CHAP. I. On supposition Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insist up­on all the Charges he casts up­on the Roman Church are false, and all their proofs void.

AFter Dr. St. had pre­fixed two Prefaces to his Book, the one of 82 pages, the o­ther of 12: he sets upon the examinati­on of my Treatise; which with Introduction, Answer, and Appendix, contains only 21 pages, though in a closer letter. He designes to prove two things against me. 1. That on supposition he did contradict him­self in the way I insist upon, yet that would be no sufficient Answer to his Book, Page 14. 2. That he is far e­nough from contradicting himself in [Page 2]any one of the things I charge him with.

In reply to these two Points, I shall shew, 1. What follows if the Dr. Contradicts himself: and hence will appear, whether on supposition he con­traicts himsef in the way I insist up­on, I answer his Book, or not. 2. That he palpably contradicts himself in the forementioned Charges, he lays upon the Roman Church. And that the Dr. may see I have a mind to deal fairly with him, I am very willing to be tri­ed by the Learned men of our Two Famous Universities (where there are many as ingenious as Dr. St. and far more ingenuous) not only whether I have not proved that the Dr. con­tradicts himself; but also whether, this being once proved in the way I insist upon, I do not invalidate and annual all the above-mentioned Charges he lays against the Roman Church, with all the Reasons, and Proofs he produces, or can produce to make them good.

To commence therefore the first Point of this Reply, If I have proved that Dr. St. has contradicted himself in [Page 3]the aforesaid Crimes he imputes to the Roman Church (which is the suppo­sition wherein he, and we speak in this first part) it manifestly follows, that I have obtained the design of my Book, couched in the Title thereof, viz Dr. Stillingfleet, against Dr. Stillingfleet: and if I moreover shew, that he still contradicts himself, I compleat also the Subject and Title of this Rejoynder, Dr. Stillingfleet still against Dr. Stilling­fleet. For nothing else is aimed at in these Titles, but only to evince, that the Dr. did contradict, and persists to contradict himself. This is apparent from what I insinuated at the begin­ning of my Book, in these words, page 1. My aim therefore in this short Paper, only is, to lay open the palpable contradicti­ons of Dr. St. in imputing to the Roman Church the forementioned Calumnies. And what more can be expected from a Writer, than to fill up the Subject and Designe of his Discourse? Especially, if the Designe be of great Consequence, as this is, according to what now fol­lows.

Again, Self-contradiction being pro­ved, [Page 4]as Dr. St. himself grants, p. 15. over­throws the authority of the Person, who stands convicted thereof, Now I conceive, that a sheet and half of Pa­per was not ill-imployed in overthrow­ing (had it no other effect) the autho­rity of one, who pretends to be a Pil­lar of the Protestant Church, and who gains more upon his Devotees by au­thority than by reason. So that, even according to Dr. St's confession, self-contradiction being once evidenced a­gainst him; we ought not to believe him in any thing he says, or alledges unless he recalls himself. For, to be­lieve one is to take a thing upon his au­thority: and sure no body ought to take any thing upon the authority and credit of one, who has lost all authori­ty and credit.

Besides, whoever forces his Adver­sary to grant manifest Contradictions, or shews that he grants them, accord­ing to the rigour of Logique, and close arguing, he puts him in a sack, he brings him to a Non-plus, and in plain vulgar English, he makes an Ass of him, or shews him to be so, unless he [Page 5]recants. And can more than this be re­quired of one to confute and confound his Adversary? or can one press him further than to a Non-plus?

Finally, Whoever grants and per­sists to grant palpable Contradictions, he may justly be posted up for a Mad­man. Should one (for instance) in­fected with the Plague say, and re­peat that he is in very good health, but withal, that he is deadly sick of the Plague; could there be a clearer Sym­ptome, that such a man's brains were distemper'd, than to hear him harp upon so palpable a contradiction? And there is no wise man who will have to do with Mad-men, no, not in their Lucid Intervals, as Dr. St. in his Pref. p. 11. gravely observes. For though Mad-men & Fools may sometimes say shrew'd things, yet no body who is perswaded they are such, can in prudence think himself bound to confute them, but rather to pity them; nor to solve their Objections, but to slight them: though it does not follow, because they are so, that all their Arguments are false, and their Objections null. This [Page 6]I have said, because I perceive there are several, who are not sensible what gross absurdities do follow from self-contradiction.

Nevertheless the Dr. still urges, That all this is no sufficient answer to his Book. For though he confesses, that self-con­tradicition, being once evidenced a­gainst him, all his authority and credit is worth nothing, and consequently he is not to be believed or credited in any thing he quotes or alledges, and all his Arguments which depend upon the truth of his Quotations, are not to be valued; nay, neither is one bound to make enquiry, whether his Quotati­ons be true or not. For who is bound to make inquiry into the truth of what a Mad-man, or one that hath forfeited all his credit does say or alledge? Yet after all this he affirms, and vapours in almost every leaf of this first part, that his Arguments, especially such as do not depend upon the truth of his Alle­gations (and how few has he of such Arguments?) remain firm, solid, and unanswered? Now to disabuse the Do­ctor and his Partizans in this Point; [Page 7]I shall demonstrate that in the present Supposition, viz. That he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon, by laying to our charge the above mentioned crimes: not only all the aforesaid Aspersions, but also all the Arguments which he produces, or can produce either from Authority or Reason, in proof of them, are void and of no force. And to this purpose I set down these following Principles; which, though appertain­ing only to Logique, this Dr. of Divi­nity seems to be ignorant of.

1. When two Propositions contradict one another, both cannot be true; but either the one or the other must needs be false. This is a manifest Principle of Natural Logique; wherefore if these two Pro­positions, The Roman Church is a true Church; the Roman Church is an Idola­trous Church, do contradict one another (as now we suppose they do) it evi­dently follows, that both of them are not true; but that either the one or the other is false. The same may be ap­plied to the other Contradictions, wherewith I charge the Doctor in the progress of my discourse.

2. When of two Propositions that con­tradictone another, the one is true and taken for granted; the other is necessarily false. This is also certain; otherwise both of them would be true; which is impossible according to the first Prin­ciple. If therefore the first of the two Propositions quoted above, viz. The Roman Church is a true Church, be true, and taken for granted, it manifestly follows, that the second Proposition, viz. The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church, is false; supposing as we do suppose, that they contradict one ano­ther. The like also may be affirmed of the other contradictory Propositi­ons; which we have laid to the Do­ctors charge.

Now the way I insisted upon all a­long in my discourse is comprehended in these 4. Points set down in the begin­ning thereof, in these words. 1. I shall in brief propose the Accusation he frames a­gainst our Church. 2. I shall lay down some few Principles, either manifest in themselves or at least owned by Dr. St. and his Parti­zans. 3. From these Principles I shall [...] one or two Syllogisms deduce the con­tradictory [Page 9]of the Accusation framed a­gainst us. 4. I shall close up each Point with facing together the manifest Contra­dictions committed by Dr. St. in reference to the present Aspersion. Whence clearly appears, that though I aim in the last place, only at the Contradictions com­mitted by the Doctor (and entitled thence my Book) yet I intended by the way to annul (as I have annulled) out of true and solid Principles, owned by Dr. St. and his Associates, all the Ac­cusations he laid against us. For, what more can be required to annul them, than to prove their condictories to be true? And hence appears how frivo­lously the Dr. supposes (as in many pla­ces he seems to do) that I have done nothing else in my whole Book, but on­ly set down the Contradictions com­mitted by him: whereas of four Points, whereinto I divided each discourse, one only is employ'd upon this Subject.

According to this my designe, insi­nuated in the forementioned words; in each Point I took two Propositions, the one contained the Charge laid upon us by the Doctor; the other (which [Page 10]I proved to be opposite to the former, and is admitted as such by Dr. St. in this first part) was granted by him, as in the respective places I demonstra­ted. Neither do I see, that the Dr. as yet has denied any of such Propositi­ons, as far as they concern my intent: yea, we suppose now by common con­sent, that he grants all such Propositi­ons; for how can he contradict him­self in two Propositions (which is the Hypothesis we proceed upon at pre­sent) unless he grants them both? Hence I inferred that the charges he laid against us were false, and of no force.

