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
'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
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
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
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
be consistent with Loyalty and that if they could prove to him all sorts of High Treason to be inconsistent with Loyalty the Consequence of it would be that his Charity must be so much the less but the danger would be the same Behold here the Vindication of the forementioned Witness drawn up in the same terms and upon the same grounds whereon Dr. St. in his Controversie builds his own Vindication And yet what prudent man is there that would not look upon the aforesaid Vindication of a Witness convicted of such a manifest Self-contradiction as frivolous and insignificant Yea we have shewed already upon another account that on supposition he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all his Arguments grounded either upon Authority or meer Reason if he has any such wherewith he pretends to make good the Charges cast upon us are false or impertinent The same is to be affirmed of whatever he shall hereafter object against our Church in matters of Faith as long as he holds it to be a True Church For nothing can be objected against our Church in that kind which does not contradict the forementioned Principle Now 't is very pretty to consider how the Dr. sports with the forementioned instance of a Witness whereof I made use grounding all his quibbles upon so gross an ignorance as is to confound Parities with identities and the being one thing like to another with being the same which Topick is very frequent in the Dr.'s Books For because a Witness must make an Affidavit before the Masters of the Chancery he presently fancies that a Writer of Controversies supposing this parity to be good must make an Affidavit and no other Obligation will suffice him before Masters of the Court of Controversies and because whatever is said by a Witness at the Bar is taken upon his Oath he imagins in the same supposition that whatever a Writer of Controversie saies must be taken also upon his Oath and in no other manner and because a Witness who stands Convicted to have forsworn himself according to the Laws of this Kingdom is to be set in the Pillory p. 27. with his Accusation on his Forehead he imagines himself as being proved guilty of Self-contradiction to be set in the Pillory with this Accusation on his forehead Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet not being able to conceive that any other punishment can be inflicted upon one who contradicts himself in matters of moment Are not these Fancies of Dr. St. wonderfully witty what fine Stuff will the Dr. make with Scripture wherein Christ is compared to a Worm to a Door to a Lamb to Lyon and to several other things infinitely below his Greatness if he be permitted to use this manner of quibbling and to make identities of parities or Parables Had not the Dr. made it his Study not to understand us he might clearly have seen that what we intended by the aforesaid instance was that whoever stands convicted to have Contradicted himself most notoriously in matters of so great concern as those of Religion are deserves no credit should be given him in such matters till he has recanted his Errour which the Dr. himself does grant I am not acquainted with the Stile of the English Church nor of our Universities yet I conceive that there would be no absurdity nor any thing done contrary to the practice of other Countries and Universities that Doctors of Divinity and publick Preachers should take their Oath to Teach and Preach the Truth in matters of Religion And in this Case should they palpably contradict themselves they would be guilty of Perjury And though they do not take their Oaths yet a natural Obligation lies upon every one not to commit gross Contradictions in matters of so high concern Some there are who though they confess that the way we have taken is sufficient to confound our Adversaries yet because they think we argue ad hominem they do not look upon this way as effectual to clear the Roman Church from the Aspersions cast upon her For Arguments ad hominem are good to confound an Adversarie but not to evince the Truth To this I Answer that an Argument ad hominem properly speaking is when one proceeds upon a Principle which he judges to be false yet because it is granted by his Adversary he endeavours to confute him thereby As for example when a Catholick argues against a Protestant out of such Versions of the Protestant Bible which are false and contrary to the Chatholick Bible to confute the particular Tenets of Protestancy whence I conclude that the way I made use of against Dr. St. was not properly ad hominem For I proceeded upon a Principle which I my self with all other Roman-Catholicks and several others of different professions hold to be true viz. The Roman Church is a true Church and which is granted by Dr. St. Neither is it of any concern that some deny the Roman Church to be a true Church For if all Arguments are ad hominem which are grounded upon some premise that is denied by some almost all Arguments are ad hominem For what is there that some do not deny Should I have defeated all Dr. St.'s Objections out of plain Scripture admitted both by him and us no body could rationally have objected that I did argue only ad hominem or slight my proofs upon that account and yet how many are there that deny the very Scripture which we and Dr. St. agree upon To close up therefore the first part of my Reply By what hitherto has been laid down it evidently appears that on supposition Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insict upon not only all the Charges of Idolatry Fanatiscisme danger of Salvation in our Communion and Divisions in matters of Faith which he pretends to fasten upon our Church fall to nothing but also all the proofs whether drawen from Authority or Reason wherewith he endeavours to make good such Charges are invalidated and annull'd which is all I did pretend in my Answer to the Dr. and whether this be not a sufficient Answer to his Book I leave to the judgment of any judicious man whatsoever Yea the Dr. himself being Conscious as it seems how ill a cause he had should he grant himself guilty of Self-contradiction in matters of so great Concern passing to the second part of his pretended Answer saies thus pag. 17. I had best stand upon my defence and utterly deny that I have contradicted my self in any thing in which J Ws. has charged me And to pass also unto the second part of my Reply let 's now consider how he does vindicate himself from the Contradictions charged upon him CHAP. IV. The Evasions of the Dr. to clear himself from Self-contradiction in Charging the Roman Church with Idolatry Examined COncerning the clearing himself from Contradiction in imputing to the Roman Church Idolatry and yet granting her to be a True Church he saies pag.
