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
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
this way of not answering each Argument in particular be New I was not the Inventer of it For Dr. St. himself in his Discourse of Idolatry which was published before my Book saw Light p. 558. affirms That the Principles of Protestant Religion which he sets down at the end of that work are a sufficient Answer to Protestancy without Principles whereas it is manifest that in his whole Appendix of Principles he does neither State the Controversie plainly nor examin the proofs that Learned Author produces nor apply distinct Answers to his Arguments fairly represented in their own words which is what he sayes Protestant Writers observe Pref. pag. 3. when they set themselves to Answer our Books And I appeal to the Judgment of any Impartial person who has taken the pains to peruse his late Answers to the formentioned book Protestancy without Prnciples to Reason and Religion and to the Guide in Controversie whether he has performed all the aforesaid Formalities which he requires of us ibid. pag. 4. and whether he does not pick up here and there some Sentences to Answer or one Chapter or two together or leaps from one thing to another as if resolved to pass by the greatest difficulties or omits whole Discourses as the fourth and fifth Discourse in the Guide in Controversie All these little Arts and Shifts in us sais the Dr. are either plain Acknowledgments of a baffled Cause or an Argument of a weak and unskilful Management Whereas all these very same Arts in the Dr. must be pregnant proofs of a good Cause and of a skilful management thereof But some will say That Dr. St. may be permitted to answer as he please and without tying himself to the abovementioned Formalities because he has learned a secret proper to himself to draw off all the spirit of a book in two or three lines Pref. Gen. pag. 30. and all the rest he leaves behind viz. all that he cannot Answer which is the far greatest part of his Adversaries Books is only Phlegm and Caput mortuum But we poor Souls to whom Dr. St. has not as yet had the Charity to impart this Secret unless we answer his book Chapter by Chapter Paragraph by Paragraph and Point by Point we do nothing Whoever desires to see more concerning Dr. St. 's manner of writing let him read the First Letter written by the Worthy Author of Some General Observations upon Dr. St. 's Book and way of Writing Now the true reason why Dr. St. frets so much at my manner of dealing with him seems to be because he thought it a disparagement that so little a Book should be published against so great a Dr. and that I should compel him in no more than a sheet and a half to fall foul on himself and to be his own Executioner The Dr. seems to be in the vulgar Errour of such as measure Books by their Bulks and Imagin that in a little book such as he stiles Rats and Flies there can be no great thing But he must know that a Rat can overcome an Elephant and that Flies have been able to rout vast Armies Hence any one may see what Motives I had to take this way of Answering Dr. St. whereof he will needs make so great a Mistery My intention was to dispatch him in short and to set forth a little Book against him which I could never have performed should I have answered all his Arguments one by one and observed all the other Formalities he will needs oblige us to Besides the Conveniencies of a little book are very great It is easily made easily Printed easily bought and easily read and consequently thereby are spared two precious things Time and Money About a Thousand Copies of Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet went off in three weeks or a month and had I Printed as many more I might have dispatch'd them all On the contrary a great Volume cannot be made without great labour nor Printed without great Expences and when it is made and Printed few buy it and fewer have time or patience to read it over A Pestilent Book may be dash'd at the beginning with a short Paper before it spreads its Venome but this being once spread a whole Volume will scarce suffice to quell it A Pail of Water may quench a Fire before it extends itself whereas a far greater quantity will not be effectual to a vert its fury if it once makes it self master of a house But you will say as many do that some deny the Roman Church to be a true Church which is to destroy and pull down the very stress whereon is builded our whole Discourse I say also that many deny the Antient Fathers others all General Councils and others the very Scripture it self nay what is there that some do not deny May we not therefore Argue well out of Fathers Councils and Scriptures against such as admit these Topicks Neither is it necessary to prove alwayes our Conclusion out of General Principles which all or most agree unto otherwise we should never argue in matters of Religion out of certain Books of Scripture which Jews and some Sectaries do deny against such as do allow of those Books Particular Principles come neerer the Conclusion we pretend to prove consequently if they be true assented unto by both parties they carry us a shorter way to the Truth we aim at Moreover though some deny the Roman Church to be a true Church yet many grant it and it is the Sense of the English Church and the Perswasion of all Learned Protestants as many of their own Profession aver according to what we have quoted in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet pag. 3 4. Dr. St. himself assents unto it Fanaticks approve of it and Latitudinarians who maintain all Religions to be true stoutly defend it and many times they seem angry with us that we should question whether they grant our Church to be a True Church Of those who profess themselves Christians in England only some rigid Presbyterians deny it yea the title of Reformers of the Roman Religion which Moder Sectaries take upon them does manifestly imply that the Roman Religion the Reformed Religion as they stile it is the same in substance and different only in Accidentals and consequently if theirs be true ours must also be true for it is impossible that a true Church and not a true Church should be the same in Substance To Reform a Church is not to destroy its Essence but to redress its Disorders The Apostles were not sent to Reform Paganism and why because they Destroyed it bringing in in lieu thereof Christian Religion of a different Substance and Nature The fire destroys wood and Refines Gold because it changes the very Substance of Wood into Ashes but it only takes away the dross of Gold and leaves its Substance and Essence untouched Dealing therefote with the forementioned Persons as in this Treatise I do I might with much
