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
'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
since he himself affirms in his Rational Account pag. 54 55. That such Tenets are neither Articles of Faith nor necessary to be believed either necessitate medij or praeeepti no Legacies of Christ or his Apostles but only inferiour Truths and meer pious opinions which no body is bound to believe Nay we cannot be secure that the Dr. does assent to them but perhaps in his heart he holds the contrary Doctrines For according to his Cavils about the intention of the Priest one can have no security of the intention or thoughts of other men And why should I think that Dr. St. does love so little his own life as to be burn'd for the defence of such Tenets which according to his own Principles he is not bound to assent unto and perhaps in his heart for ought I know he does not believe them to be true Certain it is that should he be burn'd for them he would not be burn'd for his Faith nor be a Martyr upon that account since even in his own opinion they are not Articles of Faith Moreover should Dr. St. be burn'd at Rome for contradicting or opposing the Religion there established he would be burn'd as a Malefactour even according to his own Churches Principles For it is the Doctrine of the English Church that all Soveraign Temporal Princes at least such as are Christians are Supream Heads of the Church in their respective Dominions and consequently that all are bound as long as they are in such Dominions not to contradict nor oppose the Religion there established by the Supream Prince Since therefore Protestants confess the Pope to be Supream Temporal Prince of Rome and its adjacent Territories and accordingly to be Supream Head of the Church in those places seeing they own him to be a true Christian Prince though they will needs have him to be Antichrist in manifestly follows that even according to Protestant Principles if Dr. St. should be punished at Rome for opposing the Religion there established and for drawing from it the Popes Subjects he would suffer as a Malefactour Besides how civil Rome has shewen her self to several English Protestants persons of Quality who have gone thither to view the Curiosities of the City they themselves many of them being yet alive can witness and from such instances the world may judge whether Rome has not been kinder to English Protestants than London to Italian Papists Yea if Dr. St. has so much zeal as to be burn'd for his Religion 't is not necessary for him to go so far as Rome They may do him that kindness here in England where several have been burn'd for Socinians since Protestancy came in In fine we may secure Dr. St. that should he persist at Rome to grant such palpable Contradictions as we have shewen he does he would never be burn'd there for his Religion yet I would not secure him that in such a case he should not be shaved and sent to the Pazzarelli as happened some years agoe to Three English Quakers who having gone to Rome to Convert the Pope as they said and Preaching in the publick Streets in a forreign Language it seems they had not yet the Gift of Tongues were look'd upon as Madmen and accordingly committed to Bedlam Yet soon after information being given in by some of our Nation what manner of people they were they were presently set at liberty and they offered to supply them with Moneyes which they refused Whether Dr. St. would imitate them in this I know not The Dr. in his second Discourse in the Dedicatory to the Earl of Shaftsbury saies That if he once loses his Senses or his Vnderstanding that is if he once falls mad he knows not whether it may be his Fortune to be carried to Rome But fear not Dr. you will certainly be left in London to go about the Streets ranting at Popery and Popish Idolatry For commonly Madmen harp upon those things which made them run mad or Singing the Catholick Ballad or some such other to Tom a Bedlams Tune and it will not be hard for the Dr. to say them without Book For as one affirmed as truly as ingeniously all such Ballads which have been lately published are nothing else but Dr. St. put in Rhime And the Dr. would do then quite as much good by singing such Ballads against Popery as he has done hitherto by Preaching the like things against it Dr. St.'s Works were heretofore look'd upon as Play-Books as I have already Insinuated But now it seems they have degenerated into Ballads He is resolved I see out of his exceeding great Charity and Compliance to oblige all sorts of Merry Wits Neither do I blame the Dr. for what he has Writ in defence of Christian Religion yet I must tell him that none court one more than such as are secretly contriving his Ruine What I blame in him is That with the Objections he makes against the Roman Catholick Religion he destroys Christian Religion which before he had vindicated and pulls down with one hand what he had set up with the other and I have evidenced already that it is not enough for a Christian to assent unto all the positive Tenets of Christianity but 't is also