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
mark by being gone as by being short And although the Dr. has been advised of the Nullity of this manner of Arguing according to that Maxime an Argument that proves too much proves nothing yet hitherto he has not thought it for his purpose to take notice of it In the same page 22. the Dr. affirms that although they do allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church they are far from understanding by that a Sound or a good Church but mean no more by it than as a man is a true man though he hath the Plague upon him Neither did I ever say Dr. St. ag Dr. St. pag. 3. that Dr. St. expressly affirmed that our Church is a Sound Church but only that he granted it to be a True Church which neither now does he deny or question For among other things I alledged out of the Dr. in order to this purpose I affirmed that he held our Church to be a true way to Heaven but not a safe way which signifies here the same as a true Church but not a sound Church Now Dr. St. does plainly confess that it is a Contradiction to say That the Roman Church is a Sound Church and yet an Idolatrous Church which viz. had he granted our Church to be Sound would be as he saies p. 23. the most proper sense to found a Contradiction upon in this matter of Idolatry For he freely grants that all sorts of Idolatry are inconsistent with the Soundness of a Church but not with the Truth thereof Wherefore if I can evince That all sorts of Idolatry are at least that sort of Idolatry which he fastens upon Roman-Catholicks is destructive not only to the Soundness but also to the Truth of a Church and that an Idolatrous Church is not as a man sick of the Plague who may retain the Essentials of a man if I say I can evince this it will be a contradiction not only to say That the Roman Church is a Sound Church and yet an Idolatrous but also to affirm That the Roman Church is a True Church and yet Idolatrous at least with such a kind of Idolatry as Dr. St. laies upon her for which see CHAP. V. The Doctor palpably Contradicts himself in affirming the Roman Church to be Idolatrous and yet granting her to be a True Church WHen my Book first appeared in publick several Zealous Protestants who had been pleased to peruse it were so firmly perswaded that there is a palpable Contradiction between these two Propositions The Roman Church is a True Church The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church and being moreover sensible what an affront it is for any one especially for Lerned men to grant and persist to grant palpable Contradictions they would never believe that Dr. St. whom they applauded so much for his Learning had ever granted the two forementioned Propositions Besides they being not able to deny but that he asserted The Roman Church to be an Idolatrous Church seeing he had written a whole Traetise of that Subject they concluded that he had never granted The Roman Church to be a True Church although I quoted out of him several plain places to that intent But now Dr. St. has done me justice and has cleared all doubts if any might be in this matter ingenuously confessing that he has heretofore and does still affirm The Roman Church to be a true Church And why should he plainly confess that he had affirmed any such thing so disadvantagious unto him were it not so manifest he had done so that it could not be questioned especially when he is forced to winde himself all the waies he can to disentangle the contradiction objected against him whereas had he never granted the Roman Church to be a true Church all appearance of Self contradiction in this point would have vanished Nay he confirms clearly he same Doctrine in several places of this his Examination of my Book For pag. 21. he saies thus We acknowledg that they Roman Catholicks still retain the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith That there is no dispute between them and us about the True God and his Son Jesus Christ as to his Death Resurrection and Glory and being the proper Object to Divine Worship We yeild that they have true Baptism among them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and we looking upon these as the Essentials of a true Church do upon that account own that Church to be so Where without doubt he judges the points here mentioned to be all the Fundamental and Essential points of a true Church otherwise he would not own our Church to be a true Church precisely because she holds the forementioned points For a Church that fails but in one Essential point of a true Church although it be the least of all is no true Church And here by the way I cannot but Advertise that Dr. St. without perhaps reflecting on it has set down a particular Catalogue of all the Fundamental points of the True Religion which protestants commonly are loth to do Page 23. he saies Those which we account the Essentials of a Church we deny not to it that is to the Church of Rome and a Church that retains all the Essentials of a true Church must needs be so In the same place he compares our