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
they do it evidently follows that both of them are not true but that either the one or the other is false The same may be applied to the other Contradictions wherewith I charge the Doctor in the progress of my discourse 2. When of two Propositions that contradictone another the one is true and taken for granted the other is necessarily false This is also certain otherwise both of them would be true which is impossible according to the first Principle If therefore the first of the two Propositions quoted above viz. The Roman Church is a true Church be true and taken for granted it manifestly follows that the second Proposition viz. The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church is false supposing as we do suppose that they contradict one another The like also may be affirmed of the other contradictory Propositions which we have laid to the Doctors charge Now the way I insisted upon all along in my discourse is comprehended in these 4. Points set down in the beginning thereof in these words 1. I shall in brief propose the Accusation he frames against our Church 2. I shall lay down some few Principles either manifest in themselves or at least owned by Dr. St. and his Partizans 3. From these Principles I shall 〈◊〉 one or two Syllogisms deduce the contradictory of the Accusation framed against us 4. I shall close up each Point with facing together the manifest Contradictions committed by Dr. St. in reference to the present Aspersion Whence clearly appears that though I aim in the last place only at the Contradictions committed by the Doctor and entitled thence my Book yet I intended by the way to annul as I have annulled out of true and solid Principles owned by Dr. St. and his Associates all the Accusations he laid against us For what more can be required to annul them than to prove their condictories to be true And hence appears how frivolously the Dr. supposes as in many places he seems to do that I have done nothing else in my whole Book but only set down the Contradictions committed by him whereas of four Points whereinto I divided each discourse one only is employ'd upon this Subject According to this my designe insinuated in the forementioned words in each Point I took two Propositions the one contained the Charge laid upon us by the Doctor the other which I proved to be opposite to the former and is admitted as such by Dr. St. in this first part was granted by him as in the respective places I demonstrated Neither do I see that the Dr. as yet has denied any of such Propositions as far as they concern my intent yea we suppose now by common consent that he grants all such Propositions for how can he contradict himself in two Propositions which is the Hypothesis we proceed upon at present unless he grants them both Hence I inferred that the charges he laid against us were false and of no force The Substance of our Discourse in brief is this If the Propositions alledged by us above do contradict one another and such of them be true and taken for granted as are opposite to the Charges laid against us such Charges must necessarily be false But the fore-mentioned Propositions do contradict one another as we have proved and the Dr. now admits and such of them as are opposite to the Charges laid against us are true and taken for granted for this is the way I insisted upon and it is supposed here that the Dr. grants them Therefore on Supposition that Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insisted upon the Charges he lays against us must necessarily be false And this is the common way Authors insist upon when they see that their Adversary grants something true in it self and opposite to the Conclusion he has undertaken to defend they take for granted the former Proposition as favourable unto them and wherein they agree with their Adversary and infer thence the falsity of the later wherein they dissent from him But to shew also that I destroy all the Doctors Reasons too wherewith he pretends to make good the aforesaid Charges I add this third Principle 3. Whatever is brought or can be brought in proof of a falsity is either false or inconclusive This is also evident For there can be no true real and solid proof of a falsity according to that Maxime Ex vero tantum non sequitur falsum Out of Truth alone no falsity can be legally inferred For if the Conclusion be false either all the Premisses are not true or if they be so they do not infer the Conclusion whence I argue thus If the formentioned Charges which the Doctor imputes to the Roman Church be false whatsoever he brings or can bring in proof of them is either false or inconclusive But on supposition the Dr. contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all such Charges are false as has been proved Therefore in the same supposition whatsoever he brings or can bring in proof of them is either false or inconclusive Whence appears how illogically Dr. St. urges that though he should contradict himself in the Aspersions he casts upon us and in the way I insist upon yet the Reasons he produces to evidence such Aspersions are good and solid Wherefore I never affirmed that meerly because he contradicted himself all his Arguments on both sides of the contradiction were null For one part of the contradiction may be true and the Arguments to prove it good and solid True it is that when one contradicts himself his proofs on both sides cannot be good since one part of the contradiction must needs be false and there can be no good proof of a falsity What therefore I intended to shew was That the Dr. by contradicting common Principles owned by himself in the Charges he lays upon us see the Introduction to my Book such Charges were false and consequently their proofs void Neither do I ever aver that what he alledges in proof of the aforesaid Charges is determinately false but disjunctively that it is either false or inconclusive And now let any rational man judge whether this be not a sufficient answer to his Book viz. not only to annul all the Charges he lays upon us but all the Reasons too and Arguments wherewith he pretends to make such Charges good by demonstrating that on supposition he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all the above-mentioned Charges are void and their Reasons either false or inconclusive But the Doctor presses that I do not answer his Reasons in particular what then if I cut them off all at once what matter is it that I do not cut them off one by one To destroy a house 't is of little concern whether we pull it down Tile by Tile Brick by Brick and Stone by Stone till we have laid it in the dust or whether undermining the Foundations we blow it up in a moment Both ways are effectual