necessary not to teach any thing destructive to any of them But the Dr. retorts the Argument and will needs have us to destroy Christianity with our manner of proceeding pag. 9. and that we cannot maintain the cause we have espoused without plunging those who relie upon our word into the depth of Atheisme He conceives forsooth a great fear alas good man that some being press'd by our Arguments will rather become no Christians or turn flat Atheists than Roman Catholicks Such is the hatred and prejudice they have against the Roman Church The inanity of this Objection has been laid open above it is grounded upon this pitiful Principle That we ought not to press men out of good and solid Maxims which they themselves assent unto to prove what we pretend least perhaps rather than they will grant what we endeavour to prove they will denie those common Principles wherein they agreed with us and by consequence make the gap and difference between us wider If Christian Religion be so beautiful solid and incorrupt as certainly it is and the Roman Religion so Superstitious Idolatrous Ridiculous as he fancies it to be sure they are as different one from the other as black from white And what fear can there be that men ever take white for black or black for white unless he supposes those with whom he deals to have quite lost their senses and understandings yea to compare them together if they be so different is the best way to make the Beauty of the one and the Ill favouredness of the other appear the greater according to that Maxime Opposita juxta se posita magis elucescunt So that Dr. St. and his Associates do evidence to the world either that they have a very
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
rather very often supposes it That the Roman Church doth embrace the Ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church wherefore even according to Dr. St.'s constitution of a true Church the Church of Rome is necessarily such Pag. 26. he saies We have no Controversie with them Catholicks about the Essential Doctrines of Religion which is that we mean by their being a True Church Finally pag. 33. and in other places the Dr. distinguishes between the Essence and Soundness of a Church and he several times grants that our Church holds all that is requisite to the Essence of a True Church But he denies that she holds all that is necessary to the Soundness of a Church Neither did I ever alledge Dr. St. to the contrary as above I insinuated Hence is evidently concluded that it is the unquestionable Sentiment of Dr. St. that the Roman Church even as it is now in the world is a True Church retaining all the Essential and Fundamental Points of Christian Faith All which I have sayed not because Dr. St. did ever deny it but because some of his Friends could scarce believe that he who had endeavoured with all his strength to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry should notwithstanding hold her to be a True Church See more concerning this in his Answer to my Book pag. 40 41 42. Wherefore since it cannot be questioned but that Dr. St. has heretofore and does still allow these two Propositions The Roman Church is a True Church The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church we come now to examin whether the latter Proposition contradicts the former which Dr. St. denies but we do prove in the following Discourse If the Roman Church holds any Fundamental or Essential Errour in matters of Faith it is no True Church For it is certain that some Errours are sufficient to unchurch a Community and destructive to the very Being of a True Church otherwise a Congregation that holds there is no God might yet be a True Church and if any Errours be such sure such are all Fundamental and Essential Errours For all Errours in matters of Faith even according to Dr. St. and other Protestant Divines are divided into Fundamental or Essential and into Non-fundamental or Non-essential These latter they affirm to be consistent with the Essence and Being of a True Church but not with the Soundness thereof But the former are destructive not only to the Soundness but also to very Essence of a True Church So that whoever saies that such a Church is a True Church but yot that she holds some Fundamental-Errours he commits a manifest Contradiction as if he should say such a Church is and is not True Upon this account those Protestants who grant the Roman Church to be a True Church but yet depraved with several Errours to save themselves from Self-contradiction commonly affirm that the Errours of the Roman Church are not Fundamental nor Essential but only inferiour Errours Non-fundamental and Non-essential Again if the Roman Church holds any Errour necessarily destructive to any Fundamental or Essential Point of Faith she must needs hold a Fundamental and Essential Errour in matters of Faith This is also evident neither can Dr. St. deny it For an Errour is denominated Fundamental or Non-fundamental Essential or Non-essential from the nature and quality of the Truth wherewith it is inconsistent all Errour