Recognitions recalling his former Errours though he might make a just Volume upon that Subject and begin it with the Recantation of what he sets down in his Irenicon destructive to the Episcopal Dignity which he is loth to do for he sees that book endeared him to the Presbyterian party whom he seems to Court I confess that it is no blemish for a man when he is better informed to recal the Errours which heretofore he assented unto For to err is a frailty of men but to persevere obstinately in an Errour as necessarily he must do who persists in a palpable Contradiction is a brutish obstinacy and what greater disparagement than this can there be for a rational man Now Dr. St. not only heretofore but even in this present book after he had Charged the Roman Church with gross Idolatry affirms that she is a true Church as shall hereafter appear without having ever yet recalled that Proposition and consequently he persists to contradict himself as he now admits Whence follows that the Allegation of Bellarmin's Recognitions or Recantations was nothing to the purpose For it is as if one should argue thus Bellarmin though he erred yet because he recalled his Errours making a Book of Recognitions did not lose his Reputation neither did he deserve that we should slight what he saies Therefore Dr. St. who has erred and does persist to err who has and does still contradict himself without ever having recalled his Errours does not deserve we should slight what he affirms or thus Saint Peter though he sinned grievously yet because he did sincerely repent was a great Saint Therefore such as have sinned grievously and never repent are great Saints Let Dr. St. imitate Bellarmin and recal his former Errous and he will lose nothing no not his Authority which notwithstanding as he himself affirms Self-contradiction being once proved especially if it be insisted upon is utterly overthrown But we must reflect That such as recal their former Opinions or Tenets are in two sorts Some recal Tenets heretofore assented unto because they find them inconsistent with Errours which they are resolved to defend as if one for instance who being not able to vindicate the General Principles of Christianity without confessing the particular Tenets of the Roman Church to be true should out of hatred to such particular Tenets deny the General principles of Christianity which before he had yielded unto Such men as these are far from deserving any Commendation for recalling their former perswasions but rather shew an inveterate obstinacy and odium against the Truth and amongst such men Dr. St. must be enrolled should he to defend the Idolatry of the Roman Church deny her to be a true Church contrary to the Truth he has so often acknowledged and to the very Grounds whereon he builds the truth of Protestancy For though I do not allow of his Grounds yet I Assent to the Truth of the Roman-Catholick Religion which is evidently thence inferred Others to embrace the Truth which in process of time they have discovered recal former Tenets contrary thereunto as St. Augustin and Bellarmin did So do many who finding Protestant Religion to be false relinquish it and embrace the Roman opposite thereunto Such men as these shew great ingenuity and sincerity and by revoking such Opinions with all Wise men rather gain than lose Authority or Reputation And among these men Dr. St. would deserve to be listed if he would be pleased to recant and declare plainly to the world that when he Charged the Roman Church with Idolatry Fanaticism Divisions in matters of Faith danger of Salvation in her Communion and other Corruptions he over shot himself as several even of his own Friends confess he did at least in the Charge of Idolatry Besides when one recalls an Opinion as inconsistent with the Truth to which he had heretofore assented he also virtually recalls all the proofs thereof acknowledging them to be either false or unconcluding And since what St. Augustin and Bellarmin stood to after their Retractations contradicted what they held before 't is manifest that their proofs either on the one side or other were void and consequently recalling such Opinions they recalled also their proofs of them And here I cannot but reflect that Dr. St. seems to list me pag. 14. among such as he terms Revolters from the Church of England Thanks be to God I was bred a Roman-Catholick my Parents and Ancestors were of the same Religion and suffered much for their constancy therein And I can assure the Dr. that for all I have seen in him I am so far from being startled in my Religion that I am rather confirmed therein For a weak impugnation of the Truth is a confirmation thereof and if God shall be pleased to give me his Grace not to quit the General Principles of Christianity I shall never upon the account of what Dr. St. saies relinquish the particular Tenets of the Catholick Church Many ask me what matters it that Dr. St. palpably contradicts himself and persists so to do which is the same as if they should ask me what matters it if Dr. St. be a Madman And to say the truth it matters very little for the Publick good that he be so but it matters very much that being so he should be commonly reputed a Wiseman For what greater damage can be imagined than that the people be guided by a Madman in affairs of so great concern as those of Religion are Neither can one do a greater service to the Common-wealth than to discover their Guides to be mad if really they be so Neither can there be a better way to discover it than by shewing they grant and persist to grant palpable Contradictions Moreover they might say the same in case I had attacked any other particular Doctor of the Protestant Church for Dr. St. carries as great a vogue as any other asking me what matters it if I force such a Doctor to manifest Contradictions and by consequence bring him to a Non-plus So that were this Objection justifiable it would prove that it is of no concern to defeat and bring to a Non-plus any particular Adversary which is certainly false and repugnant to the common practice of all Learned and Zealous men Besides had I proved only that the Charges which Dr. St. saies upon us did contradict some particular Tenet held only by the Dr. and some few of his Partizans though that would have been sufficient to have baffled him yet it would not have been of so great moment But I have shewn that the Aspersions he casts upon us do contradict General Principles assented unto not only by Dr. St. and all Roman-Catholicks but also by all Learned Protestants Members of the English Church and by many others of different Professions and consequently I convince all such that the forementioned Aspersions are false as being repugnant to True and General Principles granted by them and that whatever is produced
for asserting Dr. St. to be an Honest man and yet a Knave certainly no prudent person can think that such a one would sufficiently clear himself by saying That he granted him to be an Honest man out of meer kindness but that he affirmed him to be a Knave upon good and solid Reason and that therefore no body could without disingenuity oppose the one Judgment against the other These pittiful shifts of Dr. St. make one exclaim O how unhappy a thing it is to engage in a bad Cause What will not some say rather than unsay themselves and confess their Errours Again either Dr. St. thinks this Concession of his The Roman Church is a true Church to be grounded upon good and solid Reason as really it is or he does not think it such now if he think it such it is not a Judgement of Charity only but of Reason also and consequently he unjustly charges me with disingenuity for opposing a Judgment of meer Charity against a Judgment of Reason since both in his opinion are Judgments of Reason If he does not think this his Concession to be grounded upon Reason how can it be a Judgment of true and real Charity Can it be true Charity to tell us That we are in a true way to Salvation That our Church does not teach us any damnable Errour or any thing destructive to our Eternal Wellfare and yet to tell us all this without any Reason to think it so Such a Charity of this if it must be called so is rather a meer Cheat than Charity Nay since the Dr. has declared