The Substance of our Discourse in brief is this. If the Propositions al­ledged by us above, do contradict one another; and such of them be true, and taken for granted, as are opposite to the Charges laid against us, such Charges must necessarily be false. But the fore-mentioned Propositions do contradict one another, as we have pro­ved, and the Dr. now admits; and such of them as are opposite to the Charges laid against us are true, and taken for [Page 11]granted; (for this is the way I insist­ed upon, and it is supposed here, that the Dr. grants them.) Therefore on Supposition that Dr. St. contradicts himself in the way I insisted upon, the Charges he lays against us must neces­sarily be false. And this is the common way Authors insist upon when they see, that their Adversary grants something true in it self, and opposite to the Conclusion he has undertaken to de­fend; they take for granted the for­mer Proposition as favourable unto them, and wherein they agree with their Adversary, and infer thence the falsity of the later, wherein they dis­sent from him. But to shew also that I destroy all the Doctors Reasons too, wherewith he pretends to make good the aforesaid Charges, I add this third Principle.

3. Whatever is brought, or can be brought in proof of a falsity; is either false, or inconclusive. This is also evi­dent. For there can be no true, real, and solid proof of a falsity; according to that Maxime, Ex vero tantum non sequitur falsum. Out of Truth alone [Page 12]no falsity can be legally inferred. For if the Conclusion be false, either all the Premisses are not true; or if they be so, they do not infer the Conclusion: whence I argue thus:

If the formentioned Charges which the Doctor imputes to the Roman Church be false, whatsoever he brings, or can bring in proof of them, is ei­ther false, or inconclusive.

But on supposition the Dr. contra­dicts himself in the way I insist upon, all such Charges are false, as has been proved.

Therefore in the same supposition, whatsoever he brings, or can bring in proof of them, is either false or incon­clusive

Whence appears how illogically Dr. St. urges, that though he should con­tradict himself in the Aspersions he casts upon us, and in the way I insist upon, yet the Reasons he produces to evi­dence such Aspersions are good and so­lid. Wherefore I never affirmed, that meerly because he contradicted him­self, all his Arguments on both sides of the contradiction were null. For one [Page 13]part of the contradiction may be true, and the Arguments to prove it good and solid. True it is, that when one contradicts himself, his proofs on both sides cannot be good; since one part of the contradiction must needs be false; and there can be no good proof of a fal­sity. What therefore I intended to shew, was, That the Dr. by contradi­cting common Principles owned by himself in the Charges he lays up­on us [see the Introduction to my Book] such Charges were false, and consequently their proofs void.

Neither do I ever aver, that what he alledges in proof of the aforesaid Char­ges, is determinately false, but disjun­ctively, that it is either false or incon­clusive. And now let any rational man judge, whether this be not a sufficient answer to his Book, viz. not only to annul all the Charges he lays upon us, but all the Reasons too, and Arguments wherewith he pretends to make such Charges good, by demonstrating that on supposition he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon, all the above-mentioned Charges are void, and their [Page 14]Reasons either false, or inconclusive.

But the Doctor presses that I do not answer his Reasons in particular; what then? if I cut them off all at once, what matter is it that I do not cut them off one by one? To destroy a house, 'tis of little concern whether we pull it down Tile by Tile, Brick by Brick, and Stone by Stone, till we have laid it in the dust, or whether undermi­ning the Foundations, we blow it up in a moment. Both ways are effectual 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 [Page 15]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 [Page 16]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, 'tis 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, 'tis 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 [Page 17]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 [Page 18]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 [Page 19]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 [Page 20]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 [Page 21]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 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 [Page 22]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 [Page 23]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 [Page 24] 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 [Page 25]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, [Page 26]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, [Page 27]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 reason take that pro­position for granted; and should I en­counter an Adversary, who denies the Roman Church to be a true Church, I would set upon him another way, and prove it to be a True Church: which is not hard to do. For different wayes are to be taken with different Adversaries, and what is a solid proof against one, is [Page 28]of no force against another. I confess therefore, that all the Arguments I have framed against Dr. St. grounded upon this Principle, The Roman Church is a true Church are of no force, with such as deny That Principle, unless first I prove it. In the same manner all the Arguments, grounded upon the Autho­rity of the Fathers, and Councils, are of no force against Fanaticks, who slight the Fathers and Councils, unless their Authority be first established.

Hence appears, how insignificantly Dr. St. and his Cabal, threaten us that if we press them out of this Principle, The Roman Church is a True Church, freely granted by them; they will deny it, and fall back from what they have yielded unto; and that we shall get no­thing else thereby, but to make them less Charitable towards us, and the difference between us wider. For in the same manner they might threaten us, when we argue against them out of Councils and Fathers, admitted by them, that if we press them they will deny their Authority: Neither should any one press another out of Scripture, [Page 29]though granted by him; for fear, least if he be press'd, he will deny Scripture, and become a Turk, or a Pagan. Nay, since one cannot convince another, but out of what he has assented unto, were this way of dealing warrantable, any one might easily elude all Arguments whatsoever. For either we urge our Ad­versary, or not: if not, how shall we convince him? if so, he may stave off the Conviction, according to Dr. St. 's manner of dealing, by threatning us, that if we urge him, we shall get only this of him, that he will deny what al­ready he has granted, Doubtless the Scholars of the Illustrious University of Cambridge would be ashamed of their Dr. St. should they hear him say, in a publick Dispute to his Adversary, Do not press me; for if you do, I'le deny what I have already granted.

Finally, since this Assertion, The Ro­man Church is a True Church, is common, assented unto, not only by Catholicks, but also by Protestants of the English Church, and others of different Professi­ons, as we have seen: But this other, The Roman Church is Idolatrous, is deny­ed [Page 30]both by Catholicks, and several lear­ned and zealous Protestants: and since either the one, or the other of these As­sertions is to be recalled, supposing they contradict one another, 'tis more rea­sonable to recal the latter, than the for­mer, because caeteris paribus, particular Sentiments are to yield to common Principles, when they run Counter.

But what is the reason, that Dr. St. who professes himself a mortal enemy to the Roman Church, does not deny it to be a true Church, recalling what heretofore he has asserted? yea, he is so far from recalling it, that he rati­fies, and grants several times, in this Examination of my book, in plain terms, what he had affirmed in his Ra­tional Account, that the Roman Church is a True Church. I insinuated in my Book, in the place above quoted, several mo­tives, why Dr. St. and his Associates, do unanimosly aver the Roman Church to be a True Church: Because upon this ac­count they ground the pretended Mode­ration and Charity of the English Churh, wherewith they endeavour to inveigle unwary minds: and if they de­ny [Page 31]the Roman Church to be a true Church, either they must confess that there was no true visible Church in the world for many hundred of years be- Luther and Calvins time, or they are shrewdly put to it when we urge them to shew us which that true visible Church was, distinct from the Roman.

Yet another particular reason moved Dr. St. not to recal what he had asserted concerning the Truth of the Roman Church. For he could not but see that should he deny the Roman Church to be a true Church, he must either deny the Protestant Church to be a true Church, or seek out other grounds to prove the truth thereof different from those he laid down in his Rational Ac­count. For the Discourse he makes in that Book to establish the truth of the Protestant Religion in substance is this: Whatever Church holds all such points as were held by all Christian Societies of all A­ges, & acknowledged by Rome it self; has all that is necessary to the being of a true Church, and by Consequence is a True Church. But such is the Protestant Church, as he affirms: Therefore accord­ing [Page 32]to his Principles it is a true Church. And descending to particulars, he says, That all Churches, which admit the An­tient Creeds (as the Roman Church e­vidently does) are true Churches.