being inconsistent with some Truth So that if the Truth or any of the Truths wherewith such an Errour is inconsistent be Fundamental or Essential the Errour must needs be Fundamental or Essential But if none of them be Fundamental neither can the Error be Fundamental Now the inconsistency of a Proposition with its contradictory or of an Errour with the Truth opposite therunto does not consist in that an Errour does absolutely destroy the Truth in it self wherewith it is said to be inconsistent For it is certain this Erroneous Judgment There is no God does not destroy the Truth of its Contradictory There is a God nor in that he who gives an assent to the one part cannot possibly at the same time give his assent to the contrary part otherwise it would not be possible for any one to Contradict himself which is manifestly false as Dr. St. himself does too too well know The forementioned inconsistency therefore consists in the repugnancy in order to the Truth of both Propositions together and at the same time or in that the Truth of the one necessarily destroyes the Truth of the other So that if the Errour which is inconsistent with a Fundamental Truth should cease to be an Errour the contrary Truth would cease to be a Truth Moreover some Errours are not destructive to any Fundamental Point immediately or formally or in express terms as this Error There is no God is destructive to this Fundamental point There is a God but only mediately and by Consequences because they destroy immediately something wherewith some Fundamental point is necessarily connexed which being once destroyed such a Fundamental point must necessarily fall as supposing that it is a Fundamental point of Christian Faith that Christ is God Consubstantial to his Father this Errour Christ is a meer Creature is beyond debate Fundamental although it does not destroy immediately the former Truth but only mediately and by Consequence because it immediately destroyes its Contradictory viz. Christ is not a meer Creature which being destroyed the former Fundamental Truth does necessarily fall For whatsoever is God either is no Creature or at least no meer Creature Wherefore 't is a Fundamental Errour whatsoever necessarily destroyes a Fundamental Truth whether mediately or immediately For the malice and malignity of a Fundamental Errour consists in its Destructiveness to a Fundamental point and what destroyes it mediately does truly destroy it but destroies with it some other thing One may beat down a Steeple either by shooting immediately at the Steeple or at the Tower that upholds the Steeple and in both Cases the Steeple is equally beaten down but with this difference that in the second case the Tower also is beaten down with the Steeple Yea Dr. St. himself pag. 24. confesses the second way of Worship mentioned there by him to be destructive mediately only and by Consequence to the Existency of a true God and yet it is inconsistent doubtless with the Being of a true Church since by such a Worship the Vnity of the Godhead is denyed and many False Gods are joyned with him in the same Worship and to teach a multiplicity of Gods is beyond debate to teach an Errour by reason of its opposition to the Vnity of the Godhead destructive to the Being of a Church Besides I said that an Errour which is necessarily destructive to any Fundamental point whatsoever it be must needs be Fundamental and inconsistent with the Essence of a True Church For an Errour as other Negations is malignantis naturae of a malignant nature such as destroying any Essential part or
intrinsical condition must needs destroy the whole So that a Church to be True must have all her Essentials but to be absolutely False 't is enough that any one of them be wanting according to those common Axioms of Philosophers Bonum ex integra causa malum autem ex quolibet defectu Death destroies the Essence of a man and yet it neither destroies the Soul nor the Body immediately but only the Union between them both which is the least considerable thing in a mans Essence Finally because we discourse now what Errours are Essential in matters of Faith and inconsistent with the Being of a True Church we must reflect that according to Divines there are two sorts of Errours the one Privative the other Positive A Church does err privatively against the Essence of a True Church by not holding all the positive Essential points requisite thereunto although she should not positively hold any thing contrary to such points A Congregation of Men who should not believe there is a God although they should not positively believe that there is no God would beyond all question be no true Church But a Church errs positively against the Essence of a true Church when she positively holds and asserts something inconsistent with an Essential point whatever else she affirms Doubtless a Church or Congregation which teaches that there is no God cannot be a true Church whatever else she teaches Both these sorts of Errours are destructive to the Essence of a Church and the latter is rather worse than the former For