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
'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
to destroy a house the difference is that the first is tedious the second is quick and active And as it would be very ridiculous for one to say when his house was blown up and shivered into pieces that notwithstanding it was not sufficiently destroyed because forsooth it was not pulled down methodically stone after stone and brick after brick so it is extreme absurd for Dr. St. to vapour that though all the accusations he frames against us are proved null and all the Arguments he brings to make them out are shewn to be false yet his Book is not sufficiently answered because all his Arguments are not solved one by one nor methodically answered Hence appears that one may be secured contrary to what Dr. St. seems to imagine p. 29. concerning the Truth safety of the Roman-Catholick Religion though he hears it charged with Idolatry by Arguments pretended to be drawn from several Topicks whereof the Dr. makes use without examining each Argument in particular For certainly the Dr. will not oblige all Christians if they desire to remain satisfied concerning the truth and purity of Christian Religion to examine in particular whatever Lucian Porphyrius and others of their Gang have objected against it though they pretended also to draw their Argments from the same or the like Topicks and had as good an Opinion and with as much Reason too of what they objected against Christianity as Dr. St. has of what he produces in opposition to the particular Tenets of Catholick Religion Is it not enough to the end one may remain satisfied concerning the Truth and safety of his Religion notwithstanding the Objections made against it that he be convinced that all such Objections are false and all the Reasons alledged in proof of them invalid and of no force Now to know that such Objections are false 't is enough to be perswaded that they contradict some common and true Principle assented unto both by the person who is to remain satisfied and such as make the Objections For what ever contradicts the Truth is false and if the Objections be false 't is evident that all their proofs are false or impertinent and this is the method we observed throughout our whole Treatise as is manifest The Dr. in his particular Preface descants at large against the manner wherewith his Adversaries answer this Book of his One man says he picks out a Sentence here and there to answer another a page or two together a third leaps from one thing to another as if resolved to pass by the greatest difficulties But he is a man of courage indeed that dares fall upon the rear and begin to confute a Book at the end of it So that if he lives long enough and get heart he may in time come to the beginning Sure Dr. St. did expect we should advise with him which way we are to attack him Let him evince that we do not destroy the Aspersions he casts upon us and their proofs and he will do something But when we have beaten down all his Assertions against us and his Arguments too to cry out that we have not struck him in the right place is very ridiculous This puts me in minde of what I have heard concerning a dapper young man well set yet of a low stature who trusting to a grant Buckler wherewith he sheltred himself would encounter any one Among several that worsted him he met with one taler than himself who over-reaching his Buckler and giving him two or three shrewd blows over the head struck him to the ground together with his Buckler Then the poor man after he had sprawled awhile having recovered himself began to enveigh against his Adversary saying A Pox take ye could you not see my Buckler There is no need for me to make the Application As it would therefore be of little comfort for us if we have not destroyed his Book that we attacked him the right way So in all reason it ought to be of little comfort for the Dr. if we have destroyed his Book that we did not set upon him that way which he imagined to be the only right and methodical way to impugn him Certainly Dr. St. is a happy man if he can solace himself with such pitiful excuses as these In particular he complains of N. O. and J. S. because as he says Gen. Pref. pag. 4.40 They steal quite behind his Book and shew a particular spite at the Dragons Tail The reason why he says thus is because they confute the later end of his Book But if they annul the part they set upon what matters all this what General who had his Army routed by the Enemy did ever think it a sufficient excuse to say That they fell upon the rear and so routed him And though I do not affirm that Dr. St's Book hath neither head nor tail yet I may with truth aver that his Book resembles a Monster in this that it has the head where it should have the tail for he ends with the Principles of his Religion whereas according to the natural method of writing he should have begun not ended with them Since therefore the Dr. ends where he should begin what wonder is it that these two worthy Authors should begin where he ends CHAP. II. Several Objections against the forementioned way of answering the Dr. proved insignificant THis way of answering is new as the Dr. will needs have it Is not this to trifle out the time and plainly to acknowledge that he is destitute of a solid reply If the way I have taken be a true and an effectual way to confute his Book as we have shewen it is of what damage is it that it be a new way Moreover this manner of confuting I have insisted upon cannot seem new to any one who is acquainted with the Schools For though the Defendant may produce several Reasons to establish the Conclusion he undertakes to maintain yet the Opponent commonly sets upon the Conclusion without taking notice of the Reasons especially when he is perswaded that the Conclusion is false and if he destroys the Conclusion all the Reasons produced in defence thereof fall to the ground And certainly a Defendant would be laught at who after he had been defeated by his Adversaries and had his Conclusion annulled should cry out Though the Conclusion be false yet the Reasons are good and solid or should not be able to afford any other answer than that the Argument made against him was new and never before heard of by him Besides should one destroy all the Arguments one by one wherewith his Adversary pretends to make good the Thesis he defends yet in rigour he would not therefore unless he adds some other principle destroy the Thesis but only shew that the Defendant does not prove it well But if one destroys the Thesis which is a more compendious way it is evident that he annuls all the Reasons and Arguments brought in proof thereof Yea if