reason take that proposition for granted and should I encounter an Adversary who denies the Roman Church to be a true Church I would set upon him another way and prove it to be a True Church which is not hard to do For different wayes are to be taken with different Adversaries and what is a solid proof against one is of no force against another I confess therefore that all the Arguments I have framed against Dr. St. grounded upon this Principle The Roman Church is a true Church are of no force with such as deny That Principle unless first I prove it In the same manner all the Arguments grounded upon the Authority of the Fathers and Councils are of no force against Fanaticks who slight the Fathers and Councils unless their Authority be first established Hence appears how insignificantly Dr. St. and his Cabal threaten us that if we press them out of this Principle The Roman Church is a True Church freely granted by them they will deny it and fall back from what they have yielded unto and that we shall get nothing else thereby but to make them less Charitable towards us and the difference between us wider For in the same manner they might threaten us when we argue against them out of Councils and Fathers admitted by them that if we press them they will deny their Authority Neither should any one press another out of Scripture though granted by him for fear least if he be press'd he will deny Scripture and become a Turk or a Pagan Nay since one cannot convince another but out of what he has assented unto were this way of dealing warrantable any one might easily elude all Arguments whatsoever For either we urge our Adversary or not if not how shall we convince him if so he may stave off the Conviction according to Dr. St. 's manner of dealing by threatning us that if we urge him we shall get only this of him that he will deny what already he has granted Doubtless the Scholars of the Illustrious University of Cambridge would be ashamed of their Dr. St. should they hear him say in a publick Dispute to his Adversary Do not press me for if you do I 'le deny what I have already granted Finally since this Assertion The Roman Church is a True Church is common assented unto not only by Catholicks but also by Protestants of the English Church and others of different Professions as we have seen But this other The Roman Church is Idolatrous is denyed both by Catholicks and several learned and zealous Protestants and since either the one or the other of these Assertions is to be recalled supposing they contradict one another 't is more reasonable to recal the latter than the former because caeteris paribus particular Sentiments are to yield to common Principles when they run Counter But what is the reason that Dr. St. who professes himself a mortal enemy to the Roman Church does not deny it to be a true Church recalling what heretofore he has asserted yea he is so far from recalling it that he ratifies and grants several times in this Examination of my book in plain terms what he had affirmed in his Rational Account that the Roman Church is a True Church I insinuated in my Book in the place above quoted several motives why Dr. St. and his Associates do unanimosly aver the Roman Church to be a True Church Because upon this account they ground the pretended Moderation and Charity of the English Churh wherewith they endeavour to inveigle unwary minds and if they deny the Roman Church to be a true Church either they must confess that there was no true visible Church in the world for many hundred of years be Luther and Calvins time or they are shrewdly put to it when we urge them to shew us which that true visible Church was distinct from the Roman Yet another particular reason moved Dr. St. not to recal what he had asserted concerning the Truth of the Roman Church For he could not but see that should he deny the Roman Church to be a true Church he must either deny the Protestant Church to be a true Church or seek out other grounds to prove the truth thereof different from those he laid down in his Rational Account For the Discourse he makes in that Book to establish the truth of the Protestant Religion in substance is this Whatever Church holds all such points as were held by all Christian Societies of all Ages acknowledged by Rome it self has all that is necessary to the being of a true Church and by Consequence is a True Church But such is the Protestant Church as he affirms Therefore according to his Principles it is a true Church And descending to particulars he says That all Churches which admit the Antient Creeds as the Roman Church evidently does are true Churches Now these Principles whereon the Dr. bottoms the truth of Protestancie do necessarily imply that the Roman Church is a true Church For either the Roman Church acknowledges what is sufficient to constitute the being of a true Church or not if she does she must necessarily be a true Church If she does not how can Dr. St. assert That the Roman Church with other Christian Societies acknowledges