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
such a Proposition for a particular Affirmative and as the true Notion of a man in general is Animal rationale so the true notion of Idolatry according to Dr. St. himself pag. 24. quoted above is giving the Honour due only to God to a meer Creature Wherefore these two Propositions are universal Affirmatives equivalent to these To be any man whatsoever is to be Animal rationale To teach any Idolatry whatsoever is to teach that the Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature The reason hereof is because as Logicians tell us an indefinite Proposition in a necessary matter such is the Notion of a Thing which must necessarily agree unto it is equivalent to an Universal as to say a man is Animal rationale is as much as to say every man is such and to say Idolatry is the giving to a meer creature the honour due only to God which is the true notion of Idolatry in general is the same as if one should say All Idolatry is such Now if this Universal Affirmative be true as it is even according to Dr. St.'s confession a Church that teaches any sort of Idolatry whatsoever does teach that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature and hence it necessarily follows That no Church that does not teach this can be guilty of any sort of Idolatry as because every man is animal rationale a rational Animal it must needs follow that nothing that is not animal rationale can be a man whoever has the least smattering of Logick cannot be ignorant of these Rules But it was not for Dr. St.'s purpose to remember any thing of Logick or of Rationality Whence I conclude that the Proposition layed down by me is an Universal Affirmative equivalent to the Proposition set down by the Dr. Since therefore no Church can teach any Idolatry without teaching that the Honour which is due only to God may be given to a meer Creature it is evidently inferred that no Church can teach any Idolatry without erring against the forementioned Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion which is all I pretended in my second Proposition Besides although I should grant as I do not that a Church might teach some sort of Idolatry without teaching or requiring that the Honour due only to God be given to a meer Creature yet according to Dr. St.'s own confession the Idolatry he Fathers upon the Roman Church is such that it requires the honour which is due only to God to be given to a meer Creature For in his Discourse concerning the Roman Idolatry pag. 3. he has these words The Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images the Adoration of the Bread in the Eucharist and the formal Invocation of Saints doth require giving to the Creature Worship due only to the Creator So that according to this Assertion of Dr. St. which he endeavours to establish throughout that whole Discourse no Church can teach the Idolatry he fathers upon the Roman Church without teaching the giving to a meer Creature the Honor Worship due only to the Creator and consequently without erring against that Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion contained in my first Proposition which is enough for my main intent So that if my second Proposition be propounded thus To teach that sort of Idolatry which Dr. St. Fathers upon the Roman Church is to err against the forementioned Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion he will have nothing to quibble at it since he expressly asserts that such a kind of Idolatry requires the contrary to that Article whence I conclude that this second Proposition is also agreed unto by Dr. St. either absolutely or at least as far as is necessary for my purpose My third Proposition runs thus A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith nor against any Fundamental point of Religion does not teach Idolatry To this Proposition he answers That it is very Sophistical and Captious Dr. St. seems to be possess'd with such a panick fear to be Non-pluss'd by me that had I said two and two are four in all likelyhood he would have called it a Sophistical and Captious Proposition And this is a common flaw in weak but obstinate defendants who when they have nothing to say against a Proposition they Characterise it for Sophistical But let us see in what consists the Sophistry and Captiousness of this Proposition He saies pag. 28 29. That if by Article of Faith and Fundamental point of Religion he means the main Fundamental points of Doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed then a Church which does own all the Fundamentals of Doctrine may be guilty of Idolatry and teach those things wherein it lies But where is Dr. St.'s ingenuity My Proposition was not That a Church which owns all Fundamentals does not teach Idolatry but that a Church which does not err against any Fundamental does not teach Idolatry which is very different because a Church may err against a Doctrine which she owns and contradict her self as has been hinted at above and Dr. St. himself agrees unto as hereafter will appear So that the Dr. does not deny my Proposition but another very different We may therefore take my Proposition for granted yea we have shewn already that any Fundamental Errour or an Errour against any Fundamental point great or little if there be any Fundamental point of little concern is destructive to the Being of a Church He goes on and saies But if by erring against an Article of Faith be meant that a Church which does not err at all in matters of Religion cannot teach Idolatry then he concludes the Proposition is true but impertinent Neither does this part of the distinction touch my Proposition For all matters of Religion are not Articles of Faith according to Dr. St. who does not think all the 39. Articles to be Articles of Faith yet he judges them all to be Articles or matters of Religion and to concern the Soundness of a Church but not the Essence nay we do not hold that all the Ceremonies of our Church and all our Ecclesiastical Precepts are Articles of Faith yet they may be called matters of Religion Wherefore these two Propositions A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith and a Chuch that does not err at all in matters of Religion are very different neither does the former Proposition contain the latter Is not this when a learned distinction wherein neither part touches the Proposition which the Author pretends to distinguish whereas according to all reason Both Members of the Distinction are to be contained in the word which is distinguished Would it not be ridiculous for one to distinguish thus the following Proposition Every man is a rational Animal if by Man be meant all kind of Animals 't is false But if by Man be meant only that kind of Animal which is man
Reason in the Interpretation of Scripture and obliges all to submit to her judgment On the contrary the Church of England as it is constituted according to Dr. St. 's Exposition favours all sorts of Fanaticisme since it permits every one to be led by his own private Spirit in the Interpretation of Scripture without obliging him to submit to the Judgment of any Church in such matters He answers secondly that if whatever is countenanced by the Authority of a True Church ceases to be Fanaticisme there flow hence monstrous Absurdities The first is that a prevailing Fanaticisme ceases to be Fanaticisme pag. 55. Is not this a strange whimsie of the Drs. and a pregnant Argument how little he values church Authority to say that because some particular way of Devotion comes to be approved and countenanced by the Authority of a True Church the approbation of the Church serves only to make it a greater and a more prevailing Fanaticisme than it was before whereas I proved in my Book pag. 9. with several instances That the approbation of a True Church is sufficient to clear particular waies of Devotion from the imputation of Fanaticisme So that the difference between Fanatick and Non-fanatick waies of Devotion does not consist in the extravagancy rather of the one and not of the other for both may be extravagant enough but in that the former are against Authority the latter according to Authority I will explain this Doctrine with the Example the Dr. alledges in the place now quoted of Treason and Rebellion What difference is there between a Loyal and Rebellious Army Both Plunder Harras Fight and Kill The difference only is that a Loyal Army proceeds according to Authority and by order of their true Sovereign But a Rebellious Army acts contrary to Authority and to the orders of their Prince As therefore it would be extream ridiculous to affirm That the approbation of a True and Lawful Prince serves only to make the proceedings of his Subjects approved by him more Rebellious or a more prevailing Rebellion so it is absurd to defend as Dr. St. does That the approbation of a True Church renders particular waies of Devotion approved by her more lyable to Fanaticisme or a more prevailing Fanaticisme But the Dr. urges That this would be an excellent way to vindicate the Fanaticisme of the late times which because countenanced by an Authority supposed competent enough by some who then writ of Obedience and Government it ceases to be Fanaticisme Speak out Doctor was Cromwell a True and Lawful Governour of this Kingdome or not if you say he was not how can you have the confidence to parallel our case with theirs since you your self defend the Roman Church to be a True Lawful Church and the very same with your own if you say that he was a True and Lawful Governour and his Authority competent where is your Loyalty As for the Writer of the Book entituled Obedience and Government let him answer for himself I detest that Doctrine neither am I responsable for what that Author affirms as neither Dr. St. will think himself obliged to own whatever Protestants did in the late Rebellion The second Absurdity he pretends to infer from our Doctrine is That Prophets and Apostles nay our Lord himself are according to this Rule unavoidably Fanaticks For what competent Authority saies he pag. 56. had they to countenance them Are you in earnest Doctor had Christ the Prophets and Apostles no competent Authority to countenance their proceedings This indeed is to cast them into the common heard of Fanaticks since no competent Authority neither Humane nor Divine did countenance or approve their Preaching Can the Dr. deny but that Christ the Apostles and Prophets were countenanced by Divine Authority manifested by unquestionable Miracles or will he say That Divine Authority manifested by these Miracles is not an Authority competent enough to vindicate such actions as it approves of from the Crime of Fanaticisme But the Dr. presses that the Jewish Church though not yet cast off while our Saviour lived did not countenance him nor his Apostles What then did I ever affirm that the Authority of a True Church was determinately necessary to clear particular practices from Fanaticisme as the Dr. most grossly supposes I did I defended indeed that the Authority of a True Church is sufficient to clear such actions from Fanaticisme but I never asserted that it was necessary yea I insinuated the contrary pag. 9. There are two waies to commission men to Preach and to Authorize their manners of Devotion Both of them sufficient but neither of them determinately necessary the one extraordinary when God by evident Miracles declares that such men are commissioned by him and in this manner Christ the Prophets and the Apostles were commissioned by him the other Ordinary when the Pastours of the True Church authorize men to Preach or approve of such particular waies of Devotion and in this sense I cleared the particular waies of Devotion countenanced by the Roman Church which the Dr. confesses to be a True Church from the Aspersion of Fanaticisme Neither can one reasonably argue that what is not countenanced in the Second and Ordinary way is not countenanced by a competent Authority since it may be approved of in an Extraordinary way And though the Jews did not follow the Doctrine of Christ yet they acknowledged his Commission and Gods Broad seal viz. evident Miracles wrought by him when in a full Assembly they affirmed Joan 11. Hic homo multa Signa facit This man Christ works many Miracles and certainly such a publick attestation as this was enough to countenance and acknowledge his Commission though out of obstinacy they would not submit to his Doctrine as Pilate declared our Saviour to be innocent and guiltless yet out of fear lest he should disgust Caesar condemned him to death I cannot omit here the two famous yet Contradictory Revelations which are said to have been made to St. Bridgit and St. Catherin concerning the immaculate Conception of our Blessed Lady To St. Bridgit that she was conceived without Original Sin To St. Catherin that she was conceived with Original Sin Dr. St. scarce publishes a Book wherein he does not insert these Revelations pretending thereby to blow up the Infallibility of the Roman Church since she Canonized for Saints both St. Bridgit and St. Catherin and approves their Revelations and consequently something that is false as necessarily one of the forementioned Revelations must be particularly he endeavours to prove hence against me That submission to the Judgment of the Church is not a Rule to judge Fanaticisme by For both these Revelations were approved of by the Roman Church and yet one of them was false and therefore Fanatical and one of those Saints either was deceived or went about to deceive and by consequence was a Fanatick See the Dr. pag. 61 62. To this I answer that the Dr. has never yet shewn That