Church over-run as he saies with such Corruptions in Worship to a man that has the Plague upon him who yet still remains a true man Pag. 22. when we alow saies he the Church of Rome to be a True Church we are far from understanding by that a sound or good Church which words expressly signifie that he and his Partizans allow our Church to be a True Church which is all we now pretend But more at large he confirms this Doctrine pag. 29. § 4. where he has in the Margin these words In what sense the Church of Rome is owned by him and other Protestants as a true Church which manifestly imports that they own her as such Pag. 30. he speaks thus Whatever Church owns those things which are Antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church cannot so long cease to be a true Church and in the same page immediately before he insinuates that those things only are necessary Antecedently to the Being of a Church which are required to be believed in order to Salvation and pag. 31. he saies Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian Societies but such things which by all those Societies i. e. Christian Societies and consequently by the Roman Church who is one of them are abknowledged antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church pag. 32. he makes and confessed he made before the Ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church the best measure of those things which are believed to be necessary to Salvation and consequently were sufficient to constitute the Essence and Being of a True Church Now 't is evident neither doth Dr. St. ever question it but
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
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
the Church of Rome does own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Antient Creeds yet she debauches those very Principles which she professes to own pag. 34. This objection is also annulled by what we have laid down above First Dr. St. does not only grant that the Roman Church does embrace all the Essentials points of Christian Faith and consequently amongst the rest this point viz. The Honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature which he confesses to be one of them But also he allows that she does not err against any Fundamental point of Faith this being my Fifth Proposition which he assents unto and calls in his Concession Now to say That the Roman Church does not err against any Fundamental point as he saies she does not and yet that she teaches Idolatry which is to err against a Fundamental point even according to his Principles is a palpable contradiction Secondly When Dr. St. grants our Church to be a True Church as he does without doubt he takes a True Church as contradistinct from a False Church or from a Church which is not True otherwise he would interpret in a quite contrary sense this his Concession The Roman Church is a True Church i.e. The Roman Church is no true Church which interpretation cannot but seem to any prudent man very ridiculous Now a Church may fail to be a True Church either because she does not positively embrace some Essential point or because she denies some Essential point and errs against it and to the Essence of a True Church it is requisite not only to embrace positively all Fundamental points but also not to err against any one of them as I have demonstrated above Neither do I think that Dr. St. will deny it otherwise he would doubtless have denyed our Fifth Proposition Whoever therefore affirms that our Church is a True Church and yet that it errs against a Fundamental point as necessarily it must if it maintains Idolatry does as much as affirm it is True and not True Thirdly let 's suppose since 't is possible for a Church to contradict her self that a Church embracing all the ancient Creeds with the Articles contained in them should notwithstanding contradict her self denying some of the main points couched in those Creeds and owned by her sure Dr. St. will not say that such a Church is a True Church and that by contradicting those main Articles of Faith she does only debauch them but not ruine or destroy them Certainly every Contradictory ruins it Contradictory and every Contrary destroys its Contrary Will the Dr. affirm that the grossest of the Heathens Idolatry did only debauch and not destroy this Prindiple owned by them viz. The honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature and after the Dr. has taken so much pains to shew that the Veneration of Images owned by the Roman Church is point blank against their 2d Commandment will he say now it only debauches it but does not destroy it Wherefore Dr. St. cannot defend that the Roman Church does teach Idolatry without granting that she contradicts and destroys a Fundamental point of Religion neither can he grant that she contradicts a Fundamental point of Religion and yet allow that she is a True Church So that to maintain on the one side that she teaches Idolatry and on the other that she is a True Church is to commit a manifest Contradiction I insinuated in