what is sufficient to constitute the being of a true Church Wherefore unless Dr. St. grants the Roman Church to be a true Church that Principle whereon he grounds the truth of Protestancie viz. That it admits whatsoever is admitted by all Christian Societies and acknowledged by Rome it self is of no force So that unless Dr. St. maintains the truth of the Roman Church he must either confess that Protestancie is no true Religion and that the Account he has hitherto given concerning the grounds of Protestancy is void and irrational or seek out other Principles to prove it Now if Dr. St. has such a pike against the Roman Church that to the end he may prove her Idolatrous or no true Church he cares not to unchurch Protestancy or at least to cancel whatever he has yet said to shew that it is a True Religion I conceive that Protestants will give him little thanks for his pains But the truth is that Dr. St. if we reflect well upon his works cares not what becomes of Protestancy nor Christianity neither so that he may according to his fancy destroy Popery But we care as little for his attempts if he cannot destroy Popery without undermining Christianity The Dr. seems in several places of his Answer slily to insinuate as if he had only been heretofore of opinion that the Roman Church is a true Church but that now he has altered his Opinion and it can be no disparagement for a man to recal what heretofore he asserted To this purpose he alledges pag. 16. the Recognitions of Bellarmin who in imitation of St. Augustin retracted some former Errours delivered by him But where I pray has D. St. made any book of
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
from several places quoted out of his Rat. Account amongst the rest I alledged the page 54 55. where he affirms adding that this is the sense of the English Church That those points which they defend in opposition to the Roman Church and wherein only they impeach us of Errours agreeing with us in the rest are meer pious Opinions and inferiour Truths which no body is obliged to believe either necessitate medij or necessitate praecepti and consequently that they are not Articles of Faith or Fundamental points of Religion every one being obliged either necessitate medij or necessitate Praecepti to believe all such points and he expressly asserts in the forementioned pages praising thence the moderation of the English Church that she does not acknowledge any thing as an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged as such by Rome it self Since therefore 't is manifest that Rome does not acknowledge as Articles of Faith those Points which the English Church maintains in opposition to her it evidently follows according to Dr. St.'s Concession that neither the Church of England does acknowledge such points as Articles of Faith Whence I shew'd the truth of this our Proposition against Dr. St. and his Cabal The substance of the Argument is this The Church of Rome does not err nor cannot err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion unless the points at least some of them against which she is supposed to err be Articles of Faith or Fundamental points of Religion This is evident But none of these points against which Dr. St. supposes the Roman Church to err are in his opinion either Articles of Faith or Fundamental points of Religion as manifestly appears by what we have quoted even now out of him for he supposes her to err only against those points wherein the Church of England differs from us which in his opinion are no Articles of Faith Therefore according to Dr. St.'s opinion the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion which is the Proposition set down by me Neither can the Dr. say that although the Church of Rome does err immediately only against those points which the English Church defends in opposition unto her yet these points being connexed with Articles of Faith she cannot err against these without erring mediately and by consequence against Articles of Faith he cannot I say affirm this For otherwise he would never grant this our Fifth Proposition as he does Because to err mediately against an Article is to err against that and another point too and so he should absolutely have denyed That the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith which he does not In the like manner it would be ridiculous to affirm That one did not kill such a man because he did not immediately destroy the Union between the Soul and the Body in the dissolution whereof death formally consists but only mediately and by consequence because he destroyed some disposition necessary to the conservation of that Union as if one Arraigned for having killed a man should answer That he did not kill him That he only cut off his Head Nay if those particular Tenets of the Protestant Church are so connexed and linked with Articles of Faith that whoever denies or destroies the former must also deny and destroy the latter one would be obliged necessitate medij or praecepti not to dissent from such points Because we are obliged not to deny any Article of Faith and consequently not to deny any thing which being once denyed an Article of Faith is also denyed and cashiered which is contrary to what he asserts in the place above quoted where he affirms that men are prohibited to oppose them particular Tenets of the English Church exteriourly but not to dissent from them interiourly So because men are prohibited to kill others they are obliged not to destroy any Disposition whereon the life of man necessarily depends Nor is this Fifth Proposition laid down by me only as Dr. St.'s and his Associates opinion but as I proved in my Book it is also the common assertion of other Protestants some of them averring This to be the judgment of all Learned Protestants accusing the contrary party of their Brethren of an ignorant Zeal and King James adds