the Church of Rome does own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Antient Creeds yet she debauches those very Principles which she professes to own pag. 34. This objection is also annulled by what we have laid down above First Dr. St. does not only grant that the Roman Church does embrace all the Essentials points of Christian Faith and consequently amongst the rest this point viz. The Honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature which he confesses to be one of them But also he allows that she does not err against any Fundamental point of Faith this being my Fifth Proposition which he assents unto and calls in his Concession Now to say That the Roman Church does not err against any Fundamental point as he saies she does not and yet that she teaches Idolatry which is to err against a Fundamental point even according to his Principles is a palpable contradiction Secondly When Dr. St. grants our Church to be a True Church as he does without doubt he takes a True Church as contradistinct from a False Church or from a Church which is not True otherwise he would interpret in a quite contrary sense this his Concession The Roman Church is a True Church i.e. The Roman Church is no true Church which interpretation cannot but seem to any prudent man very ridiculous Now a Church may fail to be a True Church either because she does not positively embrace some Essential point or because she denies some Essential point and errs against it and to the Essence of a True Church it is requisite not only to embrace positively all Fundamental points but also not to err against any one of them as I have demonstrated above Neither do I think that Dr. St. will deny it otherwise he would doubtless have denyed our Fifth Proposition Whoever therefore affirms that our Church is a True Church and yet that it errs against a Fundamental point as necessarily it must if it maintains Idolatry does as much as affirm it is True and not True Thirdly let 's suppose since 't is possible for a Church to contradict her self that a Church embracing all the ancient Creeds with the Articles contained in them should notwithstanding contradict her self denying some of the main points couched in those Creeds and owned by her sure Dr. St. will not say that such a Church is a True Church and that by contradicting those main Articles of Faith she does only debauch them but not ruine or destroy them Certainly every Contradictory ruins it Contradictory and every Contrary destroys its Contrary Will the Dr. affirm that the grossest of the Heathens Idolatry did only debauch and not destroy this Prindiple owned by them viz. The honour due only to God is not to be given to a meer Creature and after the Dr. has taken so much pains to shew that the Veneration of Images owned by the Roman Church is point blank against their 2d Commandment will he say now it only debauches it but does not destroy it Wherefore Dr. St. cannot defend that the Roman Church does teach Idolatry without granting that she contradicts and destroys a Fundamental point of Religion neither can he grant that she contradicts a Fundamental point of Religion and yet allow that she is a True Church So that to maintain on the one side that she teaches Idolatry and on the other that she is a True Church is to commit a manifest Contradiction I insinuated in my Book the similitude of a way from one place to another hinted at also by the Dr. pag. 50. which may contribute much to clear this matter Suppose as the custome is in some Almanacks which set down the true waies from one place to another one should describe a True way how we may go from London to York and setting down all the Towns which others commonly mention should intermingle them with other places that lie either the quite contrary way or at least quite out of the way as for instance from Stamford which lies in the ordinary way to the Fennes thence to Salisbury thence to Plimouth thence to the West Indies and if you please to East-Indies also for you are alwayes in a true way from London to York only with this general advice that whensoever you go out of the true way you must turn back again without specifying which places are out of the way which not but setting them down all as parts of the True way So that whoever does not go through all the places put down in the forementioned description does not follow the way therein contained Would not such a description of a True way from London to York be extream ridiculous could there be a better piece of Drollery than this for Poor Robins Almanack or can any man of common sense knowing that so many places set down in the aforesaid description lie quite out of the way from London to York call the way there described a True way from London to York For certainly whoever understands what he saies must needs understand by a True way from London to York a way that not only contains all the principal places from the one City to the other but moreover does not contain any place quite out of the way This is just our case with Dr. St. He freely confesses that the Roman Church is a True Church and a True way to Salvation but withal he affirms that she does not only contain those main points which he thinks sufficient to constitute a True Church but also other particular points which he looks upon as gross Idolatry and open Violations of the Divine Law and consequently destructive to the Salvation of men which particular points the Roman Church delivers not as Errours but as Truths and Articles of Faith which all are bound to assent unto So that whoever denies any of those particular