it is worse to believe that there is no God than not to believe that there is a God Hence I infer that to the constitution of a true Church 't is not enough to assert the positive Articles requisite to the Being of a Church but 't is also necessary not to hold any Errour incoâ—sistenâ— with any of such Articles as 〈…〉 several persons who deny either mediately or immediately those very points which they confess These things being premised I go on to shew that if the Roman Church does hold any kind of Idolatry what kind soever it be to be lawful as Dr. St. expressly affirms she does she must needs hold an Errour destructive a to Fundamental and Essential point of Faith and by consequence a Fundamental Errour inconsistent with the Essence of a true Church And since 't is certain that no kind of Idolatry is lawful if the Roman Church holds any kind of Idolatry as lawful she must needs hold an Errour inconsistent with some Truth as all Errour is Now it is not possible that the Roman Church should hold any sort of Idolatry whatsoever as lawful unless she holds that some Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature For the notion of Idolatry in general does necessarily contain this even as Dr. St. himself confesses in this Book pag. 24. where he saies thus I agree in general that the true notion of Idolatry is giving the Honour due only to God to a meer Creature but he adds presently these words I desire no greater advantage against the Church of Rome in order to prove her Idolatrous than from such a Concession which is as much as if I should say I desire no greater advantage against Dr. St. in order to prove him a Knave than that he should grant as doubtless he does that the Notion of a Knave in general is he who makes it his business to cheat others For I am certain that it is far easier to shew that this notion of a Knave does agree to Dr. St. than that notion of Idolatry to the Roman Church But for my present purpose it is enough that Dr St. grants that to be the true notion of Idolatry in general For so 't is evident that let the kinds of Idolatry be never so many they must needs participate the forementioned notion because all the Species or different kinds must needs participate the general notion under which they are contained as for instance because it is the general notion of an Animal to be vivens sensibile a living Substance endowed with a sensitive power let the Species or differences be never so many 't is impossible that there should be any sort of Animal which is not vivens sensibile So that whatsoever is not vivens sensible is not Animal and whatsoever Worship is such that thereby the Honour due only to God is not given to a meer Creature such a worship cannot be any sort of Idolatry Hence I infer that 't is impossible the Roman Church should teach or hold any kind of Idolatry whatsoever it be gross or not gross but she must hold supposing the Notion of Idolatry in general to be such as has been insinuated expressly or implicitly in the same manner as she holds Idolatry That some Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature which Errour for evidently 't is an Errour is inconsistent with the contrary Truth viz. No Honour due to God may be given to a meer Creature And what Truth is this Fundamental and Essential or Non-fundamental and Non-essential without debate it is a Fundamental and Essential point of Religion For what point is such if this be not Nay Dr. St. himself does absolutely grant it pag. 26. in the Answer to my first Proposition as hereafter will appear and p. 21. he accounts among the Essentials of a true Church and the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith this very proposition viz. That God and his Son Jesus Christ are the proper object of Divine Worship or which is the same no Divine Worship or no Honour due only to God is to be given to any one but God Since therefore all Idolatry is inconsistent with the forementioned Fundamental and Essential point 't is manifest the Church of Rome cannot hold any kind of Idolatry whatsoever without holding a Fundamental Errour destructive to the very Essence and Being of a True Church Wherefore Dr. St. by granting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with Idolatry does commit a palpable Contradiction and in one breath blows cold and hot asserting that she is a True Church and yet that she holds something inconsistent with the very Being and Essence of a True Church To draw this Argument into a narrower circle I form this Dilemma Either by the Idolatry Dr. St. Fathers upon our Church Some Honour due only to God is given to a meer Creature or not If not then it is no Idolatry as not participaring the general Notion of Idolatry If so then it is destrrctive to an Essential point of Religion and consequently to the Essence of a True Church So that Dr. St. by distinguishing two sorts of Idolatry one destructive to the Being of a Church another not-destructive to the Being of a Church does as much as tell us There are two sorts of Idolatry one that is Idolatry another that is not Idolatry of the former