they are worthy to be burnt Hence is that common speech of Protestants boasting of their Charity therein that the Roman Church doth not teach any Errour Fundamental Damnable or Destructive to Salvation That she does not err in the Foundations but in the Supurstructures nor in Fundamentals but only in Not-fundamentals nor against Articles of Faith but against inferiour Truths only Now to err in Fundamentals or to admit a Fundamental Errour is to err against a Fundamental Truth Whence I conclude that according to the constant perswasion not only of Dr. St. and his Partizans but also of all Learned Protestants The Roman Church does not Err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion which was the very Proposition I laid down in the fifth and last place Let 's examin yet farther how Dr. St. still boggles at the forementioned Proposition All that in substance he saies is this That he never granted the Roman Church to be a Sound Church or consequently that she did not err in some matters of Religion requisite to the Soundness and Integrity of a Church neither can he shew that I alledged him to the contrary neither does this fifth Proposition express any such thing as is manifest What therefore here and in other places he confessedly grants is That our Church is a True Church unerring against all Fundamental and Essential points of Religion and against all Articles of Faith which is all that is necessary to the absolute Truth of the forementioned Proposition Wherefore as it would be very absurd to answer one who intending only to prove such a person not to be dead should take this Proposition Such a person is yet a true man retaining all the Essentials of a man to answer I say that what he avouches of him is true but that such a person is not a sound man So it is very impertinent when I proposed only to him that the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion requisite to the Essence of a True Church as all Fundamental points are to tell me that the Roman Church does err against some points of Religion requisite only to the Soundness of a Church such as he fancies the particular Tenets of the Protestant Church to be which is to tell me in plain English That what I say is true but what I say not is false which answer is very impertinent and good for nothing but to trifle away the time And hence will appear of what force this Concession of Dr. St. is to our present Design which is to shew him guilty of Self-contradiction by granting our Church
not to err against any Fundamental point of Religion and yet affirming that she teaches Idolatry and such gross Idolatry For to teach Idolatry especially such a gross Idolatry as he is pleased to Father upon us is according to his own express assertion to teach or require that the Honour or Worship due only to the Creator be given to to a Creature and to teach this is to err against the contrary Truth viz. The Honour which is due only to the Creator is not to be given to a Creature as is evident and consequently it is to err against a Fundamental point of Religion For such does Dr. St. acknowledge to be the aforesaid Truth Whence I conclude that to say our Church does not err against any Fundamental point and yet that she does teach such gross Idolatry as he is pleased to fasten upon her is to say That she does not err against any and yet that she does err against some which is a palpable Contradiction Were the Idolatry he Fathers upon us destructive only to something requisite meerly to the Soundness of a Church and to some Non-fundamental point his distinction would have been to some purpose But since the Idolatry he laies to our Charge is destructive according to our own Concession to something requisite to the very Being of a Church viz. to a Fundamental and Essential point the forementioned Distinction of the Truth and Soundness of a Church is altogether frivolous Finally Dr. St. pag. 32. speaking in particular concerning our fifth Proposition saies That if this Assertion The Church of Rome does not err against any point necessary to Salvation be only meant of those Essential points of Faith which he supposes antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church he denies it not and he makes the antient Creeds of the Catholick Church before he had made mention only of the Apostles Creed to be the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to Salvation But he adds That he does not see of what use the forementioned Concession of his can be to us in the present debate unless we can shew which he supposes we are never able to doe that whatever Church does embrace the antient Creeds and own all the Articles of Faith which are contained in them cannot be guilty of Idolalatry But this answer of the Dr. is lyable to the same exceptions we produced against him in the Explanation of our Third Proposition For 't is a very different thing to say A Church that embraces and owns all Essential points of Faith which is the Dr. 's Proposition and a Church that does not err against any Essential point of Faith which is our Proposition tacitely at least granted by him For a Church may contradict her self and err against those very points which she embraces and owns how can the Roman Church be a True Church as the Dr. often confesses she is unless she be free from all Fundamental Errours and how can she be free from all Fundamental Errours if she errs against any Fundamental point and finally how does she not err against a Fundamental point if she teaches Idolatry yea the grossest Idolatry of the world Whence I conclude that not only this main Proposition is granted by him in the sense I pretend viz. That the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion even of those which he acknowledges to be such but also that this his Concession is effectual to evince our present design viz. to clear the Roman Church from the Idolatry