make a fine business of Religion but I am far from any such intent I know him too well He is as pitiful at Arguing as excellent at Drolling and I am resolved to attack him on the weakest side let him complain never so much Nor could the Dr. have given the world a more pregnant Testimony that his Adversaries have pinched and galled him than by using such unhandsome and passionate expressions against them For all wise men do clearly understand that whoever in serious debates such as those of Religion are with all persons who have any sense of Religion in them when he is closely press'd in lieu of Answering falls a Railing or a Drolling he yields himself for defeated not to seem so to ignorant people who think that so long as the party speaks he answers he will needs say something though it be nothing to the purpose The best way to deal with such Adversaries is to press the Arguments which nettled them The Spur Which touching only does make one kick and wince if often applyed may tame and calm him And though one should be permitted now and then to sprinkle even serious Discourses with some sort of Railery yet what prudence could it be in Dr. St. when he had no less than Nine several Treatises to answer besides others published before issued forth against his Discourse concerning the Idolatry of the Roman Church or some part thereof and such as even Protestants were of opinion he would have enough to do to answer them what prudence could it be I say for him in this Conjuncture to mis-spend so much time in framing Romantick Characters of his Adversaries Sure had he been perswaded that he could solidly answer them he would presently have closed with them and dispatch'd them and not have stood off so long in Buffoonery And the effect he has obtained by this manner of answering seems to be that having quite spent himself in these Drolling and Railing Fits he has been forced to be beholding to a Person of Honour though unacquainted with Polemical Contests as his Book sufficiently proclaims it for answering his grave Adveersary S. C. and to Dr. Whitby though as that witty Author J. V. C. tells us he vents Reasons Epist ad Cressyn ag Mr. Whitby as young Children do Worms heads and tails together for encountring even the Knight himself For so he stiles his worthy Antagonist pref pag. 40. T. G. And here I cannot but wonder What Dr. St. the Champion of the Protestant Church Whitby in his preface that Incomparable Man that Prodigie of Ingenuity and Learning had he not Courage enough to Combate the Knight even when his own party was in so great expectation of the Engagement Must he be forced to substitute Whitby in his place But to such shifts as these one will be put who when he hath serious business in hand trifles out his time in fopperies Yea probably speaking he will hire some such man and there are many such men as Dr. Whitby to Encounter the Squire too for so he terms that Ingenious Writer J. S. and the rest of his Learned Adversaries who remain unanswered Yet it is great pity he should not answer them all himself For if any of their Books have not hitherto arrived to the esteem they deserve let the Dr. answer them in particular and they will not fail to gain the Repute due unto them For my own part I can assure him that not only I my self but several others too have a greater esteem for my little Book since the Dr. was pleased to answer it than we had before and I am so far from fearing his Replies that I heartily desire he would Answer whatever hereafter I shall Publish relating to Controversie The substance of the Reply was finished some few months after Dr. St. Examination of my Book came forth the reason why it was not published sooner is because I expected the Dr. should afford a particular answer to several Treatises issued forth against his discourse of the Roman Idolatry the book I attaqued which remained yet unanswered to the end that having seen what he could answer to the whole charge layed to him in this debate I might the better order my Reply But since the Dr. in so long a time has not yet been pleased to satisfie so just an expectation for some good reasons he knows I resolved without any farther delay to set forth this Rejoynder especially being prest thereunto by the invitation of several persons of Learning both Diocesan and Catholick who are perswaded that the Dr. in the Examination of my Book has layed himself thus open as will manifestly appear by the following Treatise The Contents CHap. I. On supposition Dr. St. Contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all the charges he casts upon the Roman Church are false and all their proofs void Chap. II. Several objections against the forementioned way of answering the Dr. proved insignificant Chap. III. Other Objections answered Chap. IV. The Evasions of the Dr. to clear himself from Self-contradiction in charging the Roman Church with Idolatry examined Chap. V. The Dr. palpably Contradicts himself by affirming the Roman Church to be Idolatrous and yet granting her to be a True Church Chap. VI. Another proof of the same intent drawn from the nature of the Idolatry the Dr. fathers upon the Roman Church Chap. VII The invalidity of the Drs. answers to our Propositions in particular Chap. VIII Several quibbles against the aforesaid Doctrine removed Chap. IX The Drs. answer to my Appendix proved frivolous Chap. X. Concerning the other Contradictions committed by the Dr. in the Charges he laies upon the Roman Church Chap. XI Some difficulties raised by the Dr. against my Judgment concerning his manner of proceeding rejected ERRATA PRef post medium not to seem so r. yet not to seem so fine Diocesan and Catholick r. Protestants and Catholicks ib. thus open r. too open p. 47. l. 13. would not r. would it not p. 68. l. 5. charity of this r. charity as this p. 75. l. 18. his excess r. this excess l. 22. this charity r. his charity p. 100. l. 2. nor among r. now among p. 101. so it is r. so that it is p. 103. l 13. commanded r. commandment p 123. l. 13. post illa virba honour due to God add and then 't is false p. 124. l. 8. this part was r. this was part p. 131. l. 8. when r then p. 132. l. 27. does not own r. does own p. 145. l 25. our own r. his own p. 161. l. 27. would not be r. would be p. 185. l. 24. answering r. answer p. 186 l. 22. and Idolater r. an Idolater p. 188. l. 8. any r. as any p. 194. l. 19. universal truth r. universal true p. 214. l. 26. in any times r. many times p. 220 l. 26. detected r. detested p. 221. l. 9. are most r. are more ib. l. 17. to him treason r. him to
this way of not answering each Argument in particular be New I was not the Inventer of it For Dr. St. himself in his Discourse of Idolatry which was published before my Book saw Light p. 558. affirms That the Principles of Protestant Religion which he sets down at the end of that work are a sufficient Answer to Protestancy without Principles whereas it is manifest that in his whole Appendix of Principles he does neither State the Controversie plainly nor examin the proofs that Learned Author produces nor apply distinct Answers to his Arguments fairly represented in their own words which is what he sayes Protestant Writers observe Pref. pag. 3. when they set themselves to Answer our Books And I appeal to the Judgment of any Impartial person who has taken the pains to peruse his late Answers to the formentioned book Protestancy without Prnciples to Reason and Religion and to the Guide in Controversie whether he has performed all the aforesaid Formalities which he requires of us ibid. pag. 4. and whether he does not pick up here and there some Sentences to Answer or one Chapter or two together or leaps from one thing to another as if resolved to pass by the greatest difficulties or omits whole Discourses as the fourth and fifth Discourse in the Guide in Controversie All these little Arts and Shifts in us sais the Dr. are either plain Acknowledgments of a baffled Cause or an Argument of a weak and unskilful Management Whereas all these very same Arts in the Dr. must be pregnant proofs of a good Cause and of a skilful management thereof But some will say That Dr. St. may be permitted to answer as he please and without tying himself to the abovementioned Formalities because he has learned a secret proper to himself to draw off all the spirit of a book in two or three lines Pref. Gen. pag. 30. and all the rest he leaves behind viz. all that he cannot Answer which is the far greatest part of his Adversaries Books is only Phlegm and Caput mortuum But we poor Souls to whom Dr. St. has not as yet had the Charity to impart this Secret unless we answer his book Chapter by Chapter Paragraph by Paragraph and Point by Point we do nothing Whoever desires to see more concerning Dr. St. 's manner of writing let him read the First Letter written by the Worthy Author of Some General Observations upon Dr. St. 's Book and way of Writing Now the true reason why Dr. St. frets so much at my manner of dealing with him seems to be because he thought it a disparagement that so little a Book should be published against so great a Dr. and that I should compel him in no more than a sheet and a half to fall foul on himself and to be his own Executioner The Dr. seems to be in the vulgar Errour of such as measure Books by their Bulks and Imagin that in a little book such as he stiles Rats and Flies there can be no great thing But he must know that a Rat can overcome an Elephant and that Flies have been able to rout vast Armies Hence any one may see what Motives I had to take this way of Answering Dr. St. whereof he will needs make so great a Mistery My intention was to dispatch him in short and to set forth a little Book against him which I could never have performed should I have answered all his Arguments one by one and observed all the other Formalities he will needs oblige us to Besides the Conveniencies of a little book are very great It is easily made easily Printed easily bought and easily read and consequently thereby are spared two precious things Time and Money About a Thousand Copies of Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet went off in three weeks or a month and had I Printed as many more I might have dispatch'd them all On the contrary a great Volume cannot be made without great labour nor Printed without great Expences and when it is made and Printed few buy it and fewer have time or patience to read it over A Pestilent Book may be dash'd at the beginning with a short Paper before it spreads its Venome but this being once spread a whole Volume will scarce suffice to quell it A Pail of Water may quench a Fire before it extends itself whereas a far greater quantity will not be effectual to a vert its fury if it once makes it self master of a house But you will say as many do that some deny the Roman Church to be a true Church which is to destroy and pull down the very stress whereon is builded our whole Discourse I say also that many deny the Antient Fathers others all General Councils and others the very Scripture it self nay what is there that some do not deny May we not therefore Argue well out of Fathers Councils and Scriptures against such as admit these Topicks Neither is it necessary to prove alwayes our Conclusion out of General Principles which all or most agree unto otherwise we should never argue in matters of Religion out of certain Books of Scripture which Jews and some Sectaries do deny against such as do allow of those Books Particular Principles come neerer the Conclusion we pretend to prove consequently if they be true assented unto by both parties they carry us a shorter way to the Truth we aim at Moreover though some deny the Roman Church to be a true Church yet many grant it and it is the Sense of the English Church and the Perswasion of all Learned Protestants as many of their own Profession aver according to what we have quoted in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet pag. 3 4. Dr. St. himself assents unto it Fanaticks approve of it and Latitudinarians who maintain all Religions to be true stoutly defend it and many times they seem angry with us that we should question whether they grant our Church to be a True Church Of those who profess themselves Christians in England only some rigid Presbyterians deny it yea the title of Reformers of the Roman Religion which Moder Sectaries take upon them does manifestly imply that the Roman Religion the Reformed Religion as they stile it is the same in substance and different only in Accidentals and consequently if theirs be true ours must also be true for it is impossible that a true Church and not a true Church should be the same in Substance To Reform a Church is not to destroy its Essence but to redress its Disorders The Apostles were not sent to Reform Paganism and why because they Destroyed it bringing in in lieu thereof Christian Religion of a different Substance and Nature The fire destroys wood and Refines Gold because it changes the very Substance of Wood into Ashes but it only takes away the dross of Gold and leaves its Substance and Essence untouched Dealing therefote with the forementioned Persons as in this Treatise I do I might with much
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
