized manner of conceiving the Divine Essence than the Prophets and Apostles had he may keep it to himself we poor men shall content our selves to conceive God as the Apostles and Prophets represent him in the Creed and Scripture From what hitherto has been discust in relation to this point it evidently appears that either Dr. St. must grant himself and if that be not absurdity great enough the Apostles Evangelists and the Holy Ghost to be Idolaters or confess that the main Principle whereon he pretends to make good the Charge of Idolatry laid upon us in the Veneration of Images to be frivolous and insignificant which is what we aim at But such is the obstinacy of some men that to maintain one folly they will run into a thousand and they will be sure to do their work whatever comes of it Dr. St. seems to be so Complaisant that to the end we may be Idolaters he is willing to bear us company and to be an Idolater himself and to bring with him too the Prophets and Evangelists and what harm is there to be feared in so good Company Yea the way he takes to prove us guilty of Idolatry in the Veneration of Images either is a meer dream or it shews there is no Church in the world though never so Orthodox Pure and Sound which does not require Idolatry For all Churches require that we should adore God and as represented to us in this life Since therefore according to the ordinary Providence we cannot represent God in this life as he is but in a manner far inferiour to his Greatness it follows manifestly that all Churches and all Religions though never so Pure and Sound require we should Adore God represented unto us in a way far inferiour to his Majesty which according to Dr. St. is flat Idolatry So that the Dr. to be sure to perswade his Devotes to be no Roman Catholicks he perswades them to be of no Religion or which is the same deters them from that which is Essential to all Religions as is the Adoration of God represented in a manner inferiour to his Greatness and as to prove Roman-Catholicks Idolaters in the Veneration of God by Images he proves himself the Prophets and Evangelists and all persons whatsoever that profess any Religion to be likewise Idolaters so to shew us guilty of the same Crime in the Adoration of the Eucharist which is the grossest Idolatry he Fathers upon us he must declare as Complices the Lutherans who admit the Real Presence and Adore Christ in the Eucharist as we do and what good Reformers of the Roman Church were the Lutherans and yet as such they are look'd upon by English Protestants if they left her depraved with a more detestable sort of Idolatry in the Dr.'s perswasion than is the Adoring of a Red Cloath for God But such is Dr. St.'s Zeal So that Roman-Catholicks be Idolaters whoever else be so he cares not Friends or Foes 't is all one to him It is to affront the Dr. to imagin that a man of his Employments has leisure to consider the vast absurdities that flow from what he maintains And to use the same words I set down in the Appendix pag. 21. I infer and conclude hence how little account is to be made of the Charge of Idolatry laid upon the Roman Church by Dr. St. seeing that the very same Principles whereby he pretends to prove that Roman-Catholicks are Idolaters do prove or they prove nothing as is most certain for an Argument that proves too much proves nothing that the Prophets the Evangelists and the Holy Ghost are Idolaters And if in this main point of Idolatry which he pretends to make manifest and undeniable against us he does err so Sacrilegiously and so Enormously may we not prudently think that the other Charges of lesser moment which he laies upon the Roman Church and wherein he does not pretend to so great an Evidence are meer Whimsies and malicious Calumnies CHAP. X. Concerning the other Contradictions committed by the Dr. in the Charges he laies upon the Roman Church MY design at the beginning was to pursue in particular the other Contradictions wherewith I charge the Dr But what hitherto has been set down is sufficient First because I have manifestly convicted him of Self-contradiction in asserting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet Idolatrous with the grossest Idolatry and since the main aspersion the casts upon us is this of Idolatry which therefore he terms the Mouth of the Dragon if he can