himself an implacable Enemy to the Roman Church bespattering her with so many foul Aspersions 't is not credible he would grant her to be a True church did not good and solid Reasons force him thereunto and we have seen above that the very same grounds whereby he pretends to establish the Truth of the Protestant Church evince also the Truth of the Roman Church So that he must either confess That he grants his own Church to be true out of meer Charity without any solid ground for to grant it or he must acknowledge our Church to be a true Church upon good and solid Reasons at least in his Opinion And because Dr. St. and his Associates do so often vapour of their Charity in allowing Roman-Catholicks a possibility of Salvation endeavouring some of them thence to prove That their Religion is better than ours which does not allow so much to Protestants 't will not be amiss to examin the depth of this their Charity and sure if we consider how those who deny our Church to be a true Church are puzzled and to what shifts they are put concerning the continuation of the True Church for so many years before Luther and Calvin their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and several other points of highest concern objected against them we may prudently believe that when they acknowledge our Church to be a true Church they do it not so much out of any kindness they have for us as for their own proper Interest and Concern Again if that Religion has the greatest Charity and upon that account is to be held for the best Religion that makes the way of Salvation widest the Religion of the Libertines and Latitudinarians who affirm all Religions to be true and sufficient to Salvation whether Christianism Judaism Paganism or Mahometism would be the best of all Religions which certainly Dr. St. will never grant although he burns with so great Charity Moreover leaving both parties Catholicks and Protestants to their proper Tenets 't is greater Charity in Catholicks towards Protestants to tell them they are in the wrong than in Protestants towards Catholicks to tell them they are in the right or in a true way to Salvation For the most that Protestants can effect in Catholicks with this their Concession is to encourage them to go on with more alacrity in the way wherein they are since they see that even their greatest Enemies do grant them to be in a true way to Heaven when as Catholicks by telling Protestants they are in the wrong may bring many of them to the right and save them from Damnation Since they cannot but be much moved seeing that so many Learned men who are ten to one for Protestants do affirm with so great asseveration and constancy producing several solid grounds in proof of what they affirm That protestants are in the wrong way And beyond debate it is far greater Charity to save one from Damnation than only to encourage him to obtain his Salvation So it is greater Charity to tell one whom we know to be out of the way That he is in the wrong than to tell one whom we know to be in the true way That he is in the right Because the one unless he be told of his Errour will probably go on and never come whither he intended when as the other encouraged by our advice will only come sooner to his journey's end whither he would have arrived although we had told him nothing Besides when our Adversaries are pinched with the inferences we deduce from this their Concession they do so mince and clip their Charity that it scarce retains any shew or mark thereof as appears by what Archbishop Lawd Dr. Stillingfleet and others assert in this matter For they say That all Learned men among us are damned if they continue in Communion with the Roman Church Nay the same they affirm of all those who understand the pretended Absurdities they are pleased to oppose against us which in their opinion are so clear and manifest that no body who is not a meer Fool or a Madman and consequently in a condition not capable of Malice may easily understand them That scarce any one is saved amongst us That only an invincible ignorance which is not easily presumed in matters so clear as they will needs have our Errours to be and wherein every one is so much concern'd can excuse us from eternal Damnation That we are all flat Idolaters and as gross as the grossest of the Heathen and by consequence That this Proposition A Roman-Catholick may be saved hath no more truth in it than this An Idolater may be saved Finally that Roman-Catholicks may be saved upon condition they repent of their Errours as also Jews Turks and Pagans may be saved upon the like Condition Now if we compare with these their Assertions concerning Roman Catholicks what we affirm of Protestants in order to their Salvation or Damnation we shall evidently see that there is little or no difference between us and them in relation to this point and that they have no cause to make such Bravadoe's of their Charity towards us For between these two Propositions scarce any one is saved and all are damned there is so scant a difference that there is very little reason to boast thereof Neither do we deny but that some Protestants have an invincible ignorance of the Errours
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
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
make a fine business of Religion but I am far from any such intent I know him too well He is as pitiful at Arguing as excellent at Drolling and I am resolved to attack him on the weakest side let him complain never so much Nor could the Dr. have given the world a more pregnant Testimony that his Adversaries have pinched and galled him than by using such unhandsome and passionate expressions against them For all wise men do clearly understand that whoever in serious debates such as those of Religion are with all persons who have any sense of Religion in them when he is closely press'd in lieu of Answering falls a Railing or a Drolling he yields himself for defeated not to seem so to ignorant people who think that so long as the party speaks he answers he will needs say something though it be nothing to the purpose The best way to deal with such Adversaries is to press the Arguments which nettled them The Spur Which touching only does make one kick and wince if often applyed may tame and calm him And though one should be permitted now and then to sprinkle even serious Discourses with some sort of Railery yet what prudence could it be in Dr. St. when he had no less than Nine several Treatises to answer besides others published before issued forth against his Discourse concerning the Idolatry of the Roman Church or some part thereof and such as even Protestants were of opinion he would have enough to do to answer them what prudence could it be I say for him in this Conjuncture to mis-spend so much time in framing Romantick Characters of his Adversaries Sure had he been perswaded that he could solidly answer them he would presently have closed with them and dispatch'd them and not have stood off so long in Buffoonery And the effect he has obtained by this manner of answering seems to be that having quite spent himself in these Drolling and Railing Fits he has been forced to be beholding to a Person of Honour though unacquainted with Polemical Contests as his Book sufficiently proclaims it for answering his grave Adveersary S. C. and to Dr. Whitby though as that witty Author J. V. C. tells us he vents Reasons Epist ad Cressyn ag Mr. Whitby as young Children do Worms heads and tails together