not to err against any Fundamental point of Religion and yet affirming that she teaches Idolatry and such gross Idolatry For to teach Idolatry especially such a gross Idolatry as he is pleased to Father upon us is according to his own express assertion to teach or require that the Honour or Worship due only to the Creator be given to to a Creature and to teach this is to err against the contrary Truth viz. The Honour which is due only to the Creator is not to be given to a Creature as is evident and consequently it is to err against a Fundamental point of Religion For such does Dr. St. acknowledge to be the aforesaid Truth Whence I conclude that to say our Church does not err against any Fundamental point and yet that she does teach such gross Idolatry as he is pleased to fasten upon her is to say That she does not err against any and yet that she does err against some which is a palpable Contradiction Were the Idolatry he Fathers upon us destructive only to something requisite meerly to the Soundness of a Church and to some Non-fundamental point his distinction would have been to some purpose But since the Idolatry he laies to our Charge is destructive according to our own Concession to something requisite to the very Being of a Church viz. to a Fundamental and Essential point the forementioned Distinction of the Truth and Soundness of a Church is altogether frivolous Finally Dr. St. pag. 32. speaking in particular concerning our fifth Proposition saies That if this Assertion The Church of Rome does not err against any point necessary to Salvation be only meant of those Essential points of Faith which he supposes antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church he denies it not and he makes the antient Creeds of the Catholick Church before he had made mention only of the Apostles Creed to be the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to Salvation But he adds That he does not see of what use the forementioned Concession of his can be to us in the present debate unless we can shew which he supposes we are never able to doe that whatever Church does embrace the antient Creeds and own all the Articles of Faith which are contained in them cannot be guilty of Idolalatry But this answer of the Dr. is lyable to the same exceptions we produced against him in the Explanation of our Third Proposition For 't is a very different thing to say A Church that embraces and owns all Essential points of Faith which is the Dr. 's Proposition and a Church that does not err against any Essential point of Faith which is our Proposition tacitely at least granted by him For a Church may contradict her self and err against those very points which she embraces and owns how can the Roman Church be a True Church as the Dr. often confesses she is unless she be free from all Fundamental Errours and how can she be free from all Fundamental Errours if she errs against any Fundamental point and finally how does she not err against a Fundamental point if she teaches Idolatry yea the grossest Idolatry of the world Whence I conclude that not only this main Proposition is granted by him in the sense I pretend viz. That the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion even of those which he acknowledges to be such but also that this his Concession is effectual to evince our present design viz. to clear the Roman Church from the Idolatry cast upon her and to prove the Dr. guilty of Self-contradiction by granting that the Roman Church does not err against any Fundamental point of Faith and yet charging her with Idolatry and with such gross Idolatry To say the truth I would never desire an Adversarie to grant me more in order to confute him than Dr. St. has and does grant in the present debate For these Five Propositions set down by me are either absolutely granted by the Dr. or at least not denyed by him in the sense I pretended as is apparent by what has been discuss'd and we take this Non-denial of the Dr. for a grant or consent according to that Maxime Qui tacet consentire videtur And certainly had he thought them false he would have denyed them whenas he does not so much as deny one of them in the sense intended but some other Propositions very different Wherefore these Propositions being granted in the conformity aforesaid the method I took was to deduce from them the contradictory of the Calumny cast upon our Church by Dr. St. For to lay down Propositions or Principles and to deduce nothing from them is as if one should lay Foundations without building the Superstructures as to make Deductions without first laying Princiciples as some do is to build without Foundation And because some cannot others will not make by themselves the deductions especially when they are contrary to what formerly they have imbibed and are resolved to maintain I thought it best to make them to their hand However because the main nay the sole exception that some persons had against my Book was because I used a Scholastick Method framing my deductions in a ridged Syllogistical form it