he declares us free but of the latter he makes us guilty And we poor Souls because we cannot discern such subtle distinctions as these must be chalked up for Half-witted men But if the accomplishedness of Dr. St.'s wit has no more of wit in it then No Idolatry has of Idolatry we have little reason to envy him Yet farther 't is impossible that a Church which holds any damnable Errour should be a True Church For all damnable Errours lead to Damnation and upon that account are called Damnable But a True Church carries to Salvation and therefore must be True in all things necessary to the obtaining thereof Nor among those things which are necessary to the obtaining taining of Salvation one is the avoiding all Damnable Errours as being destructive thereunto Whence it is manifest that a Church which holds any Damnable Errour cannot so long be a True Church and to hold any Idolatry whatsoever is without question a Damnable Errour since all Idolatry is Damnable and destructive to Salvation Yea Dr. St. pag. 34. Charges our Church with Damnable Errours especially upon the account of the Idolatry which as he fancies she does teach and which page 22. he owns to be very sinful neither do I believe that the Dr. will dare to affirm that a Church which should teach Adultery to be Lawful could so long be a True Church and yet Idolatry is no less damnable and destructive to Salvation than Adultery Wherefore to hold either of them as Lawful is equally at least destructive to the Being of a True Church 'T is therefore impossible that the Roman Church should hold any sort of Idolatry as Dr. St. will needs have us believe she does without holding a Damnable and Fundamental Errour destructive to the very Essence and Being of a True Church For in the Dictionary of such as have any insight into Religious Concerns a Fundamental Errour in matters of Religion a Damnable Errour and an Errour inconsistent with the Essence of a True Church are Terms Synonymous Moreover whereas the very Vitals of a Religion are the Honour of God and the Salvation of Souls Idolatry undermines them both by giving the Honour due only unto God to a meer Creature and by leading souls to Damnation How therefore can it chuse but destroy the very Essence of a True Religion And as a High Treason whereby one does give the Honour and Respect due only to his Sovereign to a meer Subject is beyond debate contrary to a Fundamental point of Loyalty and destructive thereunto so it is a palpable Contradiction to assert that such a person is a true and faithful Subject but yet a Traitour in the like manner since by all Idolatry according to the Notion thereof assented unto even by Dr. St. is given to a meer Creature the Honour due only unto God and upon this account Idolatry is High Treason against God Dr. St. must needs be guilty of Self contradiction in affirming the Roman Church to be a True Church but yet Idolatrous Whence appears that the instance of a Traitour alledged by the Dr. page 25. makes rather against him than for him where we must reflect that according to Dr. St. not only the practice of the Roman Church but also her Doctrine is Idolatrous since she teaches and approves of that very practice which she judges to be Idolatrous Hitherto we have shewn that all sorts of Idolatry are inconsistent with the very Essence of a True Church and by consequence that it is a manifest Contradiction to affirm that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet depraved with Idolatry However 't is enough for my purpose to evince that that sort of Idolatry which Dr. St. Fathers upon the Roman Church Destroies the very Essence and Being of a True Church which I shall prove in the following Chapter CHAP. VI. Another Proof of the same intent drawn from the Nature of the Idolatry the Doctour Fathers upon the Roman Church THe Idolatry Dr. St. endeavours to fasten upon the Roman Church is as he pretends to prove at large in his Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome pag. 58. seq point blanck against the second Commanded according to their reckoning of the Decalogue and is immediately opposite thereunto Now 't is certain that this Commandment contains an Essential and Fundamental point of Religion since it so neerly concerns Gods Honour and worship the chief aim of Religion Whence it manifestly follows that the Idolatry he Fathers upon the Roman Church is destructive to a Fundamental point of Religion and by consequence inconsistent with the very Being of a True Church Besides the Dr. does willingly confess and it would be a madness not to do so that there is some sort of Idolatry destructive not only to the Soundess for this is general to all sorts of Idolatry but also to the very Essence and Being of a True Church See his Answer pag. 24. whence we infer that whatever Church holds that kind of Idolatry which is destructive to the Being of a Church cannot so long be a True Church whatever other Tenets she maintains So that it would have been a palpable Contradiction in Dr. St. even according to his own Doctrine had he held the Church of Rome to be a True Church as he does and yet charged her with the Forementioned kind of Idolatry Now let us examin what Character Dr. St. gives us of the Idolatry he is pleased to Father upon the Roman Church In his Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome pag. 69. he saies thus It seems much more reasonable for me to worship God by Prostrating my self to the Sun or any of the Heavenly Bodies nay to an Ant or a Flie than to a Picture or Image and he endeavours to prove this his Assertion according to which the Idolatry he Fastens upon the Roman Church in the Veneration of the Pictures or Images of God is esteemed by him far worse than the Adoration of the Sun Moon an Ant or a Flie practised by the Heathens pag. 132. he approves this Testimony of Costerus If the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be not true the Idolatry of the Heathens in Worshipping some Golden or Silver Statue or any Images of their gods or the Laplanders in Worshipping a red Cloath or the Aegyptians an Animal is more excusable than of Christians that Worship a bit of Bread This Costerus asfirms only upon this condition That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be not true But Dr. St. who absolutely judges that Doctrine not to be true and moreover approves the foresaid Testimony of Costerus must needs hold the Idolatry he imputes to Catholicks in the Adoration of the Eucharist to be more detestable than that of the Aegyptians and Laplanders Pag. 134. he seems to approve this Sentiment of Dr. Taylour An Image then becomes an Idol when Divine Worship is given to it and to Worship False Gods or to give Divine Honor to
Church with an Idolatry of an undue Object Because the Worship due only to God is given by us as he fancies to a meer Creature and not only with Idolatry of an undue and prohibited man-manner of Worship which are two sorts of Idolatry he makes mention of In the same page to confirm the former Doctrine he saies thus In the Worship of God by Images wherewith he Charges us the Worship due to God and I suppose he speaks of a Worship due only to God is terminated wholly on the Creature Wherefore if this be Idolatry it must be Idolatry of an undue Object Much more to the same purpose might be alledged out of him But what already I have produced is sufficient From what hitherto has been quoted out of Dr. St. 't is manifest that the Idolatry he Fathers upon the Roman Church is in his opinion as bad nay worse than the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens Now since the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens is beyond debate and Dr. St. alwaies supposes it is so is I say inconsistent with the Being and Essence of a True Church and a true Religion and since the Malice of Idolatry is to be scaned by the opposition it has with Religion this being so is it not a madness to say and confess that the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens is inconsistent not only with the Soundness but also with the Essence of a true Church but yet that the Idolatry of the Papists although as bad nay worse than the grossest of the Heathens is inconsistent only with the Soundness of a Church and not with the Essence Is not this as if one should say If you cut off the head of a man you will kill him but if you give him another wound as bad or worse if you run him through the heart if you cut him all in pieces you will only make him sick What sence can there be in affirming that the Heathens are not members of the True Church because they are Idolaters in so high a degree and yet that Roman Catholicks though grosser Idolaters than the Heathens are Members of the True Church That the Heathenish Idolatry at least some is of a nature high enough to unchurch Heathens and yet that the Roman Idolatry though grosser and higher than any Heathenish is not of a nature high enough as he saies pag. 22. to unchurch Romanists If this be not Non-sense what is Moreover from what we have alledg'd out of the Dr. 't is evident that he ascrib's unto us Idolatry of an undue Object and sure all such Idolatry is inconsistent with the very Being of a True Church For Dr. St. when he would excuse the Idolatry he Fathers upon us from being destructive to the very Essence of a true Church he endeavours to say that it is only Idolatry of an undue manner of Worship which shews that he holds Idolatry of an undue Object to be destructive to the Essence of a Church Since therefore he confesses in the places above mentioned that the Idolatry of the Roman Church is Idolatry of an undue Object he makes her guilty of an Idolatry inconsistent with the Essence of a true Church Again Dr. St. seems to suppose that an Idolatry which brings in a multiplicity of Gods is destructive to the Essence of a Church and why Because it is destructive at least by consequence and mediately to a Fundamental point of Religion viz. the Unity of the Godhead Since therefore the Idolatry he fathers upon us is destructive at least mediately to this Fundamental point The Honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature assented unto even by Pagans it must be inconsistent with the Being of a Church For an Errour destructive to any Fundamental point of Religion whatever is destructive to the Being of a Church as has been demonstrated Yea an Idolatry accompanied with the acknowledgment of one onely God such is the Idolatry he imputes to us may doubtless be inconsistent with the Being of a Church as for instance the Idolatry of such who accknowledging one only God should adore no other God but the Sun Yet farther the Adoration of a red Cloth which the Laplanders use either is destructive to the Being of a Church or not Sure Dr. St. is not so mad as to say it is not Now if it be destructive to the Essence of a Church as certainly it is is not Dr. St. ashamed to say that the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist is worse and less excusable than that of the Laplanders and yet that it may be consistent with the Being of a True Church Can any one require a more convincing Argument to prove that such a Church is no true Church then if he can shew that she adores or requires the Adoration of a red Cloth for God or something as bad or worse Lastly Dr. St. affirms that the Roman Church does not only teach an Idolatry as bad or worse than the grossest of the Heathens but also that she teaches it as an Article of Divine Faith Fathering it upon God and making him the Author thereof For the Roman Church delivers as Articles of Divine Faith the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist the Invocation of Saints and the Veneration of Images as both he and we confess The Dr. moreover maintaines all the forementioned practices and Doctrines to be flar Idolatry as much or more detestable than the grossest Heathenish Idolatry Now certainly 't is a Fundamental and Essential point of Religion That God is not the Author of any Superstition whatsoever much less of so gross an Idolatry as he will needs have the Roman Idolatry to be and consequently 't is impossible that the Roman Church should teach God to be the Author of such an Idolatry as necessarily she must if she teaches it as an Article of Faith without erring against the aforesaid Fundamental point and by consequence without incurring a Fundamental Errour destructive to the very Being of a Church 'T is manifest therefore that Dr. St. does commit a palpable Contradiction by asserting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with an Idolatry as bad or worse than the grossest of the Heathens I know not whether these lines will fetch blood from Dr. St. for as he saies Pref. Gen. he was threatned with such lines from his Adversaries But I am sure that if he has any blood in him and has not lost all sense of his honour they will fetch the blood into his face and make him blush After the Dr. had proved unsuccessful in shewing my way of proceeding disingenuous he endeavours to prove it sophistical and captious saying pag. 23. That the starting of a new Objection or the raising a new Difficulty answers no Argument and that this manner of proceeding of mine is a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavilling humour rather than of any intention to satisfie an inquisitive mind To this I answer When the
'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