for encountring even the Knight himself For so he stiles his worthy Antagonist pref pag. 40. T. G. And here I cannot but wonder What Dr. St. the Champion of the Protestant Church Whitby in his preface that Incomparable Man that Prodigie of Ingenuity and Learning had he not Courage enough to Combate the Knight even when his own party was in so great expectation of the Engagement Must he be forced to substitute Whitby in his place But to such shifts as these one will be put who when he hath serious business in hand trifles out his time in fopperies Yea probably speaking he will hire some such man and there are many such men as Dr. Whitby to Encounter the Squire too for so he terms that Ingenious Writer J. S. and the rest of his Learned Adversaries who remain unanswered Yet it is great pity he should not answer them all himself For if any of their Books have not hitherto arrived to the esteem they deserve let the Dr. answer them in particular and they will not fail to gain the Repute due unto them For my own part I can assure him that not only I my self but several others too have a greater esteem for my little Book since the Dr. was pleased to answer it than we had before and I am so far from fearing his Replies that I heartily desire he would Answer whatever hereafter I shall Publish relating to Controversie The substance of the Reply was finished some few months after Dr. St. Examination of my Book came forth the reason why it was not published sooner is because I expected the Dr. should afford a particular answer to several Treatises issued forth against his discourse of the Roman Idolatry the book I attaqued which remained yet unanswered to the end that having seen what he could answer to the whole charge layed to him in this debate I might the better order my Reply But since the Dr. in so long a time has not yet been pleased to satisfie so just an expectation for some good reasons he knows I resolved without any farther delay to set forth this Rejoynder especially being prest thereunto by the invitation of several persons of Learning both Diocesan and Catholick who are perswaded that the Dr. in the Examination of my Book has layed himself thus open as will manifestly appear by the following Treatise The Contents CHap. I. On supposition Dr. St. Contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all the charges he casts upon the Roman Church are false and all their proofs void Chap. II. Several objections against the forementioned way of answering the Dr. proved insignificant Chap. III. Other Objections answered Chap. IV. The Evasions of the Dr. to clear himself from Self-contradiction in charging the Roman Church with Idolatry examined Chap. V. The Dr. palpably Contradicts himself by affirming the Roman Church to be Idolatrous and yet granting her to be a True Church Chap. VI. Another proof of the same intent drawn from the nature of the Idolatry the Dr. fathers upon the Roman Church Chap. VII The invalidity of the Drs. answers to our Propositions in particular Chap. VIII Several quibbles against the aforesaid Doctrine removed Chap. IX The Drs. answer to my Appendix proved frivolous Chap. X. Concerning the other Contradictions committed by the Dr. in the Charges he laies upon the Roman Church Chap. XI Some difficulties raised by the Dr. against my Judgment concerning his manner of proceeding rejected ERRATA PRef post medium not to seem so r. yet not to seem so fine Diocesan and Catholick r. Protestants and Catholicks ib. thus open r. too open p. 47. l. 13. would not r. would it not p. 68. l. 5. charity of this r. charity as this p. 75. l. 18. his excess r. this excess l. 22. this charity r. his charity p. 100. l. 2. nor among r. now among p. 101. so it is r. so that it is p. 103. l 13. commanded r. commandment p 123. l. 13. post illa virba honour due to God add and then 't is false p. 124. l. 8. this part was r. this was part p. 131. l. 8. when r then p. 132. l. 27. does not own r. does own p. 145. l 25. our own r. his own p. 161. l. 27. would not be r. would be p. 185. l. 24. answering r. answer p. 186 l. 22. and Idolater r. an Idolater p. 188. l. 8. any r. as any p. 194. l. 19. universal truth r. universal true p. 214. l. 26. in any times r. many times p. 220 l. 26. detected r. detested p. 221. l. 9. are most r. are more ib. l. 17. to him treason r. him to
treason p. 239. l. 20. that was r. that this was p. 249. l. 23. as he r. as that he p. 265. l. 15. being an r. being of an p. 269. l. 2. eighth practises r. eighth their practises ib. l. 14. to the same r. the same CHAP. I. On supposition Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all the Charges he casts upon the Roman Church are false and all their proofs void AFter Dr. St. had prefixed two Prefaces to his Book the one of 82 pages the other of 12 he sets upon the examination of my Treatise which with Introduction Answer and Appendix contains only 21 pages though in a closer letter He designes to prove two things against me 1. That on supposition he did contradict himself in the way I insist upon yet that would be no sufficient Answer to his Book Page 14. 2. That he is far enough from contradicting himself in any one of the things I charge him with In reply to these two Points I shall shew 1. What follows if the Dr. Contradicts himself and hence will appear whether on supposition he contraicts himsef in the way I insist upon I answer his Book or not 2. That he palpably contradicts himself in the forementioned Charges he lays upon the Roman Church And that the Dr. may see I have a mind to deal fairly with him I am very willing to be tried by the Learned men of our Two Famous Universities where there are many as ingenious as Dr. St. and far more ingenuous not only whether I have not proved that the Dr. contradicts himself but also whether this being once proved in the way I insist upon I do not invalidate and annual all the above-mentioned Charges he lays against the Roman Church with all the Reasons and Proofs he produces or can produce to make them good To commence therefore the first Point of this Reply If I have proved that Dr. St. has contradicted himself in the aforesaid Crimes he imputes to the Roman Church which is the supposition wherein he and we speak in this first part it manifestly follows that I have obtained the design of my Book couched in the Title thereof viz Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet and if I moreover shew that he still contradicts himself I compleat also the Subject and Title of this Rejoynder Dr. Stillingfleet still against Dr. Stillingfleet For nothing else is aimed at in these Titles but only to evince that the Dr. did contradict and persists to contradict himself This is apparent from what I insinuated at the beginning of my Book in these words page 1. My aim therefore in this short Paper only is to lay open the palpable contradictions of Dr. St. in imputing to the Roman Church the forementioned Calumnies And what more can be expected from a Writer than to fill up the Subject and Designe of his Discourse Especially if the Designe be of great Consequence as this is according to what now follows Again Self-contradiction being proved as Dr. St. himself grants p. 15. overthrows the authority of the Person who stands convicted thereof Now I conceive that a sheet and half of Paper was not ill-imployed in overthrowing had it no other effect the authority of one who pretends to be a Pillar of the Protestant Church and who gains more upon his Devotees by