points can no more be a Roman Catholick than if he denyed some of the main points of Christianity common both to Catholicks and Protestants Now since Dr. St. is of this perswasion that the Roman Church teaches and requires gross Idolatry and open violations of Gods Laws how can he say without manifestly contradicting himself that notwithstanding all this she is a True Church and a True way to Heaven Can a True way to Heaven be made up of a high way to Hell as certainly Idolatry is or is not Idolatry as far out of the way to Heaven as the West-Indies is out of the way from London to York The answer of the Dr. in effect is this If you be a Roman Chatholick you are in a True way to Heaven and yet if you be a Roman Catholick you are quite out of the way to Heaven and whether this be not pure non-sense I leave it to the judgment of any impartial person whatsoever Whence I conclude that all men of Reson must needs understand by a True Church a Church that does not only positively embrace all
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
be consistent with Loyalty and that if they could prove to him all sorts of High Treason to be inconsistent with Loyalty the Consequence of it would be that his Charity must be so much the less but the danger would be the same Behold here the Vindication of the forementioned Witness drawn up in the same terms and upon the same grounds whereon Dr. St. in his Controversie builds his own Vindication And yet what prudent man is there that would not look upon the aforesaid Vindication of a Witness convicted of such a manifest Self-contradiction as frivolous and insignificant Yea we have shewed already upon another account that on supposition he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon all his Arguments grounded either upon Authority or meer Reason if he has any such wherewith he pretends to make good the Charges cast upon us are false or impertinent The same is to be affirmed of whatever he shall hereafter object against our Church in matters of Faith as long as he holds it to be a True Church For nothing can be objected against our Church in that kind which does not contradict the forementioned Principle Now 't is very pretty to consider how the Dr. sports with the forementioned instance of a Witness whereof I made use grounding all his quibbles upon so gross an ignorance as is to confound Parities with identities and the being one thing like to another with being the same which Topick is very frequent in the Dr.'s Books For because a Witness must make an Affidavit before the Masters of the Chancery he presently fancies that a Writer of Controversies supposing this parity to be good must make an Affidavit and no other Obligation will suffice him before Masters of the Court of Controversies and because whatever is said by a Witness at the Bar is taken upon his Oath he imagins in the same supposition that whatever a Writer of Controversie saies must be taken also upon his Oath and in no other manner and because a Witness who stands Convicted to have forsworn himself according to the Laws of this Kingdom is to be set in the Pillory p. 27. with his Accusation on his Forehead he imagines himself as being proved guilty of Self-contradiction to be set in the Pillory with this Accusation on his forehead Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet not being able to conceive that any other punishment can be inflicted upon one who contradicts himself in matters of moment Are not these Fancies of Dr. St. wonderfully witty what fine Stuff will the Dr. make with Scripture wherein Christ is compared to a Worm to a Door to a Lamb to Lyon and to several other things infinitely below his Greatness if he be permitted to use this manner of quibbling and to make identities of parities or Parables Had not the Dr. made it his Study not to understand us he might clearly have seen that what we intended by the aforesaid instance was that whoever stands convicted to have Contradicted himself most notoriously in matters of so great concern as those of Religion are deserves no credit should be given him in such matters till he has recanted his Errour which the Dr. himself does grant I am not acquainted with the Stile of the English Church nor of our Universities yet I conceive that there would be no absurdity nor any thing done contrary to the practice of other Countries and Universities that Doctors of Divinity and publick Preachers should take their Oath to Teach and Preach the Truth in matters of Religion And in this Case should they palpably contradict themselves they would be guilty of Perjury And though they do not take their Oaths yet a natural Obligation lies upon every one not to commit gross Contradictions in matters of so high concern Some there are who though they confess that the way we have taken is sufficient to confound our Adversaries yet because they think we argue ad hominem they do not look upon this way as effectual to clear the Roman Church from the Aspersions cast upon her For Arguments ad hominem are good to confound an Adversarie but not to evince the Truth To this I Answer that an Argument ad hominem properly speaking is when one proceeds upon a Principle which he judges to be false yet because it is granted by his Adversary he endeavours to confute him thereby As for example when a Catholick argues against a Protestant out of such Versions of the Protestant Bible which are false and contrary to the Chatholick Bible to confute the particular Tenets of Protestancy whence I conclude that the way I made use of against Dr. St. was not properly ad hominem For I