not to err against any Fundamental point of Religion and yet affirming that she teaches Idolatry and such gross Idolatry For to teach Idolatry especially such a gross Idolatry as he is pleased to Father upon us is according to his own express assertion to teach or require that the Honour or Worship due only to the Creator be given to to a Creature and to teach this is to err against the contrary Truth viz. The Honour which is due only to the Creator is not to be given to a Creature as is evident and consequently it is to err against a Fundamental point of Religion For such does Dr. St. acknowledge to be the aforesaid Truth Whence I conclude that to say our Church does not err against any Fundamental point and yet that she does teach such gross Idolatry as he is pleased to fasten upon her is to say That she does not err against any and yet that she does err against some which is a palpable Contradiction Were the Idolatry he Fathers upon us destructive only to something requisite meerly to the Soundness of a Church and to some Non-fundamental point his distinction would have been to some purpose But since the Idolatry he laies to our Charge is destructive according to our own Concession to something requisite to the very Being of a Church viz. to a Fundamental and Essential point the forementioned Distinction of the Truth and Soundness of a Church is altogether frivolous Finally Dr. St. pag. 32. speaking in particular concerning our fifth Proposition saies That if this Assertion The Church of Rome does not err against any point necessary to Salvation be only meant of those Essential points of Faith which he supposes antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church he denies it not and he makes the antient Creeds of the Catholick Church before he had made mention only of the Apostles Creed to be the best measure of those things which were believed to be necessary to Salvation But he adds That he does not see of what use the forementioned Concession of his can be to us in the present debate unless we can shew which he supposes we are never able to doe that whatever Church does embrace the antient Creeds and own all the Articles of Faith which are contained in them cannot be guilty of Idolalatry But this answer of the Dr. is lyable to the same exceptions we produced against him in the Explanation of our Third Proposition For 't is a very different thing to say A Church that embraces and owns all Essential points of Faith which is the Dr. 's Proposition and a Church that does not err against any Essential point of Faith which is our Proposition tacitely at least granted by him For a Church may contradict her self and err against those very points which she embraces and owns how can the Roman Church be a True Church as the Dr. often confesses she is unless she be free from all Fundamental Errours and how can she be free from all Fundamental Errours if she errs against any Fundamental point and finally how does she not err against a Fundamental point if she teaches Idolatry yea the grossest Idolatry of the world Whence I conclude that not only this main Proposition is granted by him in the sense I pretend viz. That the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith or Fundamental point of Religion even of those which he acknowledges to be such but also that this his Concession is effectual to evince our present design viz. to clear the Roman Church from the Idolatry cast upon her and to prove the Dr. guilty of Self-contradiction by granting that the Roman Church does not err against any Fundamental point of Faith and yet charging her with Idolatry and with such gross Idolatry To say the truth I would never desire an Adversarie to grant me more in order to confute him than Dr. St. has and does grant in the present debate For these Five Propositions set down by me are either absolutely granted by the Dr. or at least not denyed by him in the sense I pretended as is apparent by what has been discuss'd and we take this Non-denial of the Dr. for a grant or consent according to that Maxime Qui tacet consentire videtur And certainly had he thought them false he would have denyed them whenas he does not so much as deny one of them in the sense intended but some other Propositions very different Wherefore these Propositions being granted in the conformity aforesaid the method I took was to deduce from them the contradictory of the Calumny cast upon our Church by Dr. St. For to lay down Propositions or Principles and to deduce nothing from them is as if one should lay Foundations without building the Superstructures as to make Deductions without first laying Princiciples as some do is to build without Foundation And because some cannot others will not make by themselves the deductions especially when they are contrary to what formerly they have imbibed and are resolved to maintain I thought it best to make them to their hand However because the main nay the sole exception that some persons had against my Book was because I used a Scholastick Method framing my deductions in a ridged Syllogistical form it seems to me expedient for the satisfaction of such persons to produce here the reasons that moved me thereunto which are these First Because this method I took is a close clear short and convincing way and since I desired in a matter of so great concern and not having too much time to be quick close clear and short with my Adversary in order to convince him of Self-contradiction I made choice of this Method Secondly all Discourses whatsoever loose or not loose do necessarily imply some Syllogisme wherein the truth one endeavours to prove is inferred or pretended to be inferred from some Principles And although all kinds of Discourses are obnoxious to Fallacies and Sophistry yet this difference there is between Loose or Rhetorical Discourses and Logical or not Loose that in Rhetorical Discourses as being commonly interlaced with several digressions and gay Metaphors which amuze the Reader the fallacy is easily disguised But in ridged Syllogistical Discourses devested from gaudy Expressions quaint Metaphors and unnecessary digressions the Fallacy if there be any is with far less difficulty detected And this is the reason that when we will manifest the Sophistry of a loose discourse we do commonly reduce it to a Syllogistical form the better to discover it Now because I desired to deal fairly and sincerely with Dr. St. I made use of this method to the end that were there any fallacie in my Syllogisms it might more easily appear unto him And although in almost every page he impeaches me of Sophistry Captiousness yet he do's not legally shew any one of my Syllogisms to be lyable to any of the Fallacies the Logicians make mention of and one would think that
who can blame him for making our Church both True and Idolatrous Again the Dr. answers clear himself from Self-contradiction that he never affirmed the Roman Church did or does teach in express terms any sort of Idolatry or that the honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature But that she only teaches those things wherein Idolatry lies which is not to teach Idolatry expressly as for instance she does not teach the Veneration she exhibits to Images to be Idolatry and yet lawful for that would be to teach Idolatry in express terms but rather she affirms the contrary viz. That the forementioned Veneration is not Idolatrous for she thinks that the honour she exhibits to Images is not Divine Worship however because the Dr. will have her to be mistaken in these perswasions he impeaches her of Idolatry Now the Substance of this Answer comes to be that although to say that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet that she does teach Idolatry in express terms be a palpable Contradiction yet there is no appearance of contradiction in saying as he does that the Roman Church is a True Church but yet that she does teach those things wherein Idolatry lies which are his words pag 29. or that she does teach Idolatry not in express terms but only by Consequence as he saies pag. 21. But I leave to others to examin how this does agree with what Dr. St. affirms in several places of his Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Roman Church endeavouring to shew that she does expressly act against the Second Commandment of God according to their account wherein is prohibited Idolatry when she teaches the Veneration and Worship of Images Besides this objection is cashiered by what has been already discuss'd For since the Idolatry Dr. St. fathers upon the Roman Church is destructive to a Fundamental point of Religion and consequently to the very Being of a True Church as has been already demonstrated 't is impossible that a Church remaining a True Church should teach such an Idolatry either in express terms or by good Consequence and as the Dr. will not grant that to teach Idolatry only by Consequence teaching those things wherein it lies is enough to free the Roman Church from being really Idolatrous otherwise by this Answer he himself would discharge her from the Crime of Idolatry he casts upon her so neither can it excuse the Roman Church from being no True Church the oppositeness of Idolatry with the Essence of a Church consisting in the Reality of the thing and not in the particular perswasion of such as teach it Wherefore to say that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet that she does teach Idolatry in the manner aforementioned is to commit a palpable Contradiction Moreover 't is certain neither can the Dr. question it that the Churches of the grossest sort of Heathens did teach Idolatry destructive to the being of a true Church and in a manner destructive thereunto and yet they did not teach Idolatry in express terms but only by Consequence teaching those things wherein it did lie For either they did affirm though by mistake that the object to which they gave Divine Worship was not a meer Creature or that the honour they gave was not properly Divine For what Heathen did ever teach in express terms That the honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature So that were this objection of any force it would excuse the grossest Heathens from practising or teaching any Idolatry destructive to the Essence of a True Church Nay if Idolatry because it is taught not in express terms but by consequence is not destructive to the Being of a Church he might also affirm that upon the same account it is neither destructive to the soundness of it and consequently the Roman Church would not be according to the Dr. 's opinion not only True but Sound also For if this Doctrine be true the destructiveness of Idolatry is not to be taken from the thing which is practised or taught but from the manner of practsing it or teaching it All Heresies if they be truly such are destructive to the very Being of a True Church because they separate the Societies that profess them from the Church of Christ as the very notion of Heresie does import yet according to this answer of the Doctor they would be consistent with the Essence of a True Church because there is no Heretical Church which is not mistaken in some thing that it teaches or which does teach to be an Errour or Heresie that which she maintains as a Truth yet because she teaches those things wherein her particular Heresie lies and because she teaches to be true what really is an Errour and an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith therefore she is an Heretical and no True Church Whence it follows that should one affirm that such a Church is True and yet that she teaches those things wherein Heresie and Errour against Faith does lie he would beyond debate contradict himself and if it be a contradiction to affirm that such a Church is true and yet Heretical will it be no Contradiction to defend that the Roman Church is True but yet Idolatrous For certainly Idolatry is no less destructive to the Being of a Church than Heresie Wherefore as to kill a man 't is enough for one to do that which necessarily infers the Separation of the Soul from the Body whether he does it by mistake or without mistake knowingly or not knowingly So to destroy the Being of a True Church 't is enough if she teaches any Fundamental or Essential Errour destructive to the Essence thereof as she must necessarily do if she teaches Idolatry whether she teaches it in express terms or only by consequence whether by mistake or not For although mistake may excuse him who has it from erring maliciously yet not from erring nor the Church that should teach such an Errour from being Erroneous Since therefore Dr. St. does not excuse the Roman Church from Erring against this Fundamental point The Honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature he cannot excuse her from a Fundamental Errour inconsistent with the Being of a True Church and consequently he cannot excuse himself from a manifest Contradiction in granting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with Doctrines containing Idolatry After all these attempts on the part of the Idolatry he fathers upon us had proved unsuccessful he turns himself to the other part of the Contradiction saying that when he grants the Roman Church to be a True Church he means thereby nothing else but that she does embrace all Essential points of Faith couched in the Antient Creeds of the Catholick Church and he thinks it very far from any contradiction to affirm that a Church may embrace all such points and yet teach Idolatry and therefore he saies that although