Now these Principles whereon the Dr. bottoms the truth of Protestancie, do necessarily imply that the Roman Church is a true Church. For, either the Roman Church acknowledges what is sufficient to constitute the being of a true Church or not; if she does, she must necessarily be a true Church. If she does not, how can Dr. St. assert, That the Roman Church, with other Chri­stian Societies acknowledges what is suffi­cient to constitute the being of a true Church? Wherefore, unless Dr. St. grants the Roman Church to be a true Church, that Principle whereon he grounds the truth of Protestancie, viz. That it admits whatsoever is admitted by all Christian Societies, and acknow­ledged by Rome it self, is of no force. So that unless Dr. St. maintains the truth of the Roman Church, he must either confess that Protestancie is no true Religion, and that the Account he [Page 33]has hitherto given concerning the grounds of Protestancy, is void and ir­rational; or seek out other Principles to prove it. Now if Dr. St. has such a pike against the Roman Church, that to the end he may prove her Idolatrous, or no true Church; he cares not to un­church Protestancy, or at least to cancel whatever he has yet said to shew, that it is a True Religion; I conceive that Protestants will give him little thanks for his pains. But the truth is, that Dr. St. if we reflect well upon his works, cares not what becomes of Protestancy, nor Christianity neither; so that he may, according to his fancy, destroy Popery. But we care as little for his attempts, if he cannot destroy Popery, without undermining Christianity.

The Dr. seems, in several places of his Answer, slily to insinuate, as if he had only been heretofore of opinion, that the Roman Church is a true Church; but that now he has altered his Opinion: and it can be no disparagement for a man to recal what heretofore he assert­ed. To this purpose he alledges, pag. 16. the Recognitions of Bellarmin, who, in [Page 34]imitation of St. Augustin, retracted some former Errours delivered by him. But where, I pray, has D. St. made any book of Recognitions, recalling his former Errours? though he might make a just Volume upon that Subject, and begin it with the Recantation of what he sets down in his Irenicon, destructive to the Episcopal Dignity; which he is loth to do; for he sees, that book en­deared him to the Presbyterian party; whom he seems to Court. I confess, that it is no blemish for a man, when he is better informed, to recal the Errours which heretofore he assented unto. For, to err, is a frailty of men; but to per­severe obstinately in an Errour, (as ne­cessarily he must do, who persists in a palpable Contradiction) is a brutish ob­stinacy: and what greater disparage­ment than this can there be for a ratio­nal man!

Now Dr. St. not only heretofore, but even in this present book, after he had Charged the Roman Church with gross Idolatry, affirms, that she is a true Church, (as shall hereafter appear) without having ever yet recalled that Propo­sition: [Page 35]and consequently he persists to contradict himself, as he now admits.

Whence follows, that the Allegation of Bellarmin's Recognitions, or Recanta­tions was nothing to the purpose. For it is as if one should argue thus; Bellarmin, though he erred, yet because he recalled his Errours, making a Book of Recogni­tions, did not lose his Reputation, nei­ther did he deserve, that we should slight what he saies: Therefore Dr. St. who has erred, and does persist to err, who has, and does still contradict him­self, without ever having recalled his Errours, does not deserve we should slight what he affirms: or thus: Saint Peter, though he sinned grievously, yet because he did sincerely repent, was a great Saint: Therefore such as have sin­ned grievously, and never repent, are great Saints. Let Dr. St. imitate Bel­larmin, and recal his former Errous, and he will lose nothing, no, not his Autho­rity: which notwithstanding, as he him­self affirms, Self-contradiction being once proved, especially if it be insisted upon, is utterly overthrown.

But we must reflect, That such as re­cal [Page 36]their former Opinions, or Tenets, are in two sorts. Some recal Tenets heretofore assented unto, because they find them inconsistent with Errours, which they are resolved to defend; as if one (for instance) who being not a­ble to vindicate the General Principles of Christianity, without confessing the par­ticular Tenets of the Roman Church to be true, should out of hatred to such particular Tenets, deny the General principles of Christianity; which before he had yielded unto. Such men as these, are far from deserving any Commenda­tion, for recalling their former perswa­sions; but rather shew an inveterate ob­stinacy, and odium against the Truth: and amongst such men, Dr. St. must be enrolled, should he, to defend the Ido­latry of the Roman Church, deny her to be a true Church, contrary to the Truth he has so often acknowledged, and to the very Grounds, whereon he builds the truth of Protestancy. For, though I do not allow of his Grounds, yet I As­sent to the Truth of the Roman-Catho­lick Religion; which is evidently thence inferred.

Others, to embrace the Truth, which in process of time they have discovered, recal former Tenets, contrary thereun­to, as St. Augustin, and Bellarmin did: So do many, who finding Protestant Religi­on to be false, relinquish it, and embrace the Roman, opposite thereunto. Such men as these shew great ingenuity, and sincerity; and by revoking such Opini­ons, with all Wise men, rather gain, than lose Authority, or Reputation. And among these men Dr. St. would deserve to be listed, if he would be plea­sed to recant, and declare plainly to the world, that when he Charged the Ro­man Church with Idolatry, Fanaticism, Divisions in matters of Faith, danger of Salvation in her Communion, and other Corruptions, he over shot himself, as several, even of his own Friends, con­fess he did, at least in the Charge of Idolatry.

Besides, when one recalls an Opini­on, as inconsistent with the Truth, to which he had heretofore assented, he also virtually recalls all the proofs there­of, acknowledging them to be either false, or unconcluding. And since what [Page 38]St. Augustin, and Bellarmin stood to after their Retractations, contradicted what they held before, 'tis manifest, that their proofs, either on the one side or other, were void: and consequently, recalling such Opinions, they recalled also, their proofs of them. And here I cannot but reflect, that Dr. St. seems to list me ( pag. 14.) among such as he terms Re­volters from the Church of England. Thanks be to God, I was bred a Roman-Catholick: my Parents and Ancestors were of the same Religion, and suffered much for their constancy therein. And I can assure the Dr. that for all I have seen in him, I am so far from being startled in my Religion, that I am rather confirmed therein. For a weak impug­nation of the Truth is a confirmation thereof: and if God shall be pleased to give me his Grace, not to quit the Ge­neral Principles of Christianity, I shall never, upon the account of what Dr. St. saies, relinquish the particular Te­nets of the Catholick Church.

Many ask me, what matters it, that Dr. St. palpably contradicts himself, and persists so to do? which is the same [Page 39]as if they should ask me, what matters it if Dr. St. be a Madman? And to say the truth, it matters very little for the Publick good, that he be so: but it matters very much, that being so, he should be commonly reputed a Wise­man. For, what greater damage can be imagined, than that the people be gui­ded by a Madman in affairs of so great concern, as those of Religion are? Nei­ther can one do a greater service to the Common-wealth, than to discover their Guides to be mad, if really they be so. Neither can there be a better way to dis­cover it, than by shewing they grant, and persist to grant, palpable Contra­dictions.

Moreover, they might say the same, in case I had attacked any other parti­cular Doctor of the Protestant Church; (for Dr. St. carries as great a vogue as any other) asking me, what matters it, if I force such a Doctor to manifest Contradictions; and by consequence bring him to a Non-plus? So that were this Objection justifiable, it would prove, that it is of no concern, to defeat, and bring to a Non-plus any particular [Page 40]Adversary: which is certainly false, and repugnant to the common practice of all Learned and Zealous men.