seems to me expedient for the satisfaction of such persons to produce here the reasons that moved me thereunto which are these First Because this method I took is a close clear short and convincing way and since I desired in a matter of so great concern and not having too much time to be quick close clear and short with my Adversary in order to convince him of Self-contradiction I made choice of this Method Secondly all Discourses whatsoever loose or not loose do necessarily imply some Syllogisme wherein the truth one endeavours to prove is inferred or pretended to be inferred from some Principles And although all kinds of Discourses are obnoxious to Fallacies and Sophistry yet this difference there is between Loose or Rhetorical Discourses and Logical or not Loose that in Rhetorical Discourses as being commonly interlaced with several digressions and gay Metaphors which amuze the Reader the fallacy is easily disguised But in ridged Syllogistical Discourses devested from gaudy Expressions quaint Metaphors and unnecessary digressions the Fallacy if there be any is with far less difficulty detected And this is the reason that when we will manifest the Sophistry of a loose discourse we do commonly reduce it to a Syllogistical form the better to discover it Now because I desired to deal fairly and sincerely with Dr. St. I made use of this method to the end that were there any fallacie in my Syllogisms it might more easily appear unto him And although in almost every page he impeaches me of Sophistry Captiousness yet he do's not legally shew any one of my Syllogisms to be lyable to any of the Fallacies the Logicians make mention of and one would think that
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
have of St. Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis St. Ignatius and St. Teresa but it is very easie by Mimical Expressions and profane Similitudes to render them ridiculous and contemptible among those who are sure to laugh on the other side But such proceedings can signifie nothing to Wise men but only to such as have not courage to love despised Vertue nor to defend a Cause that is laughed down Come Come Dr. Stillingfleet it is too notorious to all intelligent persons what you pretend with this scurrilous drolling way of attacking the Roman Church Your aim is to bring all Religion and Vertue into Contempt and Derision however you endeavour to disguized so mischievous a design with all Artifices possible I wish from my heart I were able to impute your Misdemeanours and Miscarriages in your Controversial Books to Ignorance or Inadvertency But on the one side your Mistakes are so gross your Contradictions so palpable and your Aspersions so notoriously scurrilous that he must needs be a Fool who cannot see them and on the other side the works you have published do proclaim you no Fool that I am forced to impute your unhandsome proceedings to the Malice of your Will not the Ignorance of your Understanding The Dr. pag. 70. endeavouring to stave off the Self-contradiction charged upon him in imputing to the Roman Church Divisions in matters of Faith saies thus But the fourth and fifth Proposition viz. of my Book in this point are the most healing Principles that have yet been thought on Fie for shame Why should we and they of the Church of Rome quarrel thus long We are very well agreed in all matters of Faith as I shall demonstratively prove it from the Argument of J. W. drawn from his two last Propositions All who assent unto the antient Creeds are undivided in matters of Faith by Prop. 4. But both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds Ergo they are undivided in matters of Faith And hath not J. W. now done his business and very substantially proved the thing he intended But I hope we may enjoy the benefit of it as well as those of the Church of Rome and that they will not henceforward charge us with dividing from their Church in any matters of Faith since we are all agreed in owning the antient Creeds and seeing we are not divided from the Church but by differing in matters of Faith according to his Proposition it follows that we are still Members of the True Church and therefore neither guilty of Heresie nor Scisme By what Dr. St. sets down here any prudent man may clearly see how grossly and wilfully he mistakes himself My fourth Proposition set down by me pag. 12. whereof the Dr. makes mention in the place now quoted and to which I refer my self in the Syllogism I frame pag. 13. runs thus All those who assent to the antient Creeds are according to Dr. St. 's opinion mark those words undivided in matters and Articles of Faith and that was the Dr. 's perswasion I proved out of his Rational Account pag. 56 58. and thence I conclude pag. 13. that according to Dr. St. mark those words All those who agree to the antient Creeds are of the same Communion and undivided in matters of Faith Now this wise Dr. most grossly supposes that it is the same for me to say All those who agree to the antient Creeds are according to Dr. St. undivided in matters of Faith where I only relate Dr. St. 