cast upon her and to prove the Dr. guilty of Self-contradiction by granting that the Roman Church does not err against any Fundamental point of Faith and yet charging her with Idolatry and with such gross Idolatry To say the truth I would never desire an Adversarie to grant me more in order to confute him than Dr. St. has and does grant in the present debate For these Five Propositions set down by me are either absolutely granted by the Dr. or at least not denyed by him in the sense I pretended as is apparent by what has been discuss'd and we take this Non-denial of the Dr. for a grant or consent according to that Maxime Qui tacet consentire videtur And certainly had he thought them false he would have denyed them whenas he does not so much as deny one of them in the sense intended but some other Propositions very different Wherefore these Propositions being granted in the conformity aforesaid the method I took was to deduce from them the contradictory of the Calumny cast upon our Church by Dr. St. For to lay down Propositions or Principles and to deduce nothing from them is as if one should lay Foundations without building the Superstructures as to make Deductions without first laying Princiciples as some do is to build without Foundation And because some cannot others will not make by themselves the deductions especially when they are contrary to what formerly they have imbibed and are resolved to maintain I thought it best to make them to their hand However because the main nay the sole exception that some persons had against my Book was because I used a Scholastick Method framing my deductions in a ridged Syllogistical form it seems to me expedient for the satisfaction of such persons to produce here the reasons that moved me thereunto which are these First Because this method I took is a close clear short and convincing way and since I desired in a matter of so great concern and not having too much time to be quick close clear and short with my Adversary in order to convince him of Self-contradiction I made choice of this Method Secondly all Discourses whatsoever loose or not loose do necessarily imply some Syllogisme wherein the truth one endeavours to prove is inferred or pretended to be inferred from some Principles And although all kinds of Discourses are obnoxious to Fallacies and Sophistry yet this difference there is between Loose or Rhetorical Discourses and Logical or not Loose that in Rhetorical Discourses as being commonly interlaced with several digressions and gay Metaphors which amuze the Reader the fallacy is easily disguised But in ridged Syllogistical Discourses devested from gaudy Expressions quaint Metaphors and unnecessary digressions the Fallacy if there be any is with far less difficulty detected And this is the reason that when we will manifest the Sophistry of a loose discourse we do commonly reduce it to a Syllogistical form the better to discover it Now because I desired to deal fairly and sincerely with Dr. St. I made use of this method to the end that were there any fallacie in my Syllogisms it might more easily appear unto him And although in almost every page he impeaches me of Sophistry Captiousness yet he do's not legally shew any one of my Syllogisms to be lyable to any of the Fallacies the Logicians make mention of and one would think that
who can blame him for making our Church both True and Idolatrous Again the Dr. answers clear himself from Self-contradiction that he never affirmed the Roman Church did or does teach in express terms any sort of Idolatry or that the honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature But that she only teaches those things wherein Idolatry lies which is not to teach Idolatry expressly as for instance she does not teach the Veneration she exhibits to Images to be Idolatry and yet lawful for that would be to teach Idolatry in express terms but rather she affirms the contrary viz. That the forementioned Veneration is not Idolatrous for she thinks that the honour she exhibits to Images is not Divine Worship however because the Dr. will have her to be mistaken in these perswasions he impeaches her of Idolatry Now the Substance of this Answer comes to be that although to say that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet that she does teach Idolatry in express terms be a palpable Contradiction yet there is no appearance of contradiction in saying as he does that the Roman Church is a True Church but yet that she does teach those things wherein Idolatry lies which are his words pag 29. or that she does teach Idolatry not in express terms but only by Consequence as he saies pag. 21. But I leave to others to examin how this does agree with what Dr. St. affirms in several places of his Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Roman Church endeavouring to shew that she does expressly act against the Second Commandment of God according to their account wherein is prohibited Idolatry when she teaches the Veneration and Worship of Images Besides this objection is cashiered by what has been already discuss'd For since the Idolatry Dr. St. fathers upon the Roman Church is destructive to a Fundamental point of Religion and consequently to the very Being of a True Church as has been already demonstrated 't is impossible that a Church remaining a True Church should teach such an Idolatry either in express terms or by good Consequence and as the Dr. will not grant that to teach Idolatry only by Consequence teaching those things wherein it lies is enough to free the Roman Church from being really Idolatrous otherwise by this Answer he himself would discharge her from the Crime of Idolatry he casts upon her so neither can it excuse the Roman Church from being no True Church the oppositeness of Idolatry with the Essence of a Church consisting in the Reality of the thing and not in the particular perswasion