Besides, had I proved only, that the Charges which Dr. St. saies upon us, did contradict some particular Tenet, held only by the Dr. and some few of his Partizans; though that would have been sufficient to have baffled him, yet it would not have been of so great mo­ment. But I have shewn, that the A­spersions he casts upon us, do contradict General Principles, assented unto, not only by Dr. St. and all Roman-Catho­licks, but also by all Learned Protestants, Members of the English Church, and by many others of different Professions: and consequently I convince all such, that the forementioned Aspersions are false, as being repugnant to True and General Principles granted by them: and that whatever is produced 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 [Page 42]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 [Page 44]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 [Page 45]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 Ʋn-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 [Page 46]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 [Page 47]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 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 [Page 48]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 [Page 49]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 [Page 50]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 [Page 51]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, [Page 52]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, [Page 53]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 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 [Page 54]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 'tis 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 [Page 55]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 [Page 56]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 [Page 57]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 [Page 58]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 [Page 59] 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. 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 'tis 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, [Page 61]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 'tis 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 [Page 62]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, [Page 63]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 [Page 65]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 [Page 66]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 [Page 67]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 [Page 68]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, 'tis 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 [Page 69]of them) thence to prove, That their Religion is better than ours, which does not allow so much to Protestants, 'twill 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 [Page 70]never grant, although he burns with so great Charity. Moreover, leaving both parties, Catholicks and Protestants, to their proper Tenets, 'tis 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 [Page 71]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 [Page 72]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 [Page 73]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 of their Religion; and con­sequently upon that account are no less excusable from Damnation, than they say we are. Besides, Catholicks do not affirm, That those Protestants, who are in a condition not capable of Malice, as meer Fools, Madmen, and Chil­dren, are more liable to damnation, than Catholicks of the same condition: Yet farther, we never assert that this Proposition Protestants are damned, has more truth in it, than this, Idolaters are damned: and consequently it is as true, That a Protestant may be saved, as that an Idolater may be saved. Nei­ther do we deny, but Protestants may be saved if they repent. Where then is the difference between their Charity and ours, that may give them any cause of Vapouring?

In Fine, if things be well considered, [Page 74]it will manifestly appeare, That Pro­testants damn more Catholicks, than Catholicks do Protestants. For it is certain, that there are at least twenty Roman-Catholicks in the world for one Protestant of the English Church; with which is our present debate. Now since they affirm, that scarce any Catho­lick is saved, let's put the case, that on­ly one in twenty is saved, and all the rest are damned; according to this computation, they damn nineteen, where we damn one; Supposing that we damn all Protestants, or believe them to be damned, if they continue in that Profession; and they scarce save any Chatholick, or believe him to be saved, if he lives and dies in the Com­munion of the Roman Church. So that concerning the Damnation, or Salvati­on of Contrary Party, we have more reason to glory of our Charity, than they. And hence evidently appears the inanity of their pretended Charity, which they often cast in our Teeth; this being a common Topick, whence they have framed many Sermons, and Discourses against us.

Yet I cannot deny, but that the Cha­rity of Dr. St. is enhanced to a high de­gree: For he has made the bounds of the True Church so wide, that it contains not only the most notorious Hereticks, but also the greatest Idolaters. Was it not therefore very ill done of me, to make so bad a use of so wonderful a Charity? And all this he does out of his exceeding great kindness for Prote­stant Religion; and because he cannot find a way, how to bring her within the verge of the True Church, without letting in with her the grossest Idolaters of the world, both in Doctrine and Practice. But whether Protestants will think themselves bound to render the Dr. Thanks for his excess of his Chari­ty, I leave it to the judgment of the Learned, and Zealous men amongst them. One step only is wanting, to make this Charity perfect indeed; and that is, to enlarge the Pale of the True Church so far, as that it may take in flat Atheists: which he may do with as much ease, as he does other things.

In the pages 19, 20, 21, 22. he min­gles many things, which do not tend to [Page 76]prove, that he does not contradict him­self, (which was the proper subject in this second part of his Answer) but on­ly, that on svpposition he should contra­dict himself in the way I insist upon, yet this would not be a satisfactory answer, nor annull the Reasons he produced in order to make good the charges he laies against us: All which has been already answered above in the first part of our Reply. As concerning his Vindication from Self-contradiction, he saies, pag. 20, 21 That by granting us a True Church, and yet charging us with Ido­latry, it does not follow, That he con­tradicts himself, but the only true con­sequence is, That he thinks some kind of Idolatry consistent with the Being of a True Church. For what shadow of Con­tradiction is it (they are the Dr.'s words pag. 21.) to say, That the Roman Church is a true Church, and yet is guilty of Ido­latry, supposing he believes some sort of Ido­latry, which is very sinful, not to be yet of so high a nature, as to unchurch those that practise it. A strange Answer! so that if one has so good an opinion of himself, (and who has not?) as to believe, or [Page 77]think, that what he affirms is, in some sort, consistent with what he denies, let him affirm or deny what he pleases, ac­cording to this admirable evasion of Dr. Stillingfleet, he will be free from Self-contradiction: Whoever joynes two terms, that really contradict one ano­ther, whatever he thinks, he commits a Contradiction. Should one affirm ano­ther to be a notorious Traitor, but yet a Loyal Subject, (which is the instance a­bove insinuated) could the Dr. pru­dently say in this case, that such a per­son did not contradict himself, but that the only true consequence, that hence might be inferred, was, That he thought some sort of notorious Treason to be consistent with Loyalty? or could he justly exclaim, What shadow of Contra­diction is it to say, That one is a notorious Traitor, but yet a Loyal Subject; suppo­sing that who saies this, believes some sort of Treason, though very notorious, not to be yet of so high a nature, as to destroy Loyalty?

Neither should the Dr. have supposed pag. 22. (as he does) but proved, that the Idolatry introduced by Jeroborm a­mong [Page 78]the Israelites, was not destructive to the being of a True Church. Several protestants, among other precedents, produce the Church of Israel, infected with the Idolatry of Jeroboam to shew, that the true visible Church may cease: and consequently, they believed the Church of Israel to have ceased to be a true Church, by reason of the Idolatry she committed; otherwise they could never have made use of the said instance to that intent: and accordingly they look't upon that Idolatry, as destructive to the Being of a True Church. For how can a Church cease to be true, up­on the account of an Idolatry, not de­structive to the Being of a True Church? Yea the Apostle, Rom. 11. does, not ob­scurely, insinuate, that the Idolatry practised by the Israelites did unchurch them; yet they were not all infected therewith. For God told Elias, when he complained, that he was left alone in Is­rael, that seven thousand of them had not bowed their knees unto Baal.

The Evasions produced hitherto by the Dr. are, as we have seen, ineffectual to clear him from Self-contradiction; [Page 79]and such as, had they any force in them, would prove it impossible, that any one should contradict himself; especially, if he believed he does not; which is e­vidently false. So that the Dr. to shew himself guiltless of Self-contradiction, takes the same way, as if to prove himself an honest man, he should alledge no better Reasons, than such as prove, (if they prove any thing) that there have never been, nor are, any Knaves in the world; but that all are, and have been, honest men. But this is a com­mon Artifice of Dr. St. So that he may produce any Arguments that seem to prove his intent, he cares not what­ever else they prove with the same force; and so he may shoot home, he matters not, how much he over shoots himself: though one may miss as much of the mark by being gone, as by being short. And although the Dr. has been advised of the Nullity of this manner of Argu­ing, according to that Maxime, an Ar­gument that proves too much, proves no­thing, yet hitherto he has not thought it for his purpose to take notice of it.

In the same page 22. the Dr. affirms, [Page 80]that although they do allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church, they are far from understanding by that a Sound, or a good Church: but mean no more by it, than as a man is a true man, though he hath the Plague upon him. Neither did I ever say, ( Dr. St. ag. Dr. St. pag. 3.) that Dr. St. expressly affirmed, that our Church is a Sound Church, but only that he granted it to be a True Church: which neither now does he deny, or question. For, among other things, I alledged out of the Dr. in order to this purpose, I affirmed, that he held our Church to be a true way to Heaven, but not a safe way; which signifies here the same, as a true Church, but not a sound Church. Now Dr. St. does plainly con­fess, that it is a Contradiction to say, That the Roman Church is a Sound Church, and yet an Idolatrous Church: which ( viz. had he granted our Church to be Sound) would be as he saies, p. 23. the most proper sense to found a Contradicti­on upon, in this matter of Idolatry. For he freely grants, that all sorts of Idolatry are inconsistent with the Soundness of a Church; but not with the Truth there­of.

Wherefore, if I can evince, That all sorts of Idolatry are at least that sort of Idolatry, which he fastens upon Roman-Catholicks, is destructive, not only to the Soundness, but also to the Truth of a Church; and that an Idolatrous Church is not as a man sick of the Plague, who may retain the Essentials of a man: if (I say) I can evince this, it will be a contradiction, not on­ly to say, That the Roman Church is a Sound Church, and yet an Idolatrous; but also to affirm, That the Roman Church is a True Church, and yet Ido­latrous; at least with such a kind of Ido­latry, as Dr. St. laies upon her: for which see.