difficulties Does he therefore mean by it a Church qualified with such Laws that whoever keeps close to them till death and let the way to Salvation be never so secure yet if one does not keep to it 'till death what will it avail him will certainly be saved If this be his meaning there is no True Church which is not sound and secure in this sense For a True Church must contain all things necessary to Salvation both in order to our Belief and Practice as is certain neither does Dr. St. deny it and sure whoever dies having discharged all things necessary to his Salvation as well in reference to his Belief as Practice will certainly be saved as is manifest from those words of our Saviour Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata which is a much as if he had said whoever observes my Commandments shall certainly be saved and doubtless no Body can do all that is necessary to Salvation without observing Gods Commandments Does he mean by it a Church that does not teach any thing whatsoever as an Article of Faith which is either an Errour or Corruption This seems to be his meaning But neither is it possible that any Church whatsoever should be a True Church and yet not sound and secure in this sense For it is a manifest Contradiction to affirm That such a Church is a True Church but yet that she fathers upon God or teaches God to be the Author of some Errour or Corruption as necessarily she must if she teaches any Errour or Corruption as an Article of Faith A True Church must not err against any Fundamental point of Faith as is certain nor consequently against this point God is not the Author of any Errour or Corruption whatsoever which doubtless is Fundamental A true Church therefore must not teach any Errour or Corruption as an Article of Faith or which is the same must not teach God to be the Author of any Errour or Corruption For to teach this is to err against the forementioned point Does he mean by it a Church that does not require or enjoyn any Practice or any other thing destructive to Salvation as doubtless all Idolatry is whether she teaches it as an Article of Faith or not But how can a Church be true and yet not sound nor secure in this sense also A true Church must lead men to Salvation and certainly it cannot lead men to Salvation if it enjoyns and requires them to do things destructive thereunto Wherefore I cannot see what Dr. St. is able to mean by a Sound and Secure Church which does not prove either that there is not in the world any Church True and Sound or that there is no Church True which is not Sound and secure and we are so far from confounding a True Church with a Sound and Secure Church in the first sense abovementioned i. e. with a Church free from all dangers and difficulties as Dr. St. will needs suppose we do that we constantly affirm that there is no True Church in the world Sound and Secure in that sense according to what I set down in my Book pag. 5. But the Dr. did not think fit to take notice thereof From what has been agitated in the precedent Discourses it manifestly appears that Dr. St. is guilty of Self Contradiction by asserting that the Roman Church is a True Church and yet charging her with Idolatry yea the grossest Idolatry of the world and as I promised at the beginning I am willing to admit as Judges in this plea the Learned men in our two famous Universities CHAP. IX The Doctor 's Answer to my Appendix proved Frivolous I Come now to consider what Answer Dr. St. is pleased to afford to the Appendix of my Book which he Attacks in the next place wherein to confirm the former Doctrine concerning the Nullity of the Charge of Idolatry cast upon the Roman Church I proved that either his Principles whereon he bottoms the forementioned Charge were not good or that he himself was an Idolater and the greatest part of his Answer being contained in less than three leaves in Octavo is stuffed up with Scoffs gawdy expressions jingling Metaphors superfluous Digressions Railery and such like Chaff the common Ingredients of his Books After I had declared each premise by it self I summed up the substance of my Argument in this manner Whoever Worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness is an Idolater according to Dr. St.'s main Principle whereby he pretends to make good the Charge of Idolatry laid upon us in the Veneration of Images But whoever Worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by Images by words or by Imagination he worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness as is manifest Therefore whoever Worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by Words or Images or by his own Imagination as is ding to Dr. St.'s Principles is an Idolater but Dr. St. does worship God represented unto him without the Beatifical Vision either by words by Images or his own Imaginations as is evident if he Worships God at all Whence I conclude that he is an Idolater according to his own Concessions Now Dr. St. cannot deny the Consequences if he once grants the Premises neither can he deny the Premises without eating his own words or denying some manifest Principle For certainly he is not so wicked as to confess that he never Worships God nor so Phanatically pround as to say That he does enjoy the Beatifical Vision Whence it follows that he must grant that he Worships God represented unto him in some manner beneath the Beatifical Vision For it is certain that all other Representations of God different from the Beatifical Vision must necessarily fall beneath it Hence I infer that all Representations of God excepting the Beatifical Vision which is an Intuitive Knowledg of God are inferiour to his Greatness For all such Representations as the Apostle teaches us are Enigmatical and per speculum not representing God on the part of the object sicuti est as he is but as Scholastical Divines term them inadequate and abstractive per species alienas by Idea's alien and far estranged from the Nature of God and consequently infinitely beneath his Greatness For whatsoever is not God must necessarily be infinitely beneath him Since therefore all Representations of God not as he is but by alien Species and Idea's such are all Representations of God by words by Images or by abstractive and imperfect Imaginations are far inferiour to his Greatness and Majesty it is manifestly inferred that whoever Worships God represented unto him in either of the forementioned manners must needs worship him represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness Neither does Dr. St. in his Answer to this point any where refute this Doctrine but rather confirms it confessing plainly pag. 39. That his Conceptions cannot reach the Greatness of
exteriourly Now my intent was by discovering the vast absurdities which wait upon Dr. St.'s Argument whereby he pretends to prove Roman Catholicks guilty of Idolatry to shew the inanity and nullity thereof according to that irrefragable Maxime of Rational Discourses Out of Truth alone neither Falsity nor Absurdity does follow and because perhaps some might not think it any absurdity to grant that Dr. St. is an Idolater and consequently admitting it might stick to his Argument I added that the same Argument of the Dr. had it any force in it would prove the Evangelists and the Holy Ghost to be Idolaters an absurdity so great that no Christian can assent unto and when we argue ab absurdo the greater and more evident the absurdity we infer is the better is the Argument So that my Discourse runs thus Either Dr. St.'s Argument proves the Evangelists and Holy Ghost to be Idolaters or it proves nothing as I have shewen throughout that Appendix But it does not nor cannot prove the Evangelists and the Holy Ghost to be Idolaters For certainly there can be no good proof of a Falsity or Absurdity Therefore his Argument proves nothing When shall we find any thing in the Dr. that looks like a rational Answer to this Charge of Idolatry which lies so heavy upon him out of his own Tenets He saies pag. 37. That God did forbid in the Commandment the worship of him by Images but not the worship of him by our Conceptions although unsuitable to his incomprehensible nature without taking any notice of what I objected to the contrary for pag. 19. I affirmed that the Dr. himself pag. 59. in his Discourse concerning the Roman Idolatry did understand the prohibition contained in the Commandment of all kind of Similitudes or Representations whatsoever whether of a real or imaginary Being For the words of the Law being general all sorts of Representations or Likenesses of God are necessarily comprehended therein Now not only Corporeal Images but also Words and Conceptions are certain Repretations and Resemblances of their objects which Dr. St. never denied Yea Knowledge or Mental Conception is commonly defined a Formal Representation of an Object and it is an ordinary opinion among Philosophers that in obscure and abstract Conceptions the mind frames an Idea of the Object And certainly should one adore his own thoughts and Idea's he would commit Idolatry and transgress this Commandment Wherefore this Commandment does forbid the making any Image or Representation of God whether Spiritual or Corporeal not absolutely but as the Law saies to adore it Since therefore as Dr. St. confesses in his former book and the Reasons now alledged do evince the Law speaks of all kinds of Representations and Resemblances in order to that effect why does he in his Answer to my Book confine the Law only to Corporeal Representations Again if according to the Dictates of Nature as Dr. St. affirms pag. 36. who therefore thinks this commandment to be of an unalterable Nature common to all and not peculiar to the Jews 't is Idolatry to represent God by Corporeal Images or to adore him so represented because Corporeal things represent God in a way far beneath his Greatness which is the reason he produces for the Law it follows evidently that whoever adores God represented unto him in a way beneath his Greatness whether by words Images or gross Imaginations for neither of these waies do represent him in a manner suitable to his Majesty and there are unworthy Conceptions of God as well as unworthy Images is an Idolater which is what I intended to prove against him For in natural Precepts such as this is the Law extends as far as the Reason of the Law and according to the constant Axiome of Logicians Causalis vera infert universalem veram If the Proposition which contains the cause or reason of a thing be true there follows necessarily an universal Truth Wherefore if this Proposition who adores God represented by Corporeal things is an Idolater because he adores him represented in a way inferiour to his Greatness be true as Dr. St. will needs have it to be this Universal must also be true Whoever adores God represented in a way inferiour to his greatness is an Idolater But the Dr. thought it best not to take any notice at all of these things and I find that among many other his rare accomplishments one is that he is excellent in forgetting such things as he knows he cannot answer In the same page he will seem to lay in the dust my whole Discourse with these only words But the mischief is all this subtlety of my Argument is used against the Law-maker and not against me O Irrefragable Answer if such Answers as these wll serve the turn I 'le warrant you the Dr. will never be puzzled Let any one interpret the Law of God never so ridiculously if he be urged with the Absurdities that flow from such an Interpretation his answer may be according to this learned Dr. when he hath nothing else to say That all the Absurdities they pretend to draw from his Interpretation are against the Law-maker and not against him Here occurs unto me what I have lately read in a brief account of the most material passages between the Quakers and the Baptists at the Barbican Meeting London October 9. 1674. pag. 9 10. The Anabaptist press'd the Quaker in this manner the Apostle saith Let Women be silent in the Church Why suffer ye Women to declare The Quaker answered The Woman to be silenced is the Flesh Has the Flesh replies the Anabaptist a Husband Yea saies the Quaker and who is it replyed again the Anabaptist the Quaker promptly answered The Devil But the Anabaptist goes on and urges The Text saith Let a Woman ask her Husband at home must the Flesh be instructed by the Devil in matters of Religion Here the poor Quaker seemed according to this account to be puzzled But had Dr. St. been by him he would have suggested to him this easie answer Alas for thee Thou canst not understand All thy subtlety is against Paul and not against me The debate between us and Dr. St. is concerning the right meaning of Gods Commandment The Dr. saies that thereby are prohibited all Representations of God in a way inferiour to his Greatness and the Adoring of him so Represented And after I had shewn out of undeniable Principles the absurdity of this interpretation can the Dr. think it a sufficient answer to say All this subtlety is against the Law maker and not against him Whenas all the Absurdities I deduce are against Dr. St.'s interpretation of the Law not against the Law it self nor the Law-maker In the pag. 38. he seems to place the difference between Thoughts of God and Corporeal Images of him in order to our present design That the former proceeds from the necessary weakness of our understanding not being able to reach the Greatness of God who therefore has procured