authority than by reason So that even according to Dr. St's confession self-contradiction being once evidenced against him we ought not to believe him in any thing he says or alledges unless he recalls himself For to believe one is to take a thing upon his authority and sure no body ought to take any thing upon the authority and credit of one who has lost all authority and credit Besides whoever forces his Adversary to grant manifest Contradictions or shews that he grants them according to the rigour of Logique and close arguing he puts him in a sack he brings him to a Non-plus and in plain vulgar English he makes an Ass of him or shews him to be so unless he recants And can more than this be required of one to confute and confound his Adversary or can one press him further than to a Non-plus Finally Whoever grants and persists to grant palpable Contradictions he may justly be posted up for a Mad-man Should one for instance infected with the Plague say and repeat that he is in very good health but withal that he is deadly sick of the Plague could there be a clearer Symptome that such a man's brains were distemper'd than to hear him harp upon so palpable a contradiction And there is no wise man who will have to do with Mad-men no not in their Lucid Intervals as Dr. St. in his Pref. p. 11. gravely observes For though Mad-men Fools may sometimes say shrew'd things yet no body who is perswaded they are such can in prudence think himself bound to confute them but rather to pity them nor to solve their Objections but to slight them though it does not follow because they are so that all their Arguments are false and their Objections null This I have said because I perceive there are several who are not sensible what gross absurdities do follow from self-contradiction Nevertheless the Dr. still urges That all this is no sufficient answer to his Book For though he confesses that self-contradicition being once evidenced against him all his authority and credit is worth nothing and consequently he is not to be believed or credited in any thing he quotes or alledges and all his Arguments which depend upon the truth of his Quotations are not to be valued nay neither is one bound to make enquiry whether his Quotations be true or not For who is bound to make inquiry into the truth of what a Mad-man or one that hath forfeited all his credit does say or alledge Yet after all this he affirms and vapours in almost every leaf of this first part that his Arguments especially such as do not depend upon the truth of his Allegations and how few has he of such Arguments remain firm solid and unanswered Now to disabuse the Doctor and his Partizans in this Point I shall demonstrate that in the present Supposition viz. That he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon by laying to our charge the above mentioned crimes not only all the aforesaid Aspersions but also all the Arguments which he produces or can produce either from Authority or Reason in proof of them are void and of no force And to this purpose I set down these following Principles which though appertaining only to Logique this Dr. of Divinity seems to be ignorant of 1. When two Propositions contradict one another both cannot be true but either the one or the other must needs be false This is a manifest Principle of Natural Logique wherefore if these two Propositions The Roman Church is a true Church the Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church do contradict one another as now we suppose
in proof of them is false or impertinent And what more can be required in order to wipe of from the minds of such persons the aforesaid Calumnies CHAP. III. Other Objections Answered BY what hitherto has been discuss'd it plainly appears that the instance of a Lawyer at the Bar alledged page 16. by Dr. St. is of no force against us Because should a Lawyer produce at the Bar no other proof but such as is repugnant not only to his own particular Tenets but also to the common perswasion of the Judges and of all the Learned Lawyers of the Kingdom yea and to the unanimous consent of the Parliament sure his proofs would be held for frivolous This is what succeeds in our present Case Dr. St. Charges us with Crimes repugnant as he himself now admits to this Principle The Roman Church is a True Church not only granted by him and all Roman-Catholicks but also by all Learned Divines of the English Church as suitable to her Sense and Doctrine as they themselves confess and by several other of different Professions All such persons therefore and these are all with whom we now disp … 〈…〉 hold the forementioned Accusations for void and frivolous Moreover should a Lawyer plead to prove one to be a notorious Traytour and yet at the same time should plainly declare at the Bar that he is and has ever been a Loyal and faithful Subject could Dr. St. or any other think that any account were to be made of such a Barrister who should so openly Contradict himself This is what the Dr. does He pleads to shew our Church to be Idolatrous and yet at the same time he sincerely confesses that she is a true Church standing to what he has formerly asserted and he admits at the present that the forementioned Accusation contradicts this his Assertion as really it does no less then these two Propositions do contradict one another Such a man is a notorious Traytour but yet he is a faithful Subject What account therefore can any prudent man make of this Accusation of Dr. St. or consequently of the proofs he alledges in favour thereof Finally though a Lawyer may be permitted when required thereunto by his Clyent after he has informed him of his Judgment to propose all the proofs he can in his favour though his particular opinion be that his Clyent has no right to what he pretends because the Judge who is to decide the Plea may be of a contrary perswasion Yet sure Dr. St. will not affirm that what he produces in his discourse concerning the Idolatry of the Roman Church is only to shew in order to ingratiate himself with the Presbyterians what may be said upon that Subject and not because he is of opinion that the Roman Church is Idolatrous For if so he might as well have published some book against the Divinity of our Saviour or against a Deity as he hath published the forementioned Discourse to prove the Roman Church Idolatrous and then tell us if he be urged that having received a Fee from Socinians or Atheists he did it only to shew what might be said against the Divinity of our Saviour or a Deity and not because he is of opinion that there is no God or that Christ is no God Yea he might say in like manner that what ever he has produced hitherto to prove the truth and Orthodoxness of the Protestant Religion was only to shew to the end he might promote his Interest among Protestants what might be alledged in favour of their Religion and not that he thinks it True and Orthodox The Dr. seems to value much a Case he produces pag. 20. in order to shew the Insufficiency of our manner of Answering him his words are these I will put a Case parallel to this Suppose one of the Church of Judah should have called the Church of Israel in the time of Jeroboam a true Church because they acknowledged the true God and did believe an agreement in that common acknowledgment to be sufficient to preserve the Essentials of a Church among them and afterwards the same person should go about to convince the Ten Tribes of their Idolatry in worshipping God by the Calves of Dan and