CHAP. V. The Doctor palpably Contradicts himself in affirming the Roman Church to be Ido­latrous, and yet granting her to be a True Church.

WHen my Book first appeared in publick, several Zealous Pro­testants, who had been pleased to per­use it, were so firmly perswaded, that there is a palpable Contradiction be­tween these two Propositions, The Ro­man Church is a True Church, The Ro­man Church is an Idolatrous Church; and being moreover sensible, what an affront it is for any one especially for Lerned men, to grant, and persist to grant pal­pable Contradictions, they would ne­ver believe, that Dr. St. whom they applauded so much for his Learning, had ever granted the two forementioned Propositions. Besides, they being not able to deny, but that he asserted The Roman Church to be an Idolatrous Church, seeing he had written a whole Traetise of [Page 13]that Subject, they concluded, that he had never granted The Roman Church to be a True Church, although I quoted out of him several plain places to that intent.

But now Dr. St. has done me justice, and has cleared all doubts, if any might be in this matter; ingenuously con­fessing, that he has heretofore, and does still affirm The Roman Church to be a true Church. And why should he plainly con­fess, that he had affirmed any such thing so disadvantagious unto him, were it not so manifest he had done so, that it could not be questioned? especially, when he is forced to winde himself all the waies he can to disentangle the con­tradiction objected against him: where­as had he never granted the Roman Church to be a true Church, all appear­ance of Self contradiction in this point would have vanished.

Nay, he confirms clearly he same Doctrine in several places of this his Examination of my Book. For pag. 21. he saies thus; We acknowledg that they (Roman Catholicks) still retain the Fun­damental. Articles of the Christian Faith; That there is no dispute between them and [Page 84]us about the True God, and his Son, Je­sus Christ, as to his Death, Resurrecti­on, and Glory, and being the proper Ob­ject to Divine Worship. We yeild, that they have true Baptism among them, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and we looking upon these, as the Essentials of a true Church, do upon that account own that Church to be so. Where, without doubt he judges the points here menti­oned to be all the Fundamental and Es­sential points of a true Church: other­wise he would not own our Church to be a true Church precisely, because she holds the forementioned points. For a Church that fails but in one Essential point of a true Church, although it be the least of all, is no true Church.

[And here by the way I cannot but Advertise, that Dr. St. without (per­haps) reflecting on it, has set down a particular Catalogue of all the Funda­mental points of the True Religion: which protestants commonly are loth to do.]

Page 23. he saies, Those which we ac­count the Essentials of a Church, we deny not to it, that is, to the Church of Rome: [Page 85]and a Church, that retains all the Essen­tials of a true Church, must needs be so. In the same place he compares our Church, over-run, as he saies, with such Corruptions in Worship, to a man that has the Plague upon him; who yet still re­mains a true man. Pag. 22. when we a­low (saies he) the Church of Rome to be a True Church, we are far from under­standing by that a sound, or good Church: which words expressly signifie, that he and his Partizans allow our Church to be a True Church: which is all we now pretend. But more at large he confirms this Doctrine, pag. 29. §. 4. where he has in the Margin these words, In what sense the Church of Rome is owned by him, and other Protestants as a true Church: which manifestly imports, that they own her as such. Pag. 30. he speaks thus, Whatever Church owns those things, which are Antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church, cannot so long cease to be a true Church. and in the same page, imme­diately before, he insinuates, that those things only are necessary Antecedently to the Being of a Church, which are re­quired to be believed in order to Salva­tion: [Page 86]and pag. 31. he saies, Nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian Societies, but such things which by all those Societies ( i. e. Chri­stian Societies, and consequently by the Roman Church, who is one of them) are abknowledged antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church. pag. 32. he makes (and confessed he made be­fore) the Ancient Creeds of the Catho­lick Church the best measure of those things which are believed to be necessary to Salva­tion: and consequently were sufficient to constitute the Essence, and Being of a True Church. Now 'tis evident, nei­ther doth Dr. St. ever question it, but rather very often supposes it, That the Roman Church doth embrace the Anci­ent Creeds of the Catholick Church, where­fore even according to Dr. St.'s consti­tution of a true Church, the Church of Rome is necessarily such. Pag. 26. he saies We have no Controversie with them (Catholicks) about the Essential Doct­rines of Religion, which is that we mean by their being a True Church. Finally, pag. 33. and in other places the Dr. di­stinguishes between the Essence and [Page 87]Soundness of a Church, and he several times grants, that our Church holds all that is requisite to the Essence of a True Church: But he denies, that she holds all that is necessary to the Soundness of a Church: Neither did I ever alledge Dr. St. to the contrary; as above I in­sinuated.

Hence is evidently concluded, that it is the unquestionable Sentiment of Dr. St. that the Roman Church, even as it is now in the world, is a True Church, retaining all the Essential, and Fundamental Points of Christian Faith: All which I have sayed, not because Dr. St. did ever deny it; but because some of his Friends could scarce believe that he, who had endeavoured with all his strength, to prove the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, should not­withstanding hold her to be a True Church. See more concerning this in his Answer to my Book, pag. 40, 41, 42. Wherefore since it cannot be questioned but that Dr. St. has heretofore, and does still allow these two Propositions, The Roman Church is a True Church, The Roman Church is an Idolatrous Church, [Page 88]we come now to examin, whether the latter Proposition contradicts the for­mer? which Dr. St. denies; but we do prove in the following Discourse.

If the Roman Church holds any Fun­damental, or Essential Errour in matters of Faith, it is no True Church. For it is certain, that some Errours are sufficient to unchurch a Community, and de­structive to the very Being of a True Church: otherwise a Congregation that holds there is no God, might yet be a True Church: and if any Errours be such, sure such are all Fundamental, and Essential Errours. For all Errours in mat­ters of Faith, even according to Dr. St. and other Protestant Divines are divi­ded into Fundamental or Essential, and into Non-fundamental, or Non-essential. These latter they affirm to be consistent with the Essence, and Being of a True Church; but not with the Soundness thereof: But the former are destructive, not only to the Soundness, but also to very Essence of a True Church. So that whoever saies, that such a Church is a True Church, but yot that she holds some Fundamental-Errours, he com­mits [Page 89]a manifest Contradiction, as if he should say, such a Church is, and is not True. Upon this account those Prote­stants, who grant the Roman Church to be a True Church, but yet depraved with several Errours, to save themselves from Self-contradiction, commonly af­firm, that the Errours of the Roman Church are not Fundamental, nor Essen­tial, but only inferiour Errours, Non-fundamental, and Non-essential.

Again, if the Roman Church holds a­ny Errour, necessarily destructive to any Fundamental, or Essential Point of Faith, she must needs hold a Fundamen­tal, and Essential Errour in matters of Faith. This is also evident; neither can Dr. St. deny it. For an Errour is de­nominated Fundamental, or Non-funda­mental; Essential, or Non-essential, from the nature and quality of the Truth, wherewith it is inconsistent: all Errour being inconsistent with some Truth. So that if the Truth, or any of the Truths, wherewith such an Errour is inconsist­ent, be Fundamental or Essential, the Errour must needs be Fundamental, or Essential: But if none of them be Fun­damental, [Page 90]neither can the Error be Fun­damental. Now the inconsistency of a Proposition with its contradictory, or of an Errour with the Truth opposite therunto, does not consist, in that an Errour does absolutely destroy the Truth in it self, wherewith it is said to be inconsistent: For it is certain this Er­roneous Judgment, There is no God, does not destroy the Truth of its Con­tradictory, There is a God: nor in that he, who gives an assent to the one part, cannot possibly at the same time give his assent to the contrary part; otherwise it would not be possible for any one to Contradict himself; which is manifest­ly false, as Dr. St. himself does too too well know. The forementioned incon­sistency therefore consists in the repug­nancy, in order to the Truth of both Propositions together, and at the same time; or in that the Truth of the one necessarily destroyes the Truth of the other: So that if the Errour, which is inconsistent with a Fundamental Truth, should cease to be an Errour, the contra­ry Truth would cease to be a Truth.