Spirit and Judgment in matters of Religion and in the Interpretation of Scripture but obliges all to submit to her judgment as is manifest neither can the Dr. question it since he oftentimes complains of the Tyranny as he is pleased to term it of the Roman Church in this point See Doctor Stillingfleet against Doctor Stillingfleet pag. 10. all which he passes over in silence Pag. 52. the Dr. wonders why I do not speak a word of the Fanatick Principles of Rebellion owned as he will needs have it by the Jesuitical party viz. The King 's deriving his power from the people and the people's Authority to call the King to account and if they see good to take away his Power and to chang the Government and not only so but to take away his Life too which pestilent Principles he had quoted out of Mariana a Jesuit and to shew that not only the Jesuits but also the Roman Church does approve these Principles which was his main task he adds that the party which owns these Principles Jesuits is to this day the most countenanced and encouraged at Rome So that he not only Fathers the forementioned Principles upon the whole Body of the Jesuits because they were delivered by one of their Community but also upon Rome because it favours the Jesuits which Argument of the Dr's is as conclusive as if you should Argue thus Hugh Peters a Member of the University of Cambridge preached in the late Wars Rebellious Principles Therefore not only the University of Cambridge but his Majesty also who hath shewen a a particular kindness for that University do countenance such Principles Who would not contemn such a Consequence And yet the University of Cambridge has not made a more publick detestation of those Rebellious Principles of Hugh Peters than the Body of the Jesuits has made of the forementioned Doctrines of Mariana Besides the Pope even in the common opinion of Protestants is a Sovereign Temporal Prince of Rome and its adjacent Territories and as zealous or more if we believe Protestants of his civil Authority as ony other Temporal Prince whatsoever how then is it credible that he should countenance so much the Jesuits as the Dr. saies he does if they did allow such Rebellious Principles destructive to the Sovereignty of Temporal Princes Moreover that party Dr. St. speaks of is countenanced by several Kings who would be loth to be deprived of their Kingdoms But alas for them poor Princes they do not understand the Intrigues of the Jesuits though they converse often with them neither have they men about them able to discover such pernicious Doctrines King Henry the 4th of France his Majesties Grandfather and the present French King both favourers of the Jesuits are unacquainted with matters of State and Civil Government but Dr. Edward Stillingfleet the great Polititian of the world comprehends clearly the true interest of Princes and though he has scarse ever had any converse with Jesuits yet with the sublety of his private Spirit whereby he is able to discover in a moment what Scriptures are Canonical and which is their legitimate sense he has learned their Intrigues and pestilent Principles Finally those who understand the temper of Rome better than Dr. St. affirm that the Dominicans and Clergy are as much or more countenanced there than Jesuits and yet the Dominicans and Clergy if we believe Dr. St. are no great friends to Jesuits In the same page he saies That if J. W. answer again let him speak out like a man concerning those Rebellious Principles abovementioned Well then J. W. speaks out like a man and tells the Dr. plainly That he would be very sorry were he not perswaded that he detected the aforesaid Principles more than the Dr. himself does for all that he can gather from his works For whatever Dr. St.'s practices have been which J. W. has not yet made it his business to enquire after yet even those very Principles whereby he pretends to clear the Protestant Church from the Crime of Scisme do vindicate had they any force in them all Rebellions and Treacherous Conspiracies though never so execrable and are most destructive to all Civil Government than any Doctrines of Mariana as will manifestly appear to whoever shall take pains to compare them And to apply the Dr.'s own words to himself in his Answer to Dr. Cressy's Apologetical Epistle p. 475. He that owns the Principles that lead to him Treason wants only an opportunity to act them So that if Dr. St. has a just and real zeal for his Majesties Interest and Security according to what he affirms pag. 52. his Principles do not lead him unto it but the prospect of some advantage thereby I proved the Roman Church to be free from Fanaticisme because all Fanaticisme as I shewed or at least that sort of Fanaticisme which maintaines rebellious Principles is against all Lawful and competent Authority as Dr. St. himself must needs confess Now what is countenanced by a competent and lawful authority is not against all such authority as is manifest and consequently cannot be Fanaticisme at least that sort of Fanaticisme that maintains rebellious Principles Since therefore the Roman Church is a True Church unerring in all Articles of Faith and since the Authority of a True Church is a lawful Authority and sufficient to clear particular waies of proceeding from Fanaticisme as with several instances I have shewen pag. 9. in the proof of my fourth Proposition though the Dr. cunningly passes them over it evidently follows That whatever the Roman Church countenances as long as she remains a True Church cannot be Fanaticisme nor Rebellion and by consequence she is free from those crimes For why should any one impute to her that which she does not countenance To this the Dr. Answers pag. 54. First That he charged as Fanaticks several persons in our Church who were never countenanced by her neither did they submit to her Authority But what answer is this to me who pretended only to clear our Church from Fanaticisme and how can she be justly impeached of Fanaticisme which she does not allow of Yea the Principal design of the Dr. in that Chapter was to Charge the Roman Church with Fanaticisme as appears from its Title But he adds that he produced those instances to prove against his Adversary T. G. That the Sects and Fanaticisms among Protestants here in England could not be the effect of the reformation since there were as wild and extravagant Fanaticisms before Good just as if he should have argued in this manner King Henry the 8th or Edward the 6th could not bring in Protestancy here in England because Luther had broached it before in Germany There have been Fanaticks heretofore among the Roman Catholicks as there are now among Protestants But with this difference That the very Constitution of the Roman Church is repugnant to Fanaticisme since it expressly prohibits men to be guided by their own private
those two Revelations of the abovementioned Saints were approved of in particular by the Roman Church or in general True it is that the Roman Church declares them both to be Saints and to be famous for their Revelations but she does not therefore approve of every porticular Revelation related to have been made unto them The whole Christian Church looks upon Christ and his Apostles as famous for their Miracles and Doctrines shall we therefore hence infer that the whole Christian Church approves of every particular Miracle related of them by any Author whatsoever and of every particular Doctrine which some one or other teaches to have been delivered by them Are there not many false Miracles and Doctrines father'd upon Christ and his Apostles wherefore to the end that the Roman Church be proved Fallible by reason of the two forementioned Revelations contrary the one to the other it was necessary for Dr. St. to have shewen that they were both approved of by our Church which the Dr. has not yet done Those two Saints might be famous for their Revelations and deservedly look'd upon as such though the abovesaid two Revelations or at least one of them had been forged Moreover though one of these two Revelations as being contrary one to the other was false and the person to whom such a Revelation is sayed to have been made either deceived or was deceived supposing she affirmed that she had had such a Revelation yet it does not therefore follow that either such a Revelation was Fanaticisme or such a person a Fanatick For sure Dr. St. will not enlarge so much the roll of Fanaticks as to affirm That all such as are deceived are Fanaticks For so he must cast himself into that heard since certainly he is not so vain as to think that in no Interpretation of Scripture in no Tenet whatsoever of so many as he has laid down in his Books he has been deceived Wherefore as an unjust Warr is not Rebellion if it be countenanced by the Authority of a True and Lawful Sovereign Prince For Sovereigns may wage unjust Warrs So neither a false Revelation is Fanaticisme if it be countenanced by the Authority of the True Church supposing that the True Church may countenance such Revelations For it is Essential Fanaticisme as we have seen to be contrary to Authority I have enlarged my self upon this point of Fanaticisme because the Dr. seems to hugg it as the Benjamin of his Mimical Wit and presumes so much of his endeavours in this kind that he boldly attests as we hinted above that his Adversaries have not said so much as one wise word to clear their Church from the Aspersion of Fanaticisme The Dr. vapours pag. 59. that this Charge of Fanaticisme was a new Charge yet the Author of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stillingfleeton tells us whence he borrowed it snd neither Bellarmin Becanus or any of their old beaten Souldiers could give them any assistance they found not the Title of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church in any of their Common place Books therefore plain Mother-wit must help them 'T is a wonder that order has not been given to erect a Statue to Dr. St. for so rare an Invention as this is of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church and if his Mother-wit could help him without the assistance of Common-place Books to frame this new Charge against us well may the Mother-wit of his Adversaries help them without needing the assistance of any Staunch-Author for such he terms our Antient Writers to answer it There is a short way to answer Dr. St. 's Books without needing to read Antient Authors Read only his Books and you will find the Answer to whatever he objects against us so full they are of self-contradictions They are like to certain venemous Beasts that breed in themselves the Antidote against their own poison I have lately read a perfect Character of Dr. St's proceedings in charging Roman Church with Fanaticisme drawn by himself in a Sermon preached before his Majesty 24. of February last 1674. Where shewing how licentious people among the Gentiles heretofore as in these times among Christians brought Vertue into Contempt and having assigned for the first Medium they laid hold of to effect their wicked design viz. The seperating Religion and morality from each other he adds page 11. These words The next thing was to make it vertue to appear ridiculous which was a certain way to make Fools out of love with it who do not consider what is fit to be laughed at but what is so When Socrates at Athens undertook with many sharp and cutting Ironies to reprove the vices of his age and with a great deal of Wit and Reason to perswade men to the sober practice of vertue the licentious people knew not what to do with him For they were not able to withstand the force of his Argments At last Aristophanes having a Comical Wit whereby he was able to make any thing seem ridicalous although he knew very well the Wisdome and Learning of Socrates yet to please and humour the people he brings him upon the Stage and represents his grave instructions after such a manner as turned all into a matter of laughter to the people of Athens This is the method which men take when they set their wits against Vertue and Goodness They know it is impossible to argue men out of it but it is very easie by ridiculous postures and mimical gestures and profane Similitudes to put so grave and modest a thing as Vertue is out of countenance among those who are sure to laugh on the other side I do not think that such things can signifie much to wise men but when was the world made up of such and therefore it signifies very much to the mischief of those who have not the courage to love despised Vertue nor to defend a cause that is laughed down Thus far the Dr. All which may be easily applied to Dr. St. himself For the main task of the Dr. in his Treatise of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church was to render ridiculous the Religious practices of the Roman Catholicks and of so many Saints famous throughout the world for their Zeal and Piety which to use his own words was a certain way to make fools out of love with our Church who do not consider what is fit to be laughed at but what is so He could not be ignorant of the great reputation even the modern Saints of our Church deservedly enjoy upon account of their Vertue far beyond what Socrates had yet like another Aristophanes having a Comical and Drolling Wit whereby he is able to make any thing though never so Sacred to seem ridiculous only to please and humour Licentious people he represents their grave Instructions and their Charitable and devout practices in such a manner as he turns all into a matter of Laughter He knows it is impossible to argue judicious men out of the opinion they