Bethel Would this be thought a sufficient way of Answering him to say that he contradicted himself by granting them a True Church and yet charging them with Idolatry Whereas the only true Consequence would be that he thought some kind of Idolatry to be consistent with the being of a Church He adds that such a person might justly say that they made a very ill use of his Charity and that if they could prove to him that the Idolatry he fathered upon them did Vn-church them the Consequence of it would be that his Charity must be so much the less and that he must deny them to be a true Church This is Dr. St.'s Case whereby he pretends to evince the invalidity of our manner of Answering him But before I examin this Case of the Dr. I will put a Case Parallel to ours to shew that the way we have taken to Answer him is sufficient Suppose that a Jew for why may not a Jew be as Charitable and Zealous too as Dr. St. and yet Contradict himself as he does should out of a pretended zeal Charge Christian Religion even when it was in its greatest purity with the same kind of Idolatry as Dr. St. fastens upon us and that notwithstanding at the same time carried away with the like Charity as the Dr. is should confess that Christian Religion was then not only a True Religion but also a Pure Safe and Sound Religion and with such a Religion even Dr. St. affirms the Idolatry he Charges us with yea all kind of Idolatry to be inconsistent as will appear hereafter Now in this Case might not the Dr. in vindication of Christian Religion say and prove too for I do not aver as he seems to insinuate that it is enough to say he is guilty of self-contradiction unless one proves it that such a man did contradict himself in granting Christian Religion to be a true and sound Religion and yet Charging it with Idolatry Could he rationally say that the only true Consequence in that case would be not that such a person contradicted himself but that he thought some kind of Idolatry to be consistent not only with the Being but also with the Soundness of a Church or should he think so would he not therefore contradict himself and having proved to him that the Idolatry he fathered upon the Christian Religion was destructive to the Soundness of a Religion would the Consequence be that the Charity of such a person must be so much the less and that he must deny hereafter the soundness of Christian Religion Would it not be a suffient way of Answering such a man to demonstrate unto him that the Charge of Idolatry cast by him upon Christian Religion was false and consequently that what ever
of their Religion and consequently upon that account are no less excusable from Damnation than they say we are Besides Catholicks do not affirm That those Protestants who are in a condition not capable of Malice as meer Fools Madmen and Children are more liable to damnation than Catholicks of the same condition Yet farther we never assert that this Proposition Protestants are damned has more truth in it than this Idolaters are damned and consequently it is as true That a Protestant may be saved as that an Idolater may be saved Neither do we deny but Protestants may be saved if they repent Where then is the difference between their Charity and ours that may give them any cause of Vapouring In Fine if things be well considered it will manifestly appeare That Protestants damn more Catholicks than Catholicks do Protestants For it is certain that there are at least twenty Roman-Catholicks in the world for one Protestant of the English Church with which is our present debate Now since they affirm that scarce any Catholick is saved let 's put the case that only one in twenty is saved and all the rest are damned according to this computation they damn nineteen where we damn one Supposing that we damn all Protestants or believe them to be damned if they continue in that Profession and they scarce save any Chatholick or believe him to be saved if he lives and dies in the Communion of the Roman Church So that concerning the Damnation or Salvation of Contrary Party we have more reason to glory of our Charity than they And hence evidently appears the inanity of their pretended Charity which they often cast in our Teeth this being a common Topick whence they have framed many Sermons and Discourses against us Yet I cannot deny but that the Charity of Dr. St. is enhanced to a high degree For he has made the bounds of the True Church so wide that it contains not only the most notorious Hereticks but also the greatest Idolaters Was it not therefore very ill done of me to make so bad a use of so wonderful a Charity And all this he does out of his exceeding great kindness for Protestant Religion and because he cannot find a way how to bring her within the verge of the True Church without letting in with her the grossest Idolaters of the world both in Doctrine and Practice But whether Protestants will think themselves bound to render the Dr. Thanks for his excess of his Charity I leave it to the judgment of the Learned and Zealous men amongst them One step only is wanting to make this Charity perfect indeed and that is to enlarge the Pale of the True Church so far as that it may take in flat Atheists which he may do with as much ease as he does other things In the pages 19 20 21 22. he mingles many things which do not tend to prove that he does not contradict himself which was the proper subject in this second part of his Answer but only that on svpposition he should contradict himself in the way I insist upon yet this would not be a satisfactory answer nor annull the Reasons he produced in order to make good the charges he laies against us All which has been already answered above in the first part of our Reply As concerning his Vindication from Self-contradiction he saies pag. 20 21 That by granting us a True Church and yet charging us with Idolatry it does not follow That he contradicts himself but the only true consequence is That he thinks some kind of Idolatry consistent with the Being of a True Church For what shadow of Contradiction is it they are the Dr.'s words pag. 21. to say That the Roman Church is a true Church and yet is guilty of Idolatry supposing he believes some sort of Idolatry which is very sinful not to be yet of so high a nature as to unchurch those that practise it A strange Answer so that if one has so good an opinion of himself and who has not as to believe or think that what he affirms is in some sort consistent with what he denies let him affirm or deny what he pleases according to this admirable evasion of Dr. Stillingfleet he will be free from Self-contradiction Whoever joynes two terms that really contradict one another whatever he thinks he commits a Contradiction Should one affirm another to be a notorious Traitor but yet a Loyal Subject which is the instance above insinuated could the Dr. prudently say in this case that such a person did not contradict himself but that the only true consequence that hence might be inferred was That he thought some sort of notorious Treason to be consistent with Loyalty or could he justly exclaim What shadow of Contradiction is it to say That one is a notorious Traitor but yet a Loyal Subject supposing that who saies this believes some sort of Treason though very notorious not to be yet of so high a nature as to destroy Loyalty Neither should the Dr. have supposed pag. 22. as he does but proved that the Idolatry introduced by Jeroborm among the Israelites was not destructive to the being of