proceeded upon a Principle which I my self with all other Roman-Catholicks and several others of different professions hold to be true viz. The Roman Church is a true Church and which is granted by Dr. St. Neither is it of any concern that some deny the Roman Church to be a true Church For if all Arguments are ad hominem which are grounded upon some premise that is denied by some almost all Arguments are ad hominem For what is there that some do not deny Should I have defeated all Dr. St.'s Objections out of plain Scripture admitted both by him and us no body could rationally have objected that I did argue only ad hominem or slight my proofs upon that account and yet how many are there that deny the very Scripture which we and Dr. St. agree upon To close up therefore the first part of my Reply By what hitherto has been laid down it evidently appears that on supposition Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insict upon not only all the Charges of Idolatry Fanatiscisme danger of Salvation in our Communion and Divisions in matters of Faith which he pretends to fasten upon our Church fall to nothing but also all the proofs whether drawen from Authority or Reason wherewith he endeavours to make good such Charges are invalidated and annull'd which is all I did pretend in my Answer to the Dr. and whether this be not a sufficient Answer to his Book I leave to the judgment of any judicious man whatsoever Yea the Dr. himself being Conscious as it seems how ill a cause he had should he grant himself guilty of Self-contradiction in matters of so great Concern passing to the second part of his pretended Answer saies thus pag. 17. I had best stand upon my defence and utterly deny that I have contradicted my self in any thing in which J Ws. has charged me And to pass also unto the second part of my Reply let 's now consider how he does vindicate himself from the Contradictions charged upon him CHAP. IV. The Evasions of the Dr. to clear himself from Self-contradiction in Charging the Roman Church with Idolatry Examined COncerning the clearing himself from Contradiction in imputing to the Roman Church Idolatry and yet granting her to be a True Church he saies pag.
clear himself from Self-Contradiction in this point we are willing to declare him free from that imputation in the other points mentioned in my Book Secondly Because we have seen That the Dr. does confessedly grant the Roman Church to be a True way to Heaven a True Church unerring in all Articles of Faith and hence follows as already we have evidenced that she teaches nothing as an Article of Faith which is either a Falsity or Corruption and that she neither requires nor approves of any thing destructive to Salvation And yet after all this Dr. St. maintains that the Roman Church teaches and requires Damnable Errours and gross Violations of Gods laws which doubtless are destructive to Salvation and herein according to his Aspersion consists the danger of Salvation in living and dying in the Communion of the Roman Church That she teaches and allows of particular Enthusiasms contrary to the Law of God and countenances Rebellion contrary to the Duty due to Lawful Superiours which Duty is an Article of Divine Faith And herein he constitutes the pretended Fanaticisme of the Roman Church and finally that she teaches and countenances Divisions in matters of Faith which she cannot do without countenancing Heresies and Errours against Articles of Faith Whence I conclude that Dr. St. palpably contradicts himself by granting the Roman Church to be a True Church and yet charging her with danger of Salvation in her Communion Fanaticisme and Divisions in matters of Faith Thirdly because one notorious Contradiction being evidenced against any person is enough to overthrow all his authority and credit and to vacate consequently all the Arguments which depend upon his Authority and Faithfulness as the Dr. himself confesses Since therefore Dr. St. stands convicted of a palpable Self contradiction in a matter of so great a moment as is the Charge of Idolatry layed to the Roman Church and since the other Charges above mentioned depend upon his credit and faithfulness in the Quotations he produces out of our Authors and whereon he grounds such Charges we infer that the aforesaid Charges are Null till he has wiped off the Self-contradiction whereof he is Convicted or at least till those who peruse his Books have found out that his Quotations are faithful and effectual to his purpose I have read not long since in the Catholick Apology Third Edition the Right Honourable Author whereof has handled all matters of Fact objected against us so accurately and perspicuously that whoever is not resolved to be obstinate cannot but remain satisfied I have read I say in that elaborate Book pag. 269. What Gondamour observed in one of his Letters to Olivarez He saies that being out of curiosity once with King James at Chappel he perceived the Auditory extreamly attentive to their Minister yet nevertheless they would not he found trust him a whit For no sooner had be cited a place of Scripture but they all ran to their Bibles to see whether it were so or not Now if Protestants will not trust their Ministers and are taught even by the Ministers themselves not to trust them when they quote or rather read places out of their Bible which they have before them citing the Book the Chapter and the Verse and when every one or at least the greatest part of the Auditory have their Bible with them so that if the Minister should forge any thing or be mistaken in the least kind his forgery or mistake would