he produced in proof thereof was void and to demonstrate this unto him would not be enough to shew that such a charge did contradict a Principle viz. the Soundness of Christian Religion true in it self and assented unto by both parties This is just our case with Dr. St. For as that Jew does contradict himself by granting Christian Religion to be a sound Religion and yet charging it with Idolatry So Dr. St. Contradicts himself by affirming the Roman Church to be a true Church and yet Idolatrous as we have proved and he now admits and as it would doubtless be a sufficient way of answering that Jew to prove unto him that the charge of Idolatry he laid upon Christian Religion was false as contradicting a Principle true in it self and assented unto by both parties So the way we have taken to answer Dr. St. being the very same must needs be sufficient and finally the Quibbles Dr. St. makes at our manner of Answering are or might be made by the forementioned Jew at the like manner of Answering him and consequently they are insignificant in both Cases or in neither Now to the Case proposed by Dr. St. my Answer is That it would be a sufficient way to Answer that person of Judah for those of Israel to prove to him as the easily might that if the Church of Israel was in those times a True Church as they both affirmed though erroneously it was not Idolatrous and that if it was not Idolatrous what ever he alledged to prove it such was void and of no force This I say would have been a sufficient way of Answering that person of Judah but not others who deny as we do the Church of Israel to have retained in that time the Essentials of a true Church and it is no wonder that what is a sufficient Answer to one be not a sufficient Answer to another Because different Adversaries go upon different Principles Let 's now see what Answer the Dr. makes to the Instance I produced of a Witness pag. 1.14 who being once Convinced of Self-Contradiction in the evidence he alledges renders himself unworthy to be heard any more in the Court at least till he has repaired his Reputation and whatever he produces void and of no force Besides the condign punishment he is liable unto To this Dr. St. Answers ingenuously confessing as has been hinted above page 15. That Self contradiction being proved overthrows the Authority of the person who stands convicted thereof and where things depend meerly upon Authority it is a good Argument and nowhere else I willingly accept of what Dr. St. so liberally grants and hence conclude that if he contradicts himself as we both now suppose he does all his Quotations and all the Arguments he grounds upon them and he has scarce any Argument which is not grounded upon some Quotation or other signifie nothing because they depend meerly upon his Authority which as he confesses is overthrown by Self-contradiction neither does he deserve to be heard any more in matters that depend of Authority till he has recruited his Credit All this according to Dr. St.'s own confession follows from Self-contradiction once proved against him And though one may seek out the Testimonies he aledges in their proper fountains at least till then and till one has found them to be faithfully quoted and who has examined all his Quotations he is not bound to give any credit unto them and should one take the pains to examin the Testimonies he alledges in their proper places he would easily see that they are either frivolous or false as the Learned Author of Catholicks no Idolaters who was pleased to examin some of them has already partly discovered Besides no body in prudence can think himself bound to examin in their proper places the allegations of one who is evidently convicted of Self-contradiction As for instance to go on in the same similitude of a Witness should one before a judge impeach another of High-Treason and in proof thereof name the complices and alledg that there might be found in such a place of his house store of Armes and in his Closet Letters of secret Intelligence with Rebels and Traitours yet withal should manifestly contradict himself averring before the same Judge and at the same time that the person whom he impeached of Treason was and had always been a faithful Subject to his Majesty Can Dr. St. imagin in this case that such a judge would be bound upon the meer Testimony of a Witness who had so palpably Contradicted himself to send Officers to Apprehend the Conspiratours named by him and to search the house of the person impeached to see whether what the Witness alledged was true or not or rather that he ought not in prudence to look upon the Evidence of such a Witness as null and of no force no less than if a Madman had put in the like accusation And yet such a Witness might plead for himself in the same terms wherein Dr. St. pretends to vindicate his own proceedings For he might say That though he should contradict himself it does not therefore follow as certainly it does not that all his Evidences are false and whatever he shall hereafter say in the same matter invalid That he never was so vain as to make use of his own authority to prove a thing to be true because he believ'd it or that his saying alone makes a thing to be true That he does not desire any one to follow his Opinion because it is his but he offers evidences for proof of what he saies assigning the places where they may find manifest Arguments of Treason That if these be good and true in themselves they do not therefore cease to be so because they are inconsistent with what he saies in favour of the person he impeaches That such persons as are constituted by publick Authority as all Judges are to provide for the security of his Majesties Royal Person when they hear one impeached of High Treason the Complices nominated and the place assigned where the Instruments of the conjuration may be found ought not presently to conclude all these Allegations are false and of no force meerly because the person who makes use of them does judge so charitably of the Traitour as to suppose he still retains the Essentials of a Faithful Subject and that therefore they make very ill use of his Charity but however that they are more concern'd in proving the person he impeached not guilty of Treason than he is in defending his Charitable Opinion of him That what they will get by charging him with Contradiction is only that hereafter he shall not think so Charitably of the persons he impeaches Finally that when he saies that such a person whom he impeaches is a Traitour but yet a faithful and loyal Subject the only true Consequence that thence may be inferred is not that he contradicts himself but that he thinks some kind of High-Treason to