of such as teach it Wherefore to say that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet that she does teach Idolatry in the manner aforementioned is to commit a palpable Contradiction Moreover 't is certain neither can the Dr. question it that the Churches of the grossest sort of Heathens did teach Idolatry destructive to the being of a true Church and in a manner destructive thereunto and yet they did not teach Idolatry in express terms but only by Consequence teaching those things wherein it did lie For either they did affirm though by mistake that the object to which they gave Divine Worship was not a meer Creature or that the honour they gave was not properly Divine For what Heathen did ever teach in express terms That the honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature So that were this objection of any force it would excuse the grossest Heathens from practising or teaching any Idolatry destructive to the Essence of a True Church Nay if Idolatry because it is taught not in express terms but by consequence is not destructive to the Being of a Church he might also affirm that upon the same account it is neither destructive to the soundness of it and consequently the Roman Church would not be according to the Dr. 's opinion not only True but Sound also For if this Doctrine be true the destructiveness of Idolatry is not to be taken from the thing which is practised or taught but from the manner of practsing it or teaching it All Heresies if they be truly such are destructive to the very Being of a True Church because they separate the Societies that profess them from the Church of Christ as the very notion of Heresie does import yet according to this answer of the Doctor they would be consistent with the Essence of a True Church because there is no Heretical Church which is not mistaken in some thing that it teaches or which does teach to be an Errour or Heresie that which she maintains as a Truth yet because she teaches those things wherein her particular Heresie lies and because she teaches to be true what really is an Errour and an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith therefore she is an Heretical and no True Church Whence it follows that should one affirm that such a Church is True and yet that she teaches those things wherein Heresie and Errour against Faith does lie he would beyond debate contradict himself and if it be a contradiction to affirm that such a Church is true and yet Heretical will it be no Contradiction to defend that the Roman Church is True but yet Idolatrous For certainly Idolatry is no less destructive to the Being of a Church than Heresie Wherefore as to kill a man 't is enough for one to do that which necessarily infers the Separation of the Soul from the Body whether he does it by mistake or without mistake knowingly or not knowingly So to destroy the Being of a True Church 't is enough if she teaches any Fundamental or Essential Errour destructive to the Essence thereof as she must necessarily do if she teaches Idolatry whether she teaches it in express terms or only by consequence whether by mistake or not For although mistake may excuse him who has it from erring maliciously yet not from erring nor the Church that should teach such an Errour from being Erroneous Since therefore Dr. St. does not excuse the Roman Church from Erring against this Fundamental point The Honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature he cannot excuse her from a Fundamental Errour inconsistent with the Being of a True Church and consequently he cannot excuse himself from a manifest Contradiction in granting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with Doctrines containing Idolatry After all these attempts on the part of the Idolatry he fathers upon us had proved unsuccessful he turns himself to the other part of the Contradiction saying that when he grants the Roman Church to be a True Church he means thereby nothing else but that she does embrace all Essential points of Faith couched in the Antient Creeds of the Catholick Church and he thinks it very far from any contradiction to affirm that a Church may embrace all such points and yet teach Idolatry and therefore he saies that although
those points and Articles which are requisite to the Being of a Church but moreover does not teach nor require any thing whatsoever destructive to Salvation as doubtless gross Idolatry and open Violations of the Divine Laws are As insignificant and senseless as this is another evasion or rather the same in other terms the Dr. makes use of viz. that we may be saved as Christians but not as Roman Catholicks and that we may be saved if we repent but not otherwise And what Roman Catholick did ever affirm that Protestants or any Hereticks whatsoever are damned as Christians or because they hold the general Principles of Christianity wherein they agree with good Christians but only as holding the particular Errours of their respective Religions neither will they be damned if they Repent And yet Dr. St. pretends that Protestants have a more Charitable opinion of Catholicks in order to their Salvation than Catholicks have of Protestants See my book pag. 7 8. Yea there is no Religion which does not hold some general Truths viz. That we ought to repent of our sins and retract our Errours That we are bound to believe and do whatsoever God will have us believe or do and such like neither is any one damned for holding these Truths nor if he sincerely repents of all his sins and retracts all his errours and yet sure Dr. St. will not grant that all Religions in the world are True and the very same with Protestancy as he saies ours is The forementioned Answer of Dr. St. puts me in mind of what one answered a Prince who was also a Bishop when being checked by him for having committed some great misdemeanour unbeseeming a Bishop he said that he had done