presently be discovered to his Eternal disgrace for forging or mistaking Gods own word and not the word of men If I say even in these Circumstances where there is so little reason to suspect any forgerie or mistake they are taught not to trust their own Ministers why should they trust them in the Allegations against the Roman-Catholicks till themselves have found out that what they alledge against us is as they alledge when many times the Minister does not so much as name the Author for the thing he quotes or names the Author but not the Book or the page when he has not the Author before him nor perchance has ever seen him but what he quotes he has received at a second or third hand or if he has seen him it has been only perfunctoriously or a long time since and so he may have forgotten the words when none of the Auditory have the Book with them nor in any times know where to find it nor if they find it perhaps most of them do not understand the Language wherein it is written so that the forgery or mistake if there be any is not easily detected and at most is a forgery or mistake in the word of man not of God should the Protestants observe only this rule which they are taught by their own Ministers even in Circumstances where there is suspicion of some forgery or mistake viz. not to trust them but to suspend their Judgment till they have consulted the books themselves and find that what their Ministers alledge is true most of the Calumnies urged against us would vanish to nothing and if this is to be observed with other Ministers even according to their own Doctrine much more with Dr. St. who by standing convicted of Self-contradiction has forfeited all his Authority and Credit The Dr. seems very fond of his Treatise concerning the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church wherefore 't will not be amiss to add something in particular in reference to this point He saies pag. 51. That to prove that Fanaticisme does necessarily contain a Resistance against Authority I unhappily quote these his words p. 141. in his Discourse concerning the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church By Fanaticisme we understand either an Enthusiastick way of Religion or resisting Authority under pretence of Religion Now I thought that Dr. St. in the forementioned words had given us two different Notions or Descriptions of Fanaticisme but I was mistaken For the Dr. as it seems intended only in that place to assign two sorts of Fanaticisme The reason of my mistake was because I supposed that the Dr. proceeded like a Scholar and that accordingly beginning to treat of Fanaticisme he would give us some Description thereof But he very illogically tells us how many sorts of Fanaticisme there are without ever telling us what it is I hope he will pardon this mistake and I promise never more to be mistaken in him upon that account nor ever to suppose that he proceeds like a Scholar Neither does this mistake of mine obstruct the truth of the abovementioned Proposition layed down by me which I proved from the common perswasion of Mankind For no body judges that to be Fanaticism which is not grounded upon a private Spirit and Judgment contrary to Authority Neither does nor can the Dr. deny it Hence I inferred that the very constitution of the Roman Church which we both suppose to be a True Church is destructive to Fanaticisme because she does not leave every one to be guided by his private
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
18. That he never vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry in his Defence of Archbishop Lawd which is the Book wherein he confesses the Church of Rome to be a true Church But what does he mean by saying That he never vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry does he mean that he never writ any Treatise on this Subject That I confess to be true But sure to commit Contradiction 't is not necessary to have written Treatises in vindication of each or either part of the Contradiction Had he said in express terms The Church of Rome is a true Church and is not a true Church would he not have Contradicted himself unless he had published Books or Treatises in defence of the one or the other part of such a palpable Contradiction as this To Contradict ones self 't is enough to affirm and to deny the same thing although he has never writ or produced Arguments to prove the one or the other part Does he therefore mean that in defence of Archbishop Lawd he has not laid down any Principle nor asserted any thing which if true does not clear the Church of Rome from Idolatry and consequently contradicts the Charg he laies upon her in his Discourse of Idolatry This I have shewn to be false because in the Defence of Archbishop Lawd he grants the Church of Rome to be a true Church which concession does evidently clear her from Idolatry wherewith he charges her in his other Book neither has he yet vindicated himself from this Contradiction as we shall see by examining the shifts whereby he pretends to clear himself pag. 18. He adds in the same place that it fell out very happily that in his Defence of Archbishop Lawd pag. 596.606 he had made a Discourse to the same purpose proving the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in the Invocation of Saints and the Worship of Images But what does this help to shew that what he saies in his Defence of Archbishop Lawd does not contradict what he Asserts in his Discourse of Idolatry which is his main design in the present Answer Is not this as if one should have affirmed what Dr. St. saies in one part of his Defense