a True Church Several protestants among other precedents produce the Church of Israel infected with the Idolatry of Jeroboam to shew that the true visible Church may cease and consequently they believed the Church of Israel to have ceased to be a true Church by reason of the Idolatry she committed otherwise they could never have made use of the said instance to that intent and accordingly they look't upon that Idolatry as destructive to the Being of a True Church For how can a Church cease to be true upon the account of an Idolatry not destructive to the Being of a True Church Yea the Apostle Rom. 11. does not obscurely insinuate that the Idolatry practised by the Israelites did unchurch them yet they were not all infected therewith For God told Elias when he complained that he was left alone in Israel that seven thousand of them had not bowed their knees unto Baal The Evasions produced hitherto by the Dr. are as we have seen ineffectual to clear him from Self-contradiction and such as had they any force in them would prove it impossible that any one should contradict himself especially if he believed he does not which is evidently false So that the Dr. to shew himself guiltless of Self-contradiction takes the same way as if to prove himself an honest man he should alledge no better Reasons than such as prove if they prove any thing that there have never been nor are any Knaves in the world but that all are and have been honest men But this is a common Artifice of Dr. St. So that he may produce any Arguments that seem to prove his intent he cares not whatever else they prove with the same force and so he may shoot home he matters not how much he over shoots himself though one may miss as much of the
Disciples of the Pharisees and Officers of Herod came to tempt our Saviour Mat. 22. they proposed unto him a question and our Saviour starting a new question and raising a new Difficulty solved the question proposed unto him and silenced his Adversaries But had Dr. St. been with the Enemies of Christ in that occasion he would have suggested unto them That it was a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavelling humour in order to answer one question to start another Besides what question or difficulty do I start I take for granted that the Roman Church is a true Church as Dr. St. has heretofore and does still grant and hence I prove the nullity of the Charge he laies against us which is the common way of confuting an Adversary viz. Out of Principles granted by him to infer the contradictory of what he maintains But Dr. St. had charged me with Sophistry and Captiousness and he must make it good the best way he can which is to feign his Adversary to say what he does not CHAP. VII The Invalidity of the Doctor 's Answers to our Propositions in Particular LEt us see now for the greater satisfaction of the Reader what he Answers to every particular Proposition I laid down in order to prove him guilty of Self contradiction in Charging us with Idolatry and to clear our Church from so foul an Aspersion my first Proposition was this 'T is an Article of Faith and a Fundamental point of Religion That the Honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature This Proposition the Dr. absolutely grants without any distinction saying pag. 26. His first Proposition I agree to He adds afterwards That there is no dispute between us whether that Honour which is due only to God may be given to a Creature and finally he grants this Proposition to be in it self true But after he had absolutely granted it without any distinction he begins to quibble at it But I desire he would tell me whether the exception he afterwards makes against it does hinder or not the absolute truth thereof If it does not what more can I or any one else desire when we lay down Principles or Propositions than that the Proposition we advance be absolutely true If it does hinder the absolute truth of the aforesaid Proposition why did he grant it absolutely without any distinction But what is the exception he makes against us in this Proposition He saies We should have discust what that Honour is which is due only to God Wherein he adds there is a great dispute between them and us So that it seems he would have had us lay down among the Principles which we advanced against him some thing that is disputed between us which is point blank against the very notion of a Principle which ought to he agreed unto by all or at least by the Adversary with whom we deal So that he accuses us that we proceed Sophistically and Captiously and why Because forsooth we do not lay down for a Principle that which is not a Principle which doubtless is a frivolous accusation Neither was there any need we should discuss in particular what that Honour is which is due only to God For the Honour we give to Images or Saints either is due only to God or not If the Dr. saies it is then it is a palpable Contradiction for the Dr. to affirm that our Church is True and yet that she allows Saints and Images such an Honour If he saies it is not then how can he accuse our Church of Idolatry because she gives to Saints and Images such an Honour Wherefore without descending to the particular Honour due only to God we prove that either Dr. St. must confess that our Church is free from the aforesaid Idolatray or that he contradicts himself which was my proper task in that place and is not this enough He adds pag. 27. That it cannot excuse us from Idolatry to say That we acknowledge it to be Idolatry to give that Honour which we suppose to be due only to God to a meer Creature in case that he can prove that we give to meer Creatures any part of that Honour which is due to God I do confess that were it once proved that we give any Honour duly only to God to a meer Creature such an acknowledgment would not excuse us from Idolatry as it did not excuse the Heathens from the like Crime although they acknowledged the same Truth But here we must reflect That sometimes the Dr. saies that 't is Idolatry to give to a meer Creature the Honour due only to God and in that he saies the truth Othertimes as in this place he omits only and speaks of Honour due to God For some honour is due to God but not only to God As when our Saviour was upon earth without doubt the Honour of kneeling down before him was due unto him which Honour notwithstanding is due unto a King and to ones Father But what is all this that Dr. St. sets down in this Paragraph to clear himself from Self-contradiction in asserting our Church to be a true Church and yet charging her with Idolatry which was the design in this second part of his Answer and my immediate intention in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet was to prove him guilty of Self-contradiction as he saies page 28. His immediate intention was not to clear their Church from Idolatry but to accuse me of Contradiction yet I have shewn above that if I evince that he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon I do manifestly clear our Church from Idolatry and that this part was of my design My 2d Proposition was as follows To teach Idolatry is to err against the forementioned Article of Faith Fundamental point of Religion i.e. as he saies to teach Idolatry is to teach That the Honour which is due only to God is to be given I sayed may be given to a meer Creature To this second Proposition he Answers thus pag. 27. That this is to teach Idolatry no one questions but he adds that they who do not teach this i. e. that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature may yet teach Idolatry and therefore he saies We should if we had proceeded as we ought to have done have laid down an universal Negative viz. No Church that does not teach this can be guilty of Idolatry and not a particular Affirmative as he fancies this Proposition of mine to be To teach Idolatry is to teach that the Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature Hence we may discover how great a Logician Dr. St. is I wonder how he should fancy that Proposition of mine to be a particular Affirmative and not an Universal Is this Proposition a particular Affirmative To be a man is to be Animal rationale Sure no body that understands any thing of Rationality can take