my Book the similitude of a way from one place to another hinted at also by the Dr. pag. 50. which may contribute much to clear this matter Suppose as the custome is in some Almanacks which set down the true waies from one place to another one should describe a True way how we may go from London to York and setting down all the Towns which others commonly mention should intermingle them with other places that lie either the quite contrary way or at least quite out of the way as for instance from Stamford which lies in the ordinary way to the Fennes thence to Salisbury thence to Plimouth thence to the West Indies and if you please to East-Indies also for you are alwayes in a true way from London to York only with this general advice that whensoever you go out of the true way you must turn back again without specifying which places are out of the way which not but setting them down all as parts of the True way So that whoever does not go through all the places put down in the forementioned description does not follow the way therein contained Would not such a description of a True way from London to York be extream ridiculous could there be a better piece of Drollery than this for Poor Robins Almanack or can any man of common sense knowing that so many places set down in the aforesaid description lie quite out of the way from London to York call the way there described a True way from London to York For certainly whoever understands what he saies must needs understand by a True way from London to York a way that not only contains all the principal places from the one City to the other but moreover does not contain any place quite out of the way This is just our case with Dr. St. He freely confesses that the Roman Church is a True Church and a True way to Salvation but withal he affirms that she does not only contain those main points which he thinks sufficient to constitute a True Church but also other particular points which he looks upon as gross Idolatry and open Violations of the Divine Law and consequently destructive to the Salvation of men which particular points the Roman Church delivers not as Errours but as Truths and Articles of Faith which all are bound to assent unto So that whoever denies any of those particular points can no more be a Roman Catholick than if he denyed some of the main points of Christianity common both to Catholicks and Protestants Now since Dr. St. is of this perswasion that the Roman Church teaches and requires gross Idolatry and open violations of Gods Laws how can he say without manifestly contradicting himself that notwithstanding all this she is a True Church and a True way to Heaven Can a True way to Heaven be made up of a high way to Hell as certainly Idolatry is or is not Idolatry as far out of the way to Heaven as the West-Indies is out of the way from London to York The answer of the Dr. in effect is this If you be a Roman Chatholick you are in a True way to Heaven and yet if you be a Roman Catholick you are quite out of the way to Heaven and whether this be not pure non-sense I leave it to the judgment of any impartial person whatsoever Whence I conclude that all men of Reson must needs understand by a True Church a Church that does not only positively embrace all
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
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
would such a man breed in those who either by reason of their Education or upon some other account were ignorant of the true condition of Christian Religion and had already some prejudice against it That these are the Artifices used by Dr. Still against Roman Catholicks might be evidenced by several instances taken out of his works One of the proofs that he alledges to evince the Roman Church to be guilty of Fanaticisme for that was his intent are the extravagancies of the Alumbradoe's and Fratricelli who were not only disowned but condemned by the Prelates of the Roman Church Moreover he pretends to father upon the Roman Church the Gun-powder Treason though detested by Roman Catholicks and without so much as taking notice of the Sentence that King James who was most concerned in that plot gave in Vindication of Catholicks in his own Declaration about it saying That the generality of his Catholick Subjects did abhor such a detestable Conspiracy no less than he himself If such Artifices therefore as these be warrantable what Community is there so holy I say again which may not easily be traduced Should God permit Dr. St. as certainly he may to declare himself a Jew or an Atheist he has already laid up good store of Arguments wherewith according to his manner of proceeding to traduce Christianity Fathering upon the Christian Religion all the horrible sins that ever have been committed by any Christian whatsoever Protestant or Catholick And if he should want matter to fill up his Volumes as following this way of attacking his Adversary he scarce ever can he may suppose Christians either to teach Crimes which they do not teach or what they do teach to be Crimes which is the way