of the Archbishop does contradict what he saies in another part of the same Book Therefore what he saies in his Defence of the Archbishop does not contradict what he asserts in his Discourse of Idolatry Is not Dr. St. like to have a good cause if such Inferences as these be warrantable To contradict himself in the very self same Book is more detestable and can be no medium to prove that he does not contradict himself in different Books Neither was I ignorant of the forementioned contradiction committed by him in his former Book but because my Design in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet was to annul the Charges laid upon the Roman Church in his Discourse of Idolatry I took notice only of the Contradiction betwen his former Book and latter Discourse never intending to deny that in the same book he did contradict himself For the Dr. does so stuff up his works with Contradictions that it is not necessary to turn over many Books nay nor many Chapters nor sometimes many leaves to meet with them He saies farther in the same page 18. that I do not pretend to gather out of his Books any Contradiction in Terms or a Formal Affirmation and Negation of the same Object but only by Consequence and I desire to know of him whether if I do shew as I have already shewn That what he asserts in his Rational Account does by good Consequence contradict and annul the Charges laid upon us in his Discourse of Idolatry All those Inferences mentioned above which follow from Self-contradiction in the way I insist upon do not by good consequence fall heavy upon him and if so whether this be not enough to confute him To declare the better the inanity of these Evasions he makes use of to Vindicate himself from Contradictions let us put case that one who heretofore had confest Dr. St. to be an Honest man should now upon some pick although retaining yet the former good opinion of his honesty affirm him to be a Knave and that some of the Dr.'s Friends to vindicate him from so foul an Aspersion should charge his Adversary as justly they might with Contradiction in affirming Dr. St. to be an Honest man and yet a Knave can he or any one else imagin that such a man would sufficiently clear himself from the Crime of Contradiction by saying That he never vindicated the Honesty of Dr. St. although he has heretosore and did still hold him to be an Honest man That it had happily fallen out that when heretofore he acknowledged him to be an honest man even at the same time he had published him for a Knave and finally that to say he is an Honest man and yet a Knave is no Formal Contradiction in terms since he does not Formally say that he is and is not an Honest man or affirm and deny the same thing This Case is parallel to the Vindication Dr. St. makes here for himself and so clear that any one without difficulty may make the Application And yet there is no more Contradiction in affirming that one is an Honest man and yet a Knave than in saying that the same Church is a True Church and yet Idolatrous and the Contradiction in both Cases is so palpable that it appears to any one who understands what he saies without needing to draw it out by Consequences In the next page in order to the farther clearing himself from Self-contradiction pag. 19. he carges me with Disingenuity because forsooth as he saies I barely oppose a judgment of Charity concerning our Church such he stiles this Concession of his The Roman Church is a true Church to a judgment of Reason concerning the nature of Actions and such he will needs have this his Assertion to be The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church Is not this a pretty way to save all Contradictions let them be never so palpable For in all Contradictions the one part is favourable which upon thaat ccount may be called a Judgment of Charity or Kindness and consequently according to this excellent Principle of Dr. St. cannot without Disingenuity be put in opposition to the other part which is grounded or pretended to be grounded upon other respects for both parts of a Contradiction cannot have the same enducements Suppose that Dr. St. had expressly granted The Roman Church to be and not to be an Idolatrous Church which sure is to grant palpable Contradictions if it is possible that there should be any such would the Dr. in this Case think it a satisfactory Answer to say That the one of these Judgments is of Charity and the other of Reason and that accordingly one cannot be opposite to the other and to urge the instance produced above should one be charged with Self-contradiction
for asserting Dr. St. to be an Honest man and yet a Knave certainly no prudent person can think that such a one would sufficiently clear himself by saying That he granted him to be an Honest man out of meer kindness but that he affirmed him to be a Knave upon good and solid Reason and that therefore no body could without disingenuity oppose the one Judgment against the other These pittiful shifts of Dr. St. make one exclaim O how unhappy a thing it is to engage in a bad Cause What will not some say rather than unsay themselves and confess their Errours Again either Dr. St. thinks this Concession of his The Roman Church is a true Church to be grounded upon good and solid Reason as really it is or he does not think it such now if he think it such it is not a Judgement of Charity only but of Reason also and consequently he unjustly charges me with disingenuity for opposing a Judgment of meer Charity against a Judgment of Reason since both in his opinion are Judgments of Reason If he does not think this his