it as a Prince not as a Bishop the other replyed But if the Devil carries away your Highness as a Prince what will become of you as a Bishop In the like manner if Dr. St. affirms that Roman Catholicks as such are damned can he imagin that they will be saved as Christians In fine according to this answer of Dr. St. it is no more possible for Roman Catholicks to be saved than for a man to become a Horse which is altogether impossible For the repugnancy that is for a man to become a horse is not grounded upon the Generical Predicates wherin he agrees with a Horse but upon his special difference and Dr. St. confesses the particular Tenets of Roman Catholicks to be repugnant to Salvation but not the general and if this be the possibility of Salvation he grants us and whereof he so much vapours what Catholick ever denied it to Protestants and to say that we may be saved if we repent of our particular Tenets and recal them which we can never do without quitting the Roman Catholick Religion is as much as if he should say that the Roman Catholick Religion is a true way to Salvation but that it will never carry you thither unless you quit it which is as I insinuated in the place above quoted a pretty piece of Non-sense Whence we conclude that as Dr. St. to shew that the Roman Church may be Idolatrous though True forges an Idolatry which is no Idolatry so to prove that she may be a true Church though Idolatrous he feigns a true Church that is no true Church And who can wonder now that Whitby should stile Dr. St. a Prodigy of Ingenuity and Learning since he has been able to invent such prodigious distinctions of a true Church no true Church and of an Idolatry no Idolatry And hence by the way I infer a thing of great comfort for Roman Catholicks which is that when they hear their Church impeached of Idolatry in so many Ballads cryed through the streets and in so many Pamphlets that lie upon every Stationers Stall there is no more meant by the Idolatry they accuse us of than an Idolatry that is no Idolatry or an Idolatry that is an essential perfection of the true Religion and there is no great harm to be feared from such Idolatries as these One thing there is that I cannot but wonder at which is that since Dr. St. is so eminent in composing things though never so opposite one to the other the Anabaptists and Quakers did not chuse him for Arbiter in their late Contests concerning Religion For though the Anabaptists had proved the Quakers no Christians as they pretended notwithstanding the Dr. out of his immense charity would have demonstrated that they were both still of the very same Religion not only among themselves but even with him also For if he be able to bring to a composition things that grin so much one at the other as a True Church and an Idolatrous Church even with the grossest sort of Idolatry what will he not compose and if he be so charitable as to make his own Church the very same in substance with an Idolatrous Church why not also with a No Christian Church besides the Quakers and Anabaptists follow the very same Rule whereby Dr. St. regulates Protestancy See his Principles 5 13 15. For after a sober and sincere enquiry made into the Truth and whether they have made such an enquiry or not they must be their own Judges without being bound to submit to any Exteriour Guide they follow the Light within or a faculty in them of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to their Belief whereby they judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation and of the Genuine sense thereof So that if this faculty which is and ought to be according to the Dr. their sole Guide tells them That Christ is not God That Christian Religion is not true or that there is no Scripture All goes well and they are of the very same Religion with Dr. St. adjusting themselves to his very rule A late Book entituled A Treatise of Humane Reason disgusted much the Protestants as I have heard and yet it is nothing else but an abstract of those very Principles and Grounds whereon this Champion of Protestancy Dr. St. builds the Vindication of the Protestant Religion Finally because the Dr. seems extream fond of his distinction of a True Church and a Sound Church insinuated above it will not be amiss to examin what he can mean by a Sound Church and secure way to Salvation which in this debate signifie the same Does he mean by it a Church that is free from all difficulties and Temptations if so then there is no True Church in the world that is sound and secure For even according to our Saviours Testimony the true way to Heaven is narrow and difficult beset with several dangers and temptations which render the Salvation of men extream hazardous and encompassed on all with cross and by-paths and dark turnnings wherein many are miss-led yea Christian Religion taken in its greatest purity contains high Mysteries not easie to be assented unto and hard Precepts which go against the grain of our nature and many miscarry deterred by these
exteriourly Now my intent was by discovering the vast absurdities which wait upon Dr. St.'s Argument whereby he pretends to prove Roman Catholicks guilty of Idolatry to shew the inanity and nullity thereof according to that irrefragable Maxime of Rational Discourses Out of Truth alone neither Falsity nor Absurdity does follow and because perhaps some might not think it any absurdity to grant that Dr. St. is an Idolater and consequently admitting it might stick to his Argument I added that the same Argument of the Dr. had it any force in it would prove the Evangelists and the Holy Ghost to be Idolaters an absurdity so great that no Christian can assent unto and when we argue ab absurdo the greater and more evident the absurdity we infer is the better is the Argument So that my Discourse runs thus Either Dr. St.'s Argument proves the Evangelists and Holy Ghost to be Idolaters or it