he commonly takes to oppugne Roman Catholicks Since therefore the same Topicks and Reasons drawn from them wherewith Dr. St. endeavours to traduce the particular Tenets of the Roman Religion may without difficulty be levelled against the general Principles of Christian Religion That he has been pleased to make use of those Arguments rather against the former than the latter could not proceed out of more Reason for the one than for the other and consequently it proceeded from some Interest which has so great an Adscendent over the hearts of men or other passion that byass'd him that way Whence I affirmed that had the same passion of Interest byassed him against Christian Religion which made him so malicious against the Roman it is very credible that he would have shewen himself as pievish against the one as the other All this I have said to signifie what it was that this verily believe of mine was founded upon In confirmation of what was couched in the forementioned words I added immediately But this Dr. is so unfortunate as well in vindicating the Protestant as in attacking the Roman Church that he neither produces any thing in vindication of Protestancy but the same or the like may be alledged in defence of Socinianisme and other Heresies condemned as such by Protestants See the Guide in Controversies Discourse 4. nor opposes any thing against the Roman Religion but the same or the like may be objected by Jews or Pagans against the Christian which according to Scripture is a scandal to the former and a derision to the latter So that whoever will be pleased to reflect seriously upon his Discourses he may clearly see that his Proofs for Protestancy will assoon make one a Socinian as a Protestant and his objections against Catholicks will assoon make one no Christian as no Catholick And what does the Dr. answer to all this All that he could which is just nothing not taking so much as notice of the forementioned words although they contain two main points which are proved at large by several Catholick Authors and do utterly enervate whatsoever Dr. St. brings for himself or against us and do moreover force the Dr. himself to salve whatever he produces against Catholicks if he will be a Christian and to confess the inanity of whatever he alledges for Protestants as such if he will not be a Socinian The first point is that he alledges nothing in defence of Protestancy as Protestancy which may not be alledged and with the same force too in vindication of Socinianisme or any other herefie This point has been discuss'd at large by those two famous and solid Divines the Author of Protestancy without Principles and The Guide in Controversies Disc 4. now quoted wherein is contained a Plea between a Protestant and a Socinian And although Dr. St. has had at last the courage to offer at an answer to the forementioned Books yet he has not dared to touch this point which is no small confirmation of the opinion some have conceived that Dr. St. is a Socinian and yet the Church of England looks upon Socinians as Hereticks The second point is That Dr. St. produces nothing against the particular Tenets of the Roman Church but the same or the like may be objected by Jews Turks Pagans or Libertins against the Common Principles of Christianity Neither is he ignorant but that some Pagans look upon our Scriptures as Fables no less than Dr. St. looks upon the Legends of our Saints as such The Jews also denyed the New Testament and the Turks make our Scripture to truckle under to their Alcoran This point is solidly discuss'd in that erudite Book Reason and Religion and although the Dr. pretends to answer it yet he prudently waves this point or very slightly touches it spending the far greater part of his Answer in scoffing at the Miracles of the Roman Church even those which have been authentically approved in particular by her in the Canonization of Saints thinking this a fit subject for his drolling Wit Yet what he there saies concerning this Argument is a new confirmation of this our second point For he objects nothing material against the Miracles of the Roman Church but the same or the like is or may be objected by Libertins against the Miracles of Christ the Prophets and the Apostles as the same Author in his late reply does make apparent Yet the Dr. to shew us that he is a Christian saies pag. 8. That he has made it his business to assert the Truth of Christian Religion in a large Discourse several years since published by him But to this he himself answers bringing the Example of Vanninus who writ for Providence when he denied a Deity pag. 9. he concludes thus In plain terms I know but one way to satisfie such as you are but I will keep from it as long as I can and that is to go to Rome and to be burn'd for my Faith For that is the kindness there shewed to those who contend for the purity of Christian Religion against the Corruptions of the Roman But the Dr. must pardon me if I tell him plainly that I cannot believe he would ever be burn'd for defending the particular Tenets of the Protestant Church