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
in proof of them is false or impertinent And what more can be required in order to wipe of from the minds of such persons the aforesaid Calumnies CHAP. III. Other Objections Answered BY what hitherto has been discuss'd it plainly appears that the instance of a Lawyer at the Bar alledged page 16. by Dr. St. is of no force against us Because should a Lawyer produce at the Bar no other proof but such as is repugnant not only to his own particular Tenets but also to the common perswasion of the Judges and of all the Learned Lawyers of the Kingdom yea and to the unanimous consent of the Parliament sure his proofs would be held for frivolous This is what succeeds in our present Case Dr. St. Charges us with Crimes repugnant as he himself now admits to this Principle The Roman Church is a True Church not only granted by him and all Roman-Catholicks but also by all Learned Divines of the English Church as suitable to her Sense and Doctrine as they themselves confess and by several other of different Professions All such persons therefore and these are all with whom we now disp … 〈…〉 hold the forementioned Accusations for void and frivolous Moreover should a Lawyer plead to prove one to be a notorious Traytour and yet at the same time should plainly declare at the Bar that he is and has ever been a Loyal and faithful Subject could Dr. St. or any other think that any account were to be made of such a Barrister who should so openly Contradict himself This is what the Dr. does He pleads to shew our Church to be Idolatrous and yet at the same time he sincerely confesses that she is a true Church standing to what he has formerly asserted and he admits at the present that the forementioned Accusation contradicts this his Assertion as really it does no less then these two Propositions do contradict one another Such a man is a notorious Traytour but yet he is a faithful Subject What account therefore can any prudent man make of this Accusation of Dr. St. or consequently of the proofs he alledges in favour thereof Finally though a Lawyer may be permitted when required thereunto by his Clyent after he has informed him of his Judgment to propose all the proofs he can in his favour though his particular opinion be that his Clyent has no right to what he pretends because the Judge who is to decide the Plea may be of a contrary perswasion Yet sure Dr. St. will not affirm that what he produces in his discourse concerning the Idolatry of the Roman Church is only to shew in order to ingratiate himself with the Presbyterians what may be said upon that Subject and not because he is of opinion that the Roman Church is Idolatrous For if so he might as well have published some book against the Divinity of our Saviour or against a Deity as he hath published the forementioned Discourse to prove the Roman Church Idolatrous and then tell us if he be urged that having received a Fee from Socinians or Atheists he did it only to shew what might be said against the Divinity of our Saviour or a Deity and not because he is of opinion that there is no God or that Christ is no God Yea he might say in like manner that what ever he has produced hitherto to prove the truth and Orthodoxness of the Protestant Religion was only to shew to the end he might promote his Interest among Protestants what might be alledged in favour of their Religion and not that he thinks it True and Orthodox The Dr. seems to value much a Case he produces pag. 20. in order to shew the Insufficiency of our manner of Answering him his words are these I will put a Case parallel to this Suppose one of the Church of Judah should have called the Church of Israel in the time of Jeroboam a true Church because they acknowledged the true God and did believe an agreement in that common acknowledgment to be sufficient to preserve the Essentials of a Church among them and afterwards the same person should go about to convince the Ten Tribes of their Idolatry in worshipping God by the Calves of Dan and Bethel Would this be thought a sufficient way of Answering him to say that he contradicted himself by granting them a True Church and yet charging them with Idolatry Whereas the only true Consequence would be that he thought some kind of Idolatry to be consistent with the being of a Church He adds that such a person might justly say that they made a very ill use of his Charity and that if they could prove to him that the Idolatry he fathered upon them did Vn-church them the Consequence of it would be that his Charity must be so much the less and that he must deny them to be a true Church This is Dr. St.'s Case whereby he pretends to evince the invalidity of our manner of Answering him But before I examin this Case of the Dr. I will put a Case Parallel to ours to shew that the way we have taken to Answer him is sufficient Suppose that a Jew for why may not a Jew be as Charitable and Zealous too as Dr. St. and yet Contradict himself as he does should out of a pretended zeal Charge Christian Religion even when it was in its greatest purity with the same kind of Idolatry as Dr. St. fastens upon us and that notwithstanding at the same time carried away with the like Charity as the Dr. is should confess that Christian Religion was then not only a True Religion but also a Pure Safe and Sound Religion and with such a Religion even Dr. St. affirms the Idolatry he Charges us with yea all kind of Idolatry to be inconsistent as will appear hereafter Now in this Case might not the Dr. in vindication of Christian Religion say and prove too for I do not aver as he seems to insinuate that it is enough to say he is guilty of self-contradiction unless one proves it that such a man did contradict himself in granting Christian Religion to be a true and sound Religion and yet Charging it with Idolatry Could he rationally say that the only true Consequence in that case would be not that such a person contradicted himself but that he thought some kind of Idolatry to be consistent not only with the Being but also with the Soundness of a Church or should he think so would he not therefore contradict himself and having proved to him that the Idolatry he fathered upon the Christian Religion was destructive to the Soundness of a Religion would the Consequence be that the Charity of such a person must be so much the less and that he must deny hereafter the soundness of Christian Religion Would it not be a suffient way of Answering such a man to demonstrate unto him that the Charge of Idolatry cast by him upon Christian Religion was false and consequently that what ever
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