proves nothing as I have shewen throughout that Appendix But it does not nor cannot prove the Evangelists and the Holy Ghost to be Idolaters For certainly there can be no good proof of a Falsity or Absurdity Therefore his Argument proves nothing When shall we find any thing in the Dr. that looks like a rational Answer to this Charge of Idolatry which lies so heavy upon him out of his own Tenets He saies pag. 37. That God did forbid in the Commandment the worship of him by Images but not the worship of him by our Conceptions although unsuitable to his incomprehensible nature without taking any notice of what I objected to the contrary for pag. 19. I affirmed that the Dr. himself pag. 59. in his Discourse concerning the Roman Idolatry did understand the prohibition contained in the Commandment of all kind of Similitudes or Representations whatsoever whether of a real or imaginary Being For the words of the Law being general all sorts of Representations or Likenesses of God are necessarily comprehended therein Now not only Corporeal Images but also Words and Conceptions are certain Repretations and Resemblances of their objects which Dr. St. never denied Yea Knowledge or Mental Conception is commonly defined a Formal Representation of an Object and it is an ordinary opinion among Philosophers that in obscure and abstract Conceptions the mind frames an Idea of the Object And certainly should one adore his own thoughts and Idea's he would commit Idolatry and transgress this Commandment Wherefore this Commandment does forbid the making any Image or Representation of God whether Spiritual or Corporeal not absolutely but as the Law saies to adore it Since therefore as Dr. St. confesses in his former book and the Reasons now alledged do evince the Law speaks of all kinds of Representations and Resemblances in order to that effect why does he in his Answer to my Book confine the Law only to Corporeal Representations Again if according to the Dictates of Nature as Dr. St. affirms pag. 36. who therefore thinks this commandment to be of an unalterable Nature common to all and not peculiar to the Jews 't is Idolatry to represent God by Corporeal Images or to adore him so represented because Corporeal things represent God in a way far beneath his Greatness which is the reason he produces for the Law it follows evidently that whoever adores God represented unto him in a way beneath his Greatness whether by words Images or gross Imaginations for neither of these waies do represent him in a manner suitable to his Majesty and there are unworthy Conceptions of God as well as unworthy Images is an Idolater which is what I intended to prove against him For in natural Precepts such as this is the Law extends as far as the Reason of the Law and according to the constant Axiome of Logicians Causalis vera infert universalem veram If the Proposition which contains the cause or reason of a thing be true there follows necessarily an universal Truth Wherefore if this Proposition who adores God represented by Corporeal things is an Idolater because he adores him represented in a way inferiour to his Greatness be true as Dr. St. will needs have it to be this Universal must also be true Whoever adores God represented in a way inferiour to his greatness is an Idolater But the Dr. thought it best not to take any notice at all of these things and I find that among many other his rare accomplishments one is that he is excellent in forgetting such things as he knows he cannot answer In the same page he will seem to lay in the dust my whole Discourse with these only words But the mischief is all this subtlety of my Argument is used against the Law-maker and not against me O Irrefragable Answer if such Answers as these wll serve the turn I 'le warrant you the Dr. will never be puzzled Let any one interpret the Law of God never so ridiculously if he be urged with the Absurdities that flow from such an Interpretation his answer may be according to this learned Dr. when he hath nothing else to say That all the Absurdities they pretend to draw from his Interpretation are against the Law-maker and not against him Here occurs unto me what I have lately read in a brief account of the most material passages between the Quakers and the Baptists at the Barbican Meeting London October 9. 1674. pag. 9 10. The Anabaptist press'd the Quaker in this manner the Apostle saith Let Women be silent in the Church Why suffer ye Women to declare The Quaker answered The Woman to be silenced is the Flesh Has the Flesh replies the Anabaptist a Husband Yea saies the Quaker and who is it replyed again the Anabaptist the Quaker promptly answered The Devil But the Anabaptist goes on and urges The Text saith Let a Woman ask her Husband at home must the Flesh be instructed by the Devil in matters of Religion Here the poor Quaker seemed according to this account to be puzzled But had Dr. St. been by him he would have suggested to him this easie answer Alas for thee Thou canst not understand All thy subtlety is against Paul and not against me The debate between us and Dr. St. is concerning the right meaning of Gods Commandment The Dr. saies that thereby are prohibited all Representations of God in a way inferiour to his Greatness and the Adoring of him so Represented And after I had shewn out of undeniable Principles the absurdity of this interpretation can the Dr. think it a sufficient answer to say All this subtlety is against the Law maker and not against him Whenas all the Absurdities I deduce are against Dr. St.'s interpretation of the Law not against the Law it self nor the Law-maker In the pag. 38. he seems to place the difference between Thoughts of God and Corporeal Images of him in order to our present design That the former proceeds from the necessary weakness of our understanding not being able to reach the Greatness of God who therefore has procured