have of St. Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis St. Ignatius and St. Teresa but it is very easie by Mimical Expressions and profane Similitudes to render them ridiculous and contemptible among those who are sure to laugh on the other side But such proceedings can signifie nothing to Wise men but only to such as have not courage to love despised Vertue nor to defend a Cause that is laughed down Come Come Dr. Stillingfleet it is too notorious to all intelligent persons what you pretend with this scurrilous drolling way of attacking the Roman Church Your aim is to bring all Religion and Vertue into Contempt and Derision however you endeavour to disguized so mischievous a design with all Artifices possible I wish from my heart I were able to impute your Misdemeanours and Miscarriages in your Controversial Books to Ignorance or Inadvertency But on the one side your Mistakes are so gross your Contradictions so palpable and your Aspersions so notoriously scurrilous that he must needs be a Fool who cannot see them and on the other side the works you have published do proclaim you no Fool that I am forced to impute your unhandsome proceedings to the Malice of your Will not the Ignorance of your Understanding The Dr. pag. 70. endeavouring to stave off the Self-contradiction charged upon him in imputing to the Roman Church Divisions in matters of Faith saies thus But the fourth and fifth Proposition viz. of my Book in this point are the most healing Principles that have yet been thought on Fie for shame Why should we and they of the Church of Rome quarrel thus long We are very well agreed in all matters of Faith as I shall demonstratively prove it from the Argument of J. W. drawn from his two last Propositions All who assent unto the antient Creeds are undivided in matters of Faith by Prop. 4. But both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds Ergo they are undivided in matters of Faith And hath not J. W. now done his business and very substantially proved the thing he intended But I hope we may enjoy the benefit of it as well as those of the Church of Rome and that they will not henceforward charge us with dividing from their Church in any matters of Faith since we are all agreed in owning the antient Creeds and seeing we are not divided from the Church but by differing in matters of Faith according to his Proposition it follows that we are still Members of the True Church and therefore neither guilty of Heresie nor Scisme By what Dr. St. sets down here any prudent man may clearly see how grossly and wilfully he mistakes himself My fourth Proposition set down by me pag. 12. whereof the Dr. makes mention in the place now quoted and to which I refer my self in the Syllogism I frame pag. 13. runs thus All those who assent to the antient Creeds are according to Dr. St. 's opinion mark those words undivided in matters and Articles of Faith and that was the Dr. 's perswasion I proved out of his Rational Account pag. 56 58. and thence I conclude pag. 13. that according to Dr. St. mark those words All those who agree to the antient Creeds are of the same Communion and undivided in matters of Faith Now this wise Dr. most grossly supposes that it is the same for me to say All those who agree to the antient Creeds are according to Dr. St. undivided in matters of Faith where I only relate Dr. St. 's opinion argue thence against him ad hominem or to say absolutely All those who agree to the antient Creeds are undivided in matters of Faith which words pronounced so without any modification import as if I were of that perswasion whereas I am very far from it neither here nor in any other place do I defend any such Doctrine Wherefore the Major Proposition in the Syllogism set down by the Dr. is in his opinion True and consequently may be subservient to prove against him but in my opinion it is false and of no force to demonstrate any thing against me and I confess that it is a very compendious way to compose the differences between me and the Dr. if one may suppose as he here does That what he saies I say and that it is the very same for me to affirm such a thing is so according to Dr. St's opinion or it is true that Dr. St. thinks so and such a thing is so or it is true what Dr. St. thinks which Propositions doubtless are very different For to the truth of the former Proposition 't is enough that Dr. St. be of that opinion whether his opinion be true or false but to the truth of the latter 't is requisite that his opinion be true and that what he saies be so as he saies it is Certainly Christians may truly affirm without forfeiting their Faith that according to the opinion of the Jews Christ is not the Messias will the Dr. therefore infer hence that Christians may truly affirm that Christ is not the Messias or that Christians and Jews are agreed in that main point Fie for shame to use your own expression you a Doctor of Divinity and cannot distinguish between Propositions so notoriously different Where is the ingenuity you so much boast of Sure you imagined that the Reader would be so silly as to take upon your bare word what you write or quote without ever examining or comparing it By what I have said in reference to the Major Proposition of his Syllogisme whereby he pretends to prove demonstratively against us That both Catholicks and Protestants are agreed in matters of Faith any one many judge what Demonstrations we are to expect from Dr. St. As concerning the Minor Proposition of the Drs. Syllogisme he supposes it to be the same with my Fifth wherein he is also wilfully mistaken For my Fifth Proposition is this All Roman Catholicks assent unto the antient Creeds whereas his Minor was this Both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds where he adds That Protestants assent unto the Antient Creeds which I never affirmed and the Dr. cannot be ignorant that Roman-Catholicks hold Protestants do not believe in that Article even of the Apostles Creed Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam which in its true and legitimate sense signifies the Roman Catholick Church and those only are to be thought to believe Scripture and the Antient Creeds who believe them in the true and legitimate sense which in our Doctrine is only that sense which is agreable or not repugnant to the exposition of the Roman Catholick Church So that Protestants according to the perswasion of Catholicks do not believe the Antient Creeds because they do not believe them rightly understood But according to Dr. St. 's opinion Roman Catholicks do believe the Scripture and the Antient Creeds rightly understood For his Rule is that whoever understands Scripture or the Antient Creeds as by his natural
faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood he thinks they are to be understood such an one rightly understands them Now Roman Catholicks understand them as the Natural Faculty in them of discerning Truth and Falshood teaches them and Dr. St. ought to believe that we do so as he will have us to believe the like of him and if we do submit to the judgment of the Roman Catholick Church concerning the true interpretation of Scripture and of the Antient Creeds the Natural Reason that is in us teaches us so to do And sure Dr. St. will not so far abase the Authority of the True Church and of her Doctors as to assert that whoever is induced by their Authority to believe such to be the true sense of such particular places of Scripture as they expound them in must needs misinterpret them Hence I infer that neither the Minor Proposition in the Drs. Syllogisme is granted by us and is not the Dr. like to demonstrate many things if such be his Demonstrations that both the Major and Minor are denied by his Adversaries is not this to do his business very substantially Yet the formentioned Syllogisme is a demonstration against the Dr. that Roman Catholicks and Protestants are undivided in matters of Faith according to his opinion and consequently must be granted by him to be both of the same Church and I concluded thence above that he must either deny the Protestant Church to be True or grant the Roman Church to be so Moreover the Syllogisme I form pag. 13. out of my Fourth and Fifth Proposition is a demonstration against Dr. St. That all Roman Catholicks as long as they remain so are undivided in matters of Faith which is all I there pretended For I never intended to prove that they were so undivided with such as are out of their Communion CHAP. XI Some Difficulties raised by the Dr. against my Judgment concerning his manner of proceeding Rejected BEfore I make an end I cannot but take notice of some Difficulties Dr. St. sets down in his particular Preface relating to the Judgment I frame of his manner of Proceeding in these words couched by me pag. 11. I verily believe that Dr. St. did his Interest byass him that way could with Lucian Porphyrius and those many Libertines of our Country the spawn of such Books as these he could I say flurt with as much picquantness and railery at Christian Religion as he does as the Roman charging Christians with Superstitions Corruptions and Dissensions What does he not say against these words He calls them a base Suggestion wherein there is no colour of Truth pag. 8. A slie Insinuation a Calumny too gross to need any farther Answer pag. 9. and that it had been better to have called him at Atheist in plain terms p. 8. I perceive the man is angry 'T is necessary to treat him mildly that he may come to himself But withal I reflect that many do endeavour to supply with Anger the want of Reason and to Hector one with Bravadoes into their opinion when they cannot draw him with Arguments Let us examin in particular what he objects against the fore-mentioned words He saies That I very honestly distinguish the Christian Religion and the Roman from each other And sure I should not deal honestly did I not distinguish the Roman Religion from the Christian as a Species from the Genus and as a part from the whole For we do not deny but that there are many vulgarly called Christians because they are truly Christened and profess to believe in Christ and acknowledge the Apostles Creed although interpreted in their way Such were Donatists Pelagians Arians and others held by us and Protestants too for Hereticks who are never owned to be Roman Catholicks I confess I have not learn'd as yet so great kindness for our Church as to make it the same Individual Church those who do so with their own Church let them answer for themselves with an Heretical nay with an Idolatrous Church Wherefore 't is manifest that the Christian Religion taken in the aforesaid sense does comprehend more than the Roman So that what I intended in the forementioned place was that the way Dr. St. takes to impugne the particular Tenets of the Roman Church does if it be of any force annul the common Principles of Christianity wherein all those who own themselves to be Christians do agree And that this was my meaning any one who was not resolved to quibble might easily have seen In the next place he asks me pag. 8. What is this verily believe of mine grounded upon Doubtless the rage my words put him into did not let him see what followed For I layed down the Reasons of what before I asserted in these words For if it be a rational way of proceeding to rally together whatever has been objected by the Enemies of a Community without making mention of the Answers given by them or the sentence pronounced in their favour and to Father upon the whole Body the misdemeanours of some members although disowned by the Major part which are the Artifices used by Dr. St. in his works against Catholicks what Community is there so holy which may not easily be traduced All this the Dr. very handsomly omits without so much as answering a word thereunto For he is too wise to take notice of any thing that may prejudice his design and only is pleased to divert the Reader with impertinent Questions as whether This verily believe of mine be grounded upon the Authority of our Church or rather upon some Vision or Revelation made by some of our Saints Whereas in the forementioned words the Motives of that my belief are clearly set down The Dr. cannot deny but that among Christians even of the Primitive Church there were committed Incest Simony Adultery and several other horrid Crimes worse than those which the very Heathens did commit as may be gathered out of the Gospel the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles and that there were Heresies among them as that of the Nicolaites Wherefore if the misdemeanours of some Members may be fathered upon the whole Community although disowned by the Major part this absurdity would follow that the Christan Religion even when it was in its Primitive purity might be called an Incestuous Simonical Adulterous Heretical and a worse Religion than Paganisme Again 't is certain that many Enormous things were objected by the Jews against our Saviour as he was a Blasphemer a Seducer a Drunkard and that he Preached Sedition and that he was possess'd by the Devil and that the Religion he founded was a ridiculous scandalous and Superstitious Religion Now should one of a picquant and malicious wit represent these and several other blemishes objected against Christ his Religion without taking notice of the Answers given them nor of the pregnant Arguments produced in favour and vindication of Christ and his Religion what a low opinion what an aversion from Christian Religion
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