Concession to be grounded upon Reason how can it be a Judgment of true and real Charity Can it be true Charity to tell us That we are in a true way to Salvation That our Church does not teach us any damnable Errour or any thing destructive to our Eternal Wellfare and yet to tell us all this without any Reason to think it so Such a Charity of this if it must be called so is rather a meer Cheat than Charity Nay since the Dr. has declared himself an implacable Enemy to the Roman Church bespattering her with so many foul Aspersions 't is not credible he would grant her to be a True church did not good and solid Reasons force him thereunto and we have seen above that the very same grounds whereby he pretends to establish the Truth of the Protestant Church evince also the Truth of the Roman Church So that he must either confess That he grants his own Church to be true out of meer Charity without any solid ground for to grant it or he must acknowledge our Church to be a true Church upon good and solid Reasons at least in his Opinion And because Dr. St. and his Associates do so often vapour of their Charity in allowing Roman-Catholicks a possibility of Salvation endeavouring some of them thence to prove That their Religion is better than ours which does not allow so much to Protestants 't will not be amiss to examin the depth of this their Charity and sure if we consider how those who deny our Church to be a true Church are puzzled and to what shifts they are put concerning the continuation of the True Church for so many years before Luther and Calvin their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and several other points of highest concern objected against them we may prudently believe that when they acknowledge our Church to be a true Church they do it not so much out of any kindness they have for us as for their own proper Interest and Concern Again if that Religion has the greatest Charity and upon that account is to be held for the best Religion that makes the way of Salvation widest the Religion of the Libertines and Latitudinarians who affirm all Religions to be true and sufficient to Salvation whether Christianism Judaism Paganism or Mahometism would be the best of all Religions which certainly Dr. St. will never grant although he burns with so great Charity Moreover leaving both parties Catholicks and Protestants to their proper Tenets 't is greater Charity in Catholicks towards Protestants to tell them they are in the wrong than in Protestants towards Catholicks to tell them they are in the right or in a true way to Salvation For the most that Protestants can effect in Catholicks with this their Concession is to encourage them to go on with more alacrity in the way wherein they are since they see that even their greatest Enemies do grant them to be in a true way to Heaven when as Catholicks by telling Protestants they are in the wrong may bring many of them to the right and save them from Damnation Since they cannot but be much moved seeing that so many Learned men who are ten to one for Protestants do affirm with so great asseveration and constancy producing several solid grounds in proof of what they affirm That protestants are in the wrong way And beyond debate it is far greater Charity to save one from Damnation than only to encourage him to obtain his Salvation So it is greater Charity to tell one whom we know to be out of the way That he is in the wrong than to tell one whom we know to be in the true way That he is in the right Because the one unless he be told of his Errour will probably go on and never come whither he intended when as the other encouraged by our advice will only come sooner to his journey's end whither he would have arrived although we had told him nothing Besides when our Adversaries are pinched with the inferences we deduce from this their Concession they do so mince and clip their Charity that it scarce retains any shew or mark thereof as appears by what Archbishop Lawd Dr. Stillingfleet and others assert in this matter For they say That all Learned men among us are damned if they continue in Communion with the Roman Church Nay the same they affirm of all those who understand the pretended Absurdities they are pleased to oppose against us which in their opinion are so clear and manifest that no body who is not a meer Fool or a Madman and consequently in a condition not capable of Malice may easily understand them That scarce any one is saved amongst us That only an invincible ignorance which is not easily presumed in matters so clear as they will needs have our Errours to be and wherein every one is so much concern'd can excuse us from eternal Damnation That we are all flat Idolaters and as gross as the grossest of the Heathen and by consequence That this Proposition A Roman-Catholick may be saved hath no more truth in it than this An Idolater may be saved Finally that Roman-Catholicks may be saved upon condition they repent of their Errours as also Jews Turks and Pagans may be saved upon the like Condition Now if we compare with these their Assertions concerning Roman Catholicks what we affirm of Protestants in order to their Salvation or Damnation we shall evidently see that there is little or no difference between us and them in relation to this point and that they have no cause to make such Bravadoe's of their Charity towards us For between these two Propositions scarce any one is saved and all are damned there is so scant a difference that there is very little reason to boast thereof Neither do we deny but that some Protestants have an invincible ignorance of the Errours