Moreover some Errours are not de­structive [Page 91]to any Fundamental Point, immediately, or formally, or in express terms, as this Error, There is no God, is destructive to this Fundamental point, There is a God; but only mediately, and by Consequences; because they de­stroy immediately something, where­with some Fundamental point is necessa­rily connexed; which being once de­stroyed, such a Fundamental point must necessarily fall: as, supposing that it is a Fundamental point of Christian Faith, that Christ is God, Consubstantial to his Father, this Errour, Christ is a meer Creature, is beyond debate Fundamen­tal; although it does not destroy imme­diately the former Truth, but only me­diately, and by Consequence, because it immediately destroyes its Contradict­ory, viz. Christ is not a meer Creature; which being destroyed, the former Fun­damental Truth does necessarily fall. For, whatsoever is God, either is no Creature, or at least no meer Creature. Wherefore 'tis a Fundamental Errour, whatsoever necessarily destroyes a Fun­damental Truth, whether mediately or immediately. For the malice and ma­lignity [Page 92]of a Fundamental Errour consists in its Destructiveness to a Fundamental point: and what destroyes it mediately, does truly destroy it; but destroies with it some other thing. One may beat down a Steeple, either by shooting im­mediately at the Steeple, or at the Tow­er that upholds the Steeple; and in both Cases the Steeple is equally beaten down; but with this difference; that in the second case the Tower also is beat­en down with the Steeple. Yea, Dr. St. himself pag. 24. confesses, the second way of Worship, mentioned there by him, to be destructive mediately only, and by Consequence, to the Existency of a true God; and yet it is inconsistent, doubtless, with the Being of a true Church; since by such a Worship, the Ʋnity of the Godhead is denyed, and ma­ny False Gods are joyned with him in the same Worship; and to teach a mul­tiplicity of Gods, is beyond debate, to teach an Errour, by reason of its oppo­sition to the Ʋnity of the Godhead, de­structive to the Being of a Church.

Besides, I said, that an Errour, which is necessarily destructive to any [Page 93]Fundamental point, whatsoever it be, must needs be Fundamental, and incon­sistent with the Essence of a True Church. For an Errour, as other Nega­tions, is malignantis naturae, of a malig­nant nature; such as destroying any Essential part, or intrinsical condition, must needs destroy the whole. So that a Church, to be True, must have all her Essentials; but, to be absolutely False, 'tis enough, that any one of them be wanting, according to those common Axioms of Philosophers, Bonum ex in­tegra causa; malum autem ex quolibet defectu. Death destroies the Essence of a man; and yet it neither destroies the Soul, nor the Body immediately; but only the Union between them both: which is the least considerable thing in a mans Essence.

Finally, because we discourse now, what Errours are Essential in matters of Faith, and inconsistent with the Being of a True Church, we must reflect, that according to Divines, there are two sorts of Errours; the one Privative, the other Positive. A Church does err privatively against the Essence of a True Church, [Page 94]by not holding all the positive Essential points requisite thereunto, (although she should not positively hold any thing contrary to such points;) A Congrega­tion of Men, who should not believe there is a God, although they should not positively believe that there is no God, would beyond all question, be no true Church. But a Church errs posi­tively against the Essence of a true Church, when she positively holds, and asserts something inconsistent with an Essential point, whatever else she affirms. Doubtless a Church, or Con­gregation, which teaches that there is no God, cannot be a true Church, what­ever else she teaches. Both these sorts of Errours are destructive to the Essence of a Church: and the latter is rather worse than the former. For it is worse to believe that there is no God, than not to believe that there is a God. Hence I infer, that to the constitution of a true Church 'tis not enough to assert, the positive Articles requisite to the Being of a Church; but 'tis also necessary, not to hold any Errour, inco [...]sisten [...] with any of such Articles; as [...] seve­ral [Page 95]persons, who deny, either medi­ately or immediately, those very points which they confess.

These things being premised, I go on to shew, that if the Roman Church does hold any kind of Idolatry, (what kind soever it be) to be lawful, as Dr. St. expressly affirms she does, she must needs hold an Errour destructive a to Fundamental, and Essential point of Faith; and by consequence, a Funda­mental Errour, inconsistent with the Essence of a true Church. And since 'tis certain, that no kind of Idolatry is lawful, if the Roman Church holds any kind of Idolatry as lawful, she must needs hold an Errour inconsistent with some Truth, as all Errour is. Now it is not possible, that the Roman Church should hold any sort of Idolatry what­soever, as lawful, unless she holds that some Honour, which is due only to God, may be given to a meer Creature. For the no­tion of Idolatry in general does necessa­rily contain this, even as Dr. St. him­self confesses, in this Book, pag. 24. where he saies thus, I agree in general, that the true notion of Idolatry is, giving [Page 96]the Honour due only to God, to a meer Crea­ture; but he adds presently these words, I desire no greater advantage against the Church of Rome, in order to prove her Ido­latrous, than from such a Concession: which is as much as if I should say, I desire no greater advantage against Dr. St. in order to prove him a Knave, than that he should grant, as doubtless he does, that the Notion of a Knave in general, is he, who makes it his business to cheat others: For I am certain, that it is far easi­er to shew, that this notion of a Knave does agree to Dr. St. than that notion of Idolatry to the Roman Church.

But for my present purpose it is e­nough, that Dr St. grants that to be the true notion of Idolatry in general. For so 'tis evident, that let the kinds of Idolatry be never so many, they must needs participate the forementioned no­tion; because all the Species, or different kinds, must needs participate the gene­ral notion, under which they are contain­ed: as for instance, because it is the ge­neral notion of an Animal, to be vivens sensibile, a living Substance endowed with a sensitive power, let the Species, [Page 97]or differences be never so many, 'tis im­possible, that there should be any sort of Animal, which is not vivens sensibile. So that, whatsoever is not vivens sensible, is not Animal: and whatsoever Worship is such, that thereby the Honour due only to God, is not given to a meer Creature, such a worship cannot be any sort of Idolatry.

Hence I infer, that 'tis impossible the Roman Church should teach, or hold, any kind of Idolatry what­soever it be, gross, or not gross, but she must hold, (supposing the No­tion of Idolatry in general, to be such as has been insinuated) expressly or im­plicitly, in the same manner as she holds Idolatry, That some Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature: which Errour (for evidently 'tis an Er­rour) is inconsistent with the contrary Truth, viz. No Honour due to God may be given to a meer Creature. And what Truth is this? Fundamental and Essen­tial, or Non-fundamental and Non-essen­tial? without debate it is a Fundamen­tal, and Essential point of Religion. For what point is such, if this be not? Nay Dr. St. himself does absolutely grant it, pag. 26. in the Answer to my first Propo­sition, [Page 98]as hereafter will appear; and p. 21. he accounts among the Essentials of a true Church, and the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, this very proposition, viz. That God, and his Son Jesus Christ, are the proper object of Di­vine Worship; or (which is the same) no Divine Worship, or no Honour due only to God, is to be given to any one but God. Since therefore all Idolatry is incon­sistent with the forementioned Funda­mental, and Essential point, 'tis mani­fest, the Church of Rome cannot hold any kind of Idolatry whatsoever, with­out holding a Fundamental Errour, de­structive to the very Essence, and Being of a True Church. Wherefore Dr. St. by granting the Roman Church to be a True Church, and yet charging her with Idolatry, does commit a palpable Con­tradiction, and in one breath blows cold and hot; asserting, that she is a True Church, and yet that she holds some­thing inconsistent with the very Being and Essence of a True Church.