's opinion argue thence against him ad hominem or to say absolutely All those who agree to the antient Creeds are undivided in matters of Faith which words pronounced so without any modification import as if I were of that perswasion whereas I am very far from it neither here nor in any other place do I defend any such Doctrine Wherefore the Major Proposition in the Syllogism set down by the Dr. is in his opinion True and consequently may be subservient to prove against him but in my opinion it is false and of no force to demonstrate any thing against me and I confess that it is a very compendious way to compose the differences between me and the Dr. if one may suppose as he here does That what he saies I say and that it is the very same for me to affirm such a thing is so according to Dr. St's opinion or it is true that Dr. St. thinks so and such a thing is so or it is true what Dr. St. thinks which Propositions doubtless are very different For to the truth of the former Proposition 't is enough that Dr. St. be of that opinion whether his opinion be true or false but to the truth of the latter 't is requisite that his opinion be true and that what he saies be so as he saies it is Certainly Christians may truly affirm without forfeiting their Faith that according to the opinion of the Jews Christ is not the Messias will the Dr. therefore infer hence that Christians may truly affirm that Christ is not the Messias or that Christians and Jews are agreed in that main point Fie for shame to use your own expression you a Doctor of Divinity and cannot distinguish between Propositions so notoriously different Where is the ingenuity you so much boast of Sure you imagined that the Reader would be so silly as to take upon your bare word what you write or quote without ever examining or comparing it By what I have said in reference to the Major Proposition of his Syllogisme whereby he pretends to prove demonstratively against us That both Catholicks and Protestants are agreed in matters of Faith any one many judge what Demonstrations we are to expect from Dr. St. As concerning the Minor Proposition of the Drs. Syllogisme he supposes it to be the same with my Fifth wherein he is also wilfully mistaken For my Fifth Proposition is this All Roman Catholicks assent unto the antient Creeds whereas his Minor was this Both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds where he adds That Protestants assent unto the Antient Creeds which I never affirmed and the Dr. cannot be ignorant that Roman-Catholicks hold Protestants do not believe in that Article even of the Apostles Creed Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam which in its true and legitimate sense signifies the Roman Catholick Church and those only are to be thought to believe Scripture and the Antient Creeds who believe them in the true and legitimate sense which in our Doctrine is only that sense which is agreable or not repugnant to the exposition of the Roman Catholick Church So that Protestants according to the perswasion of Catholicks do not believe the Antient Creeds because they do not believe them rightly understood But according to Dr. St. 's opinion Roman Catholicks do believe the Scripture and the Antient Creeds rightly understood For his Rule is that whoever understands Scripture or the Antient Creeds as by his natural
faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood he thinks they are to be understood such an one rightly understands them Now Roman Catholicks understand them as the Natural Faculty in them of discerning Truth and Falshood teaches them and Dr. St. ought to believe that we do so as he will have us to believe the like of him and if we do submit to the judgment of the Roman Catholick Church concerning the true interpretation of Scripture and of the Antient Creeds the Natural Reason that is in us teaches us so to do And sure Dr. St. will not so far abase the Authority of the True Church and of her Doctors as to assert that whoever is induced by their Authority to believe such to be the true sense of such particular places of Scripture as they expound them in must needs misinterpret them Hence I infer that neither the Minor Proposition in the Drs. Syllogisme is granted by us and is not the Dr. like to demonstrate many things if such be his Demonstrations that both the Major and Minor are denied by his Adversaries is not this to do his business very substantially Yet the formentioned Syllogisme is a demonstration against the Dr. that Roman Catholicks and Protestants are undivided in matters of Faith according to his opinion and consequently must be granted by him to be both of the same Church and I concluded thence above that he must either deny the Protestant Church to be True or grant the Roman Church to be so Moreover the Syllogisme I form pag. 13. out of my Fourth and Fifth Proposition is a demonstration against Dr. St. That all Roman Catholicks as long as they remain so are undivided in matters of Faith which is all I there pretended For I never intended to prove that they