't is true For as a man does not signifie all kind of Animals but only a certain kind So neither an Article of Faith does signifie all matters of Religion but only certain points So that Dr. St.'s distinction comes to be this If by Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion be understood not only Articles of Faith and Fundamental points but also other points which are neither Articles of Faith nor Fundamental i. e. if by these words he understood what they do not signifie then very wisely the Dr. saies pag. 28. The Proposition is true but impertinent as certainly it is impertinent But who makes it so But if by Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion be only understood Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion as whoever has any understanding in him must needs understand Then what then he saies not a word to the Proposition layed down by me viz. A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry Whereas according to the common Rules of distinguishing Propositions he should have told us whether our Proposition qualified with that part of the Distinction was true or false But he coggs in another Proposition very different saying That a Church which does not own all Fundamentals of Doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry Let any one judge whether this be not downright juggling Whence the Reader may easily see to what extremities this poor man is brought to make good against us his pretended Charge of Idolatry and to clear himself from Self-contradiction Moreover either he does admit other Articles of Faith and Fundamental points of Religion besides those which are contained in the Apostles Creed or not if he does admit others then the Distinction would run thus If by not erring against any Article of Faith be understood that a Church which does not err against some certain Articles of Faith cannot teach Idolatry i. e. if in place of my Proposition which is an Vniversal Negative be put in another Proposition very different viz. a Particular Negative then the Proposition which he puts in may be false as certainly it may be for a Church may teach Idolatry without erring against every Artiticle of Faith as the Heathens who admitted a Deity and a Religion did not err against every Article of Faith though they taught Idolatry But this cannot hinder the truth of my Proposition which was an Vniversal Negative viz. not erring against any when as his Proposition would be a particular Negative viz. not erring against some As this universal is true a man that does not transgress any of Gods Commandments is a good man but this other particular may be false A man that does not transgress some certain Commandments of God viz. those which concern immediately the honour of God is a good man neither could the falsity of this latter Proposition obstruct the truth of the former But if Dr. St. admits no Articles at all of Faith nor Fundamental points which are not contained explicitely nor implicitely in the Apostles Creed then he must needs reduce to the Apostles Creed the Article quoted in my first Proposition viz. The honour which is due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature since he grants this to be an Article of Faith and a Fundamental point of Religion as has been seen and doubtless 't is a main Fundamental point too And this is enough for the truth of our third Proposition For if a Church does not err against any Article of Faith even of those which the Dr. grants to be such she does not err against the forementioned Article which even the Dr. places amongst Articles of Faith and if it does not err against this Article it does not teach Idolatry at least that kind of Idolatry which he is pleased to father upon us For to teach any sort of Idolatry at least that which the Dr. laies to our charge is to err against the aforesaid Article which not only in our opinion but also in the opinion of the Dr. and other Protestants is an Article of Faith as does manifestly appear by what has been handled in our Second Proposition My fourth Proposition was framed thus The Church of Rome does teach Veneration of Images Adoration of the Hoast and Invocation of Saints To this Dr. St. page 29. answers That it is agreed on by both sides without adding any more Now I see the Dr. takes heart and dares to grant a Proposition set down by me without stigmatizing it either before or after for Sophistical and Captious Hence I infer that the Veneration of Images Adoration of the Hoast and Invocation of the Saints are Doctrines of the Roman Church and by consequence they are not meer practices of Roman Catholicks For when a practice of the members of any Chuch is taught and approved by the Church her self then such a practice comes to be the Doctrine of that Church This I have said because sometimes Dr. St. does seem to look upon the forementioned points as meer practices of Roman-Catholicks and it is certain that a Church may be a True Church and yet the Members thereof practice some things contrary to the Doctrine and Tenets of the Church whose members they are For the Dr. will not deny that among Protestants there are some nay many who although they assent to the Tenets of the Protestant Church do contradict in their practice the Doctrine they profess to believe being Adulterers Thieves Perjurers and Drunkards living as if there were no God according to that of St. Paul Titus 1.16 quoted by Dr. St. pag. 25. speaking of some who profess that they know God but in works they deny him And yet sure the Dr. will not therefore affirm that the Protestant Church is not a true and sound Church However should she teach Adultery Thieving and Perjury to be lawful or that there is no God certainly the Dr. in that case would not hold her for a True much less for a Sound Church Our present debate therefore is concerning the Doctrines of the Roman Church and whether Dr. St. does not Contradict himself by asserting that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet that she does teach Idolatry or those things wherein it lies My fifth and last Proposition goes thus The Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion Dr. St. does confess pag. 29. That this is his Concession from whence all the force of our Argument is taken and we do not deny but that this Concession of the Dr. is of great concern in order to our present Design All the endeavours therefore of the Dr. are bent to shew in what sense this Concession is made by him and of what force it is in this present Debate I prove this to be Dr. St.'s Sentiment which some did question when my book first came forth as I insinuated above
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
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