To draw this Argument into a nar­rower circle, I form this Dilemma. Ei­ther by the Idolatry Dr. St. Fathers up­on our Church, Some Honour, due only [Page 99]to God, is given to a meer Creature, or not. If not, then it is no Idolatry, as not par­ticiparing the general Notion of Idola­try: If so, then it is destrrctive to an Essential point of Religion; and conse­quently to the Essence of a True Church. So that Dr. St. by distinguish­ing two sorts of Idolatry, one destruct­ive to the Being of a Church, another not-destructive to the Being of a Church, does as much as tell us, There are two sorts of Idolatry; one, that is Idolatry, another, that is not Idolatry: of the former he declares us free; but of the latter, he makes us guilty. And we, poor Souls! because we cannot discern such subtle distinctions as these, must be chalked up for Half-witted men. But if the accomplishedness of Dr. St.'s wit has no more of wit in it, then No Ido­latry has of Idolatry, we have little rea­son to envy him.

Yet farther; 'tis 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 [Page 100]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. 'Tis therefore impossible, that the Roman Church should hold any sort of Idolatry, as Dr. St. will needs have [Page 101]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 [Page 102]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, 'tis enough for my purpose to e­vince, that that sort of Idolatry, which Dr. St. Fathers upon the Roman Church, Destroies the very Essence, [Page 103]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 'tis 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 [Page 104]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, [Page 105]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 [Page 106]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 an Image, which is no God, is all one kind of formal I­dolatry Wherefore Dr. St. since he assents to this Doctrine, Parallels the Venera­tion of Images, practised by the Roman Church, to the Worship of False Gods, and looks upon them both as one kind of formal Idolatry: and certainly the Worship of False Gods, as rejecting the true God, is inconsistent with the Be­ing of a True Church. For what Idola­try is so, if this be not? In the same pag. he pretends to shew, that the grossest Idolatry in the world, is excusable on the same grounds, whereon we excuse from Idolatry the Veneration of Christ in the Eucharist: which he compares with the Idolatry of those, who said Christ was the Sun: and he adds, pag. 136. That the Absurdities of Transubstantiation are greater, than of that Doctrine; which [Page 107]teaches the Sun to be God; and in the same place he calls it as Venial a Fault; The Worshipping that for the True God, which is not so; such is the Ido­latry he Fathers upon us, and terms it the Superstition of an undue way of Worshiping; as the Worshipping False Gods, which he stiles the Superstitian of an undue object: and pag. 137. he saies thus, The most stupid and senseless of all Idolaters, who Worship the very Images for God, (which the wiser among the Heathens, according to his Judgment, alwayes disalowed) were in truth the most excusable upon this ground; upon which we excuse from Idolatry the Ve­neration we give to the Sacrament of the Altar: and by consequence, the I­dolatry he Fathers upon us in this mat­ter, is in his opinion worse, and less ex­cusable, than the most stupid, and senseless Idolatry of the Heathens.

In the page immediately before, he compares our Veneration of Christ in the Eucharist, with the Aegyptians wor­shipping the Sun for God, and the Israe­lites the Golden Calf, believing it was the true God. Pag. 142, 143. speaking of [Page 108]the Veneration the Roman Church al­lows to Saints, he adds, I would wil­lingly understand, why I may not as well honour God by giving Worship to the Sun, as to Ignatius Loyola, or St. Francis, or any other of the late Cannonized Saints? And why does he not speak of the B. Virgin Mary, of the Apostles, of St. Augustine, and of other Ancient Saints, since he equally impugns the Veneration of all Saints? The reason he adds is ex­cellent: I am sure, saies he, the Sun is a certain Monument of Gods goodness, and I cannot be mistaken therein. But I can ne­ver be certain of the holiness of those per­sons, viz. the late Cannonized Saints. — For all that I can know, Ignatius Loyola was a great Hypocrite. But I am sure that the Sun is none. — I know the best of men have their Corruptions, and to what degree it is impossible for others to understand. But I am certain the spots of the Sun are no Moral Impurities, nor dis­pleasing to God. How frivolous this rea­son is, will clearly appear by this in­stance. Dr. St. will not deny, but that some Reverence, Respect, Esteem, and Veneration may be given in this life to [Page 109]men, by reason of their Holiness, Sanctity, and Honesty of Life; and that one may here upon earth implore the Prayers of other men, especially Holy and Honest Men; or invoke them to be his Intercessours with God in his Necessities; which is practised by Pro­testants; and no more than this we a­scribe to the Saints in Heaven.

Now according to this Reason of the Dr. (to use his own words) Why may I not as well honour Dr. St. 's Cat, or Dog, (who in the common opinion of Philosophers, as being Substances endowed with Life, are perfecter than the Sun) as Dr. St. himself; or invoke them as well as him, or any of the Protestant Bishops, or Ministers? I am sure Dr. St. 's Cat, and Dog, do whatever God will have them do; and that they never have transgress'd any of his Command­ments; and I cannot be mistaken therein. But I can never be certain, that Dr. St. is an honest man; yea I am certain, that he has transgress'd Gods Commandments. For all that I can know Dr. St. is a great Hypocrite, and an errant Knave. But I am sure Dr. St. 's Cat, and Dog are none. I know that Dr. St. has his Corruptions, [Page 110]since the best of men have theirs; and to what degree he has them, is impossible for me, or others, to understand; but I am certain, that the Blemishes of those Crea­tures, supposing they have them, are no Moral Impurities, nor displeasing to God.

Whence it follows, that according to this Argument of Dr. St. 'tis as Law­ful, and more laudable, to Reverence, upon the account of Honesty, Dr. St.'s Cat, or Dog, & to invoke their Interces­sion; as to Reverence Dr. St. himself, or to invoke his assistance by Prayers: and what ever answer Dr. St. shall give to this Instance, will solve the Objecti­on he makes against us. For 'tis certain that the Sun is as uncapable to under­stand, or to be made to understand, our addresses, or to intercede for us, or to lead a moral, honest life, as a Cat, or a Dog: But Dr. St. knows too well, that it is not for his interest to consider the incoherency of his Principles, or the train of Absurdities, which commonly wait upon his Arguments. Yet for our present intent it is enough, to shew, that the Idolatry he endeavours to fasten upon the Roman Church, in the Invoca­tion [Page 111]of Saints, which she allows of, is, in his perswasion, as bad or worse, than the Adoration of the Sun.

Page 159. he makes a large Parallel between the Veneration, that Roman Catholicks afford to Saints, and the Ido­latry of the Heathens, in Sacrificing to their Inferiour Deities, or Heroes. Did the Israelites, saies he use solemn Cere­monies of making any capable of Divine Worship? So does the Roman Church. Did they set up their Images in publick pla­ces of Worship, and then kneel down before them, and Invocate those represented by them? So does the Roman Church. Did they Consecrate Temples, and Erect Al­tars to them, and keep Festivals and burn Incense before them? So does the Roman Church. Lastly, Did they offer up Sacri­fices in those Temples to the Honour of their lesser Deities, or Heroes? So does the Ro­man Church. Whence it appears, that Dr. St. does hold us for as great Idola­ters, by reason of the Honour we af­ford to Saints, as the Heathens were in Adoring their lesser Deities. All this Doctrine he had laid down in his An­swer to the Questions, pag. 3, 4. where [Page 112]he has these words. The same Argument whereby the Papists make the Worship of the Bread in the Eucharist not to be Idolatry, would make the grossest Heathenish Idola­try not to be so: And a little after he saies thus; 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 the gi­ving to the Creature, the Worship due only to the Creator. Whence it follows, that Dr. St. does Charge the Roman Church with an Idolatry of an undue Object; Because the Worship, due only to God, is given by us (as he fancies) to a meer Creature: and not only with Ido­latry of an undue, and prohibited man-manner of Worship: which are two sorts of Idolatry he makes mention of.

In the same page, to confirm the for­mer Doctrine, he saies thus; In the Worship of God by Images, wherewith he Charges us, the Worship due to God (and I suppose he speaks of a Worship due only to God) is terminated wholly on the Creature. Wherefore if this be Idolatry, it must be Idolatry of an undue Object. [Page 113]Much more to the same purpose might be alledged out of him. But what alrea­dy I have produced, is sufficient.

From what hitherto has been quoted out of Dr. St. 'tis manifest, that the Ido­latry he Fathers upon the Roman Church is, in his opinion as bad, nay worse, than the grossest Idolatry of the Hea­thens. Now since the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens is, beyond debate (and Dr. St. alwaies supposes it is so) is (I say) inconsistent with the Being, and Essence of a True Church, and a true Religion: and since the Malice of Ido­latry is to be scaned by the opposition it has with Religion; this being so, is it not a madness to say, and confess, that the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens is inconsistent, not only with the Sound­ness, but also with the Essence of a true Church; but yet that the Idolatry of the Papists, although as bad, nay worse; than the grossest of the Heathens, is in­consistent only with the Soundness of a Church, and not with the Essence. Is not this, as if one should say, If you cut off the head of a man, you will kill him; but if you give him another wound as bad, [Page 114]or worse; if you run him through the heart, if you cut him all in pieces, you will only make him sick? What sence can there be in affirming, that the Heathens are not members of the True Church, because they are Idolaters in so high a degree; and yet that Roman Catholicks, though grosser Idolaters than the Heathens, are Members of the True Church? That the Heathenish Idolatry, at least some, is of a nature high enough to unchurch Heathens; and yet that the Roman Ido­latry, though grosser and higher than any Heathenish, is not of a nature high enough (as he saies pag. 22.) to un­church Romanists? If this be not Non-sense, what is?

Moreover, from what we have alledg'd out of the Dr. 'tis evident, that he ascrib's unto us Idolatry of an undue Object: and sure all such Idolatry is inconsistent with the very Being of a True Church. For Dr. St. when he would excuse the Idolatry he Fathers upon us, from being destructive to the very Essence of a true Church, he endeavours to say, that it is only Idolatry of an undue manner of Worship; which shews, that he holds [Page 115]Idolatry of an undue Object, to be de­structive to the Essence of a Church. Since therefore he confesses, in the pla­ces above mentioned, that the Idolatry of the Roman Church is Idolatry of an undue Object, he makes her guilty of an Idolatry, inconsistent with the Essence of a true Church.

Again, Dr. St. seems to suppose, that an Idolatry, which brings in a multipli­city of Gods, is destructive to the Ess­ence of a Church: and why? Because it is destructive, at least by consequence, and mediately, to a Fundamental point of Religion, viz. the Unity of the God­head. Since therefore the Idolatry he fathers upon us, is destructive, at least mediately, to this Fundamental point, The Honour due only to God is not to be gi­ven to a meer Creature, assented unto e­ven by Pagans, it must be inconsistent with the Being of a Church. For an Errour destructive to any Fundamental point of Religion whatever, is destruct­ive to the Being of a Church, as has been demonstrated. Yea an Idolatry accompanied with the acknowledgment of one onely God, (such is the Idola­try [Page 116]he imputes to us) may, doubtless, be inconsistent with the Being of a Church: as for instance, the Idolatry of such, who accknowledging one on­ly God, should adore no other God but the Sun.

Yet farther, the Adoration of a red Cloth, which the Laplanders use, either is destructive to the Being of a Church, or not. Sure Dr. St. is not so mad as to say it is not. Now if it be destructive to the Essence of a Church, as certainly it is, is not Dr. St. ashamed to say, that the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist is worse, and less excusable, than that of the Laplanders, and yet that it may be consistent with the Being of a True Church? Can any one require a more convincing Argument, to prove, that such a Church is no true Church; then if he can shew, that she adores, or re­quires the Adoration of a red Cloth for God, or something as bad, or worse.

Lastly, Dr. St. affirms, that the Ro­man Church does not only teach an Ido­latry as bad or worse, than the grossest of the Heathens, but also that she teach­es it as an Article of Divine Faith, Fa­thering [Page 117]it upon God, and making him the Author thereof. For the Roman Church delivers as Articles of Divine Faith, the Adoration of Christ in the Eu­charist, the Invocation of Saints, and the Veneration of Images, as both he and we confess. The Dr. moreover maintaines all the forementioned pract­ices, and Doctrines to be flar Idolatry; as much, or more detestable, than the grossest Heathenish Idolatry. Now cer­tainly 'tis a Fundamental, and Essential point of Religion, That God is not the Author of any Superstition whatsoever, much less of so gross an Idolatry, as he will needs have the Roman Idolatry to be: and consequently, 'tis impossible, that the Roman Church should teach God to be the Author of such an Idola­try, (as necessarily she must, if she teaches it as an Article of Faith) with­out erring against the aforesaid Funda­mental point; and by consequence, without incurring a Fundamental Er­rour, destructive to the very Being of a Church.

'Tis manifest therefore, that Dr. St. does commit a palpable Contradiction, [Page 118]by asserting the Roman Church to be a True Church, and yet charging her with an Idolatry as bad, or worse, than the grossest of the Heathens. I know not whether these lines will fetch blood from Dr. St. for (as he saies, Pref. Gen. he was threatned with such lines from his Adversaries) But I am sure, that if he has any blood in him, and has not lost all sense of his honour, they will fetch the blood into his face, and make him blush.

After the Dr. had proved unsuccessful in shewing my way of proceeding disin­genuous, he endeavours to prove it so­phistical, and captious, saying, pag. 23. That the starting of a new Objection, or the raising a new Difficulty answers no Ar­gument; and that this manner of procee­ding of mine, is a clear evidence of a so­phistical, and cavilling humour, rather than of any intention to satisfie an inqui­sitive mind. To this I answer, When the Disciples of the Pharisees, and Officers of Herod came to tempt our Saviour, ( Mat. 22.) they proposed unto him a question, and our Saviour starting a new question, and raising a new Diffi­culty [Page 119]solved the question proposed un­to him, and silenced his Adversaries. But had Dr. St. been with the Enemies of Christ in that occasion, he would have suggested unto them, That it was a clear evidence of a sophistical, and cavel­ling humour, in order to answer one que­stion, to start another. Besides, what question, or difficulty do I start? I take for granted, that the Roman Church is a true Church, as Dr. St. has heretofore, and does still grant: and hence I prove the nullity of the Charge he laies against us: which is the common way of con­futing an Adversary; viz. Out of Prin­ciples granted by him, to infer the contra­dictory of what he maintains. But Dr. St. had charged me with Sophistry, and Captiousness; and he must make it good the best way he can: which is to feign his Adversary to say what he does not.

CHAP. VII. The Invalidity of the Doctor's Answers to our Propositions in Particular.

LEt us see now, for the greater satis­faction of the Reader, what he Answers to every particular Proposition I laid down in order, to prove him guil­ty of Self contradiction, in Charging us with Idolatry; and to clear our Church from so foul an Aspersion: my first Pro­position was this:

'Tis an Article of Faith, and a Funda­mental point of Religion, That the Ho­nour which is due only to God, is not to be given to a meer Creature. This Propositi­on the Dr. absolutely grants, without any distinction, saying, pag. 26. His first Proposition I agree to. He adds after­wards, That there is no dispute between us whether that Honour, which is due on­ly to God, may be given to a Creature; and finally, he grants this Proposition to be in it self true. But after he had abso­lutely granted it, without any distincti­on, [Page 121]he begins to quibble at it. But I de­sire he would tell me, whether the ex­ception he afterwards makes against it, does hinder, or not, the absolute truth thereof? If it does not, what more can I, or any one else desire, when we lay down Principles, or Propositions, than that the Proposition we advance be absolutely true? If it does hinder the absolute truth of the aforesaid Proposi­tion, why did he grant it absolutely without any distinction? But what is the exception he makes against us in this Proposition? He saies, We should have discust, what that Honour is, which is due only to God. Wherein he adds, there is a great dispute between them and us. So that it seems, he would have had us lay down, among the Principles, which we advanced against him, some thing that is disputed between us: which is point blank against the very notion of a Prin­ciple; which ought to he agreed unto by all, or at least by the Adversary, with whom we deal. So that he accuses us, that we proceed Sophistically, and Cap­tiously: and why? Because (forsooth) we do not lay down for a Principle, that [Page 122]which is not a Principle: which doubt­less is a frivolous accusation. Neither was there any need, we should discuss in particular, what that Honour