were so undivided with such as are out of their Communion CHAP. XI Some Difficulties raised by the Dr. against my Judgment concerning his manner of proceeding Rejected BEfore I make an end I cannot but take notice of some Difficulties Dr. St. sets down in his particular Preface relating to the Judgment I frame of his manner of Proceeding in these words couched by me pag. 11. I verily believe that Dr. St. did his Interest byass him that way could with Lucian Porphyrius and those many Libertines of our Country the spawn of such Books as these he could I say flurt with as much picquantness and railery at Christian Religion as he does as the Roman charging Christians with Superstitions Corruptions and Dissensions What does he not say against these words He calls them a base Suggestion wherein there is no colour of Truth pag. 8. A slie Insinuation a Calumny too gross to need any farther Answer pag. 9. and that it had been better to have called him at Atheist in plain terms p. 8. I perceive the man is angry 'T is necessary to treat him mildly that he may come to himself But withal I reflect that many do endeavour to supply with Anger the want of Reason and to Hector one with Bravadoes into their opinion when they cannot draw him with Arguments Let us examin in particular what he objects against the fore-mentioned words He saies That I very honestly distinguish the Christian Religion and the Roman from each other And sure I should not deal honestly did I not distinguish the Roman Religion from the Christian as a Species from the Genus and as a part from the whole For we do not deny but that there are many vulgarly called Christians because they are truly Christened and profess to believe in Christ and acknowledge the Apostles Creed although interpreted in their way Such were Donatists Pelagians Arians and others held by us and Protestants too for Hereticks who are never owned to be Roman Catholicks I confess I have not learn'd as yet so great kindness for our Church as to make it the same Individual Church those who do so with their own Church let them answer for themselves with an Heretical nay with an Idolatrous Church Wherefore 't is manifest that the Christian Religion taken in the aforesaid sense does comprehend more than the Roman So that what I intended in the forementioned place was that the way Dr. St. takes to impugne the particular Tenets of the Roman Church does if it be of any force annul the common Principles of Christianity wherein all those who own themselves to be Christians do agree And that this was my meaning any one who was not resolved to quibble might easily have seen In the next place he asks me pag. 8. What is this verily believe of mine grounded upon Doubtless the rage my words put him into did not let him see what followed For I layed down the Reasons of what before I asserted in these words For if it be a rational way of proceeding to rally together whatever has been objected by the Enemies of a Community without making mention of the Answers given by them or the sentence pronounced in their favour and to Father upon the whole Body the misdemeanours of some members although disowned by the Major part which are the Artifices used by Dr. St. in his works against Catholicks what Community is there so holy which may not easily be traduced All this the Dr. very handsomly omits without so much as answering a word thereunto For he is too wise to take notice of any thing that may prejudice his design and only is pleased to divert the Reader with impertinent Questions as whether This verily believe of mine be grounded upon the Authority of our Church or rather upon some Vision or Revelation made by some of our Saints Whereas in the forementioned words the Motives of that my belief are clearly set down The Dr. cannot deny but that among Christians even of the Primitive Church there were committed Incest Simony Adultery and several other horrid Crimes worse than those which the very Heathens did commit as may be gathered out of the Gospel the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles and that there were Heresies among them as that of the Nicolaites Wherefore if the misdemeanours of some Members may be fathered upon the whole Community although disowned by the Major part this absurdity would follow that the Christan Religion even when it was in its Primitive purity might be called an Incestuous Simonical Adulterous Heretical and a worse Religion than Paganisme Again 't is certain that many Enormous things were objected by the Jews against our Saviour as he was a Blasphemer a Seducer a Drunkard and that he Preached Sedition and that he was possess'd by the Devil and that the Religion he founded was a ridiculous scandalous and Superstitious Religion Now should one of a picquant and malicious wit represent these and several other blemishes objected against Christ his Religion without taking notice of the Answers given them nor of the pregnant Arguments produced in favour and vindication of Christ and his Religion what a low opinion what an aversion from Christian Religion