low opinion of Christian Religion even when it was in its greatest purity since they think it so hard that being faced with the Roman Religion which seems to them to be so full of Corruptions Superstitions and abominations the one may be distinguished from the other or that the Roman Religion is not so ridiculous and ill-favoured as they represent it to be since it is so like the Christian Religion even in its greatest Purity that being compared together 't is extream difficult to know which is which and that by such a parallel men are incited either to embrace them both or reject them both The Dr. goes yet farther and endeavouring to supply with counterfeited zeal the difficiency of true and solid reasons puts down these words pag. 11. I would fain know of these men whether they do in earnest make no difference between the Writings of such as Mother Juliana and the Books of Scripture between the Revelations of St. Bridgit St. Catherin c. and those of the Prophets between the actions of St. Francis and Ignatius Loyola and those of the Apostles if they do not I know who they are that expose our Religion to purpose If they do make a difference how can the representing their Visions and practises reflect dishonour upon the other so infinitely above them so much more certainly conveighed down to us with the consent of the whole Christian world In answer to this Objection I would fain know of the Dr. whether he does in earnest make no difference between a Door a Vine a Worm a Lamb a Shepheard c. and Christ our Saviour If he does not then Christ is no better than a Door a Vine a Worm a Lamb a Shepheard which to affirm is Blasphemy if he makes a difference how does the Scripture compare Christ to things so infinitely beneath him Now if he saies that these things though infinitely beneath Christ yet in some of their Properties may resemble him and his virtues and upon that account he is compared unto them without any blemish or reflexion upon his honour why might not we without reflecting any dishonour upon Christ say that Saint Francis Saint Ignatius and other Canonized Saints of the Roman Church do in their Virtues Miracles and Practises resemble those of Christ and his Apostles though infinitely above them Besides 't is manifest that Christ and his works as being an infinite value derived from the dignity of the person were far more above the Apostles and their works than those were above the particular Saints of the Roman Church and their practices notwithstanding we have the same Inducements and Topicks to believe the matters of Fact of the Apostles and Prophets as those of Christ though so far beyond them and whoever should deny the former without doubt he would open a way to deny the latter Although therefore the practises and Revelations of the particular Saints of the Roman Church be in several Circumstances inferiour to those of the Apostles and Prophets yet there may be the same Motives and Inducements we speak antecedently to Scripture taken as the word of God as when we prove against Pagans the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles to believe the one as the other So that should one deny the Virtues Revelations and Practises constantly related and believed concerning the Roman Saints and approved by our Church for of such Virtues Revelations and Practises we speak in this present debate he would doubtless give a great occasion to Pagans to deny or question the Virtues Revelations and Practises of the Apostles and Prophets The reason is because the same Motives Inducements and Topicks may serve for the belief of things very different one from another which is what I pretended and if they are of no force in the one neither are they in the other Yet one would think that the harder the thing is and the more sublime the stronger Inducements are requisite to believe it So that if the unanimous consent of so many learned and pious men is not sufficient to induce a Protestant to believe the practises and transactions of St. Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis and St. Ignatius handed down by so general a Tradition and of a far fresher date how shall the like consent be sufficient to induce Pagans to believe the works of Christ and his Apostles far more wonderful and of a staler date For commonly matters of Fact of a fresh date are more easily prov'd and believed than of a staler The difference therefore inculcated by Dr. St. between Christ and his Apostles on the one side and the proper Saints of the Roman Church on the other and the Superminency of the former above the latter is so far from diminishing the force of our Argument that it rather increases it Again Dr. St. and his Partizans commonly defend that the certainty we have that such Books are Scripture and that they were penned by such Writers whose names are prefixed unto them is of the same nature with the certainty that we have that such Books were written by Titus Livius or Plutarch which are unanimously assented unto as Titus Livius or Plutarch's Works and the certainty we have that there have been such men as Christ his Apostles and that they did such and such things which are commonly ascribed unto them with the certainty we have that there have been in the world such men as William the Conquerour Julius Caesar and Henry the Eighth and that they have done such things as unanimously are attributed unto them So that whoever should deny all such meer Humane Histories would be in a fair way to deny that ever there have been such men as Christ and his Apostles or that they have done such things which Christians unanimously ascribe unto them This Doctrine supposed whether true or false I do not now dispute I would once more fain know of the Dr. whether he does in earnest make no difference between the Books of Scripture and the Books of Livy and Plutarch between Christ and his Apostles and their Practises and William the Conquerour Julius Caesar Henry the Eighth Practises if not then we know who they are that expose Christian Religion to purpose if he does make a difference how does he make this Parallel between things so far estranged the one from the other and if he saies the Parallel he makes is not between the persons or things themselves but between the certainty of the one and the other and there may be without doubt the same kind of certainty concerning things very different let him apply to the same answer to his Argument made against us and he will see how it comes to nothing For what we pretend is that there is the same or the like certainty the same or the like motives and inducements we speak here antecedently to Scripture held to be the word of God for such it is not held to be by Pagans to believe that there have been such men as St.
Bennet St. Dominick St. Francis St. Ignatius and that they have done such things as are unanimously attributed unto them by Roman Catholicks without any hesitation as that there have been such men as Christ and his Apostles and that they have done such things as are universally ascribed unto them by Christians So that whoever should deny that there was ever such a man as St. Bennet or that he ever founded any Order of Religious men he might easily in the like manner be brought to question or deny that there ever was any such man as Christ or that he ever founded Christian Religion there being the same or the like evidence for the one as for the other antecedently to Scripture owned as the Word of God viz. a constant Tradition of men although Christ and Christian Religion be far above St. Bennet and his Order I do not deny but that there is a more Universal Tradition for the Miracles and Transactions of Christ and his Apostles than for the particular Actions and Miracles of the forementioned Roman Saints But what then may there not be several degrees in the same kind of certainty Protestants aver as we have seen that there is the same kind of certainty and evidence against a Pagan for the Miracles of Christ as for the Actions of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar though these are attended upon by a more Universal Tradition since Jews and Pagans who deny Christs Miracles assent unto the Actions of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar and yet both we and Protestants affirm that they may as well deny or question the one as the other Moreover there is Tradition enough to induce a Moral certainty for all and every Book of the Scripture and yet doubtless there is a more general Tradition for some Books of Scripture than for others for the Old Testament than for the New and for some parts of the New than for others In the like manner though the Tradition for Christs and his Apostles Miracles be more general than for the Miracles of the above-mentioned Roman Saints approved of by our Church yet the Tradition for these is so general that it renders them Morally certain so that whoever proceeds rationally upon the account of Humane Tradition will either allow both or neither Let 's suppose that there are in the world a hundred Millions of Christians and that threescore Millions of them are Roman Catholicks For even Protestants confess that Roman Catholicks alone make up the Major part of Christendome Now whoever has the confidence to deny the Miracles of St. Bennet though assented unto by so many Millions of Roman Catholicks and for the space of above a Thousand years he would not stick should the like passion carry him that way to question the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles though agreed on by the whole Body of Christians and for the space of above a Thousand and six Hundred years Can we imagin that any prudent man does now believe the Miracles of Christ because there is such a precise number in the world and no lesser of Christians who assent unto them or rather because there is a vast number of Christians that unanimously assert them and certainly the number of Catholicks alone is a vast number Or would it not be a madness for one to say That were there no more Christians in the world to attest the Miracles of Christ than there are Roman Catholicks he would not think himself obliged to believe them upon account to Tradition and consent in their favour when as 't is certain there was a time when there were no more Christians in the world than now there are Roman Catholicks and yet even then doubtless there was Tradition and Consent sufficient to render the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles unquestionable And thus far concerning the Parallel between the Miracles and Practises of Christ and his Apostles and those of Roman Canonized Saints supposing the Actions of the latter to be inferiour as really they are in several Circumstances to those of the former Yet our Saviour expressly saies John 14.12 I say unto you He that believes in me the works that I do he shall do and greater works than these shall he do which words even according to Calvin and other Sectaries extend not only to the Apostles but also to the whole Body of the Church in succeeding Ages So that not only the Miracles and practises of the Apostles but also those of modern Saints of the Roman Church considered in themselves are as great or greater than those of Christ Did Christ do Miracles raising the Dead casting out Devils curing suddenly the Lame the Deaf the Dumb and others infected with incurable Diseases So did the Apostles and several Apostolical men of the Roman Church Did Christ Foretel things to come So did the Apostles and Roman Saints Did Christ Convert many with his Preaching So did the Apostles and several Saints of the Roman Church Was Christ a Pattern of Charity Humility Patience and all other Virtues The Apostles and many famous Roman Saints have imitated his Virtues Notwithstanding what Christ did he did it by his own power being Omnipotent but what the Apostles and other Apostolical men did in this kind they did it by the vertue and power Christ liberally conferred upon them And therefore Christ was the Principal Agent of all such works Now let any one judge whether the Parallel between the Inducements we have to be Christians and those which we have to be Catholicks and the certainty of both antecedently to Scripture owned as the word of God be so unreasonable as that only with an Admiration or two Dr. St. could prudently think to blow it off Wherefore I repeat what I have already said That the Drs. Objections against Roman Catholicks will assoon make one no Christian as no Catholick And as for several Extravagant abstruse and mystical expressions he alledges out of the Revelations and Visions of Canonized Saints of the Roman Church branding them for Fanaticisme the Dr. might as I insinuated in my Book produce out of the Revelations of St. John and the Canticles which upon this account are dash'd out of the Canon of Scriptures by some Protestants quite as strange and extraordinary expressions and Practises But Dr. St. is of those men who whatever they understand not they Blaspheme and he is as unacquainted with mystical Divinity as with other Faculties which he has a greater obligation to know Now if the Canticles and Apocalypse are sufficiently cleared from Fanaticisme notwithstanding so many strange and abstruse expressions they continue because they are approved of by the greatest part of Christians also the Revelations of St. Bridgit St. Catherine and St. Teresa are cleared from the like Aspersion because they are countenanced by the Major part of Christendome viz. the Roman Catholick Church which according to Dr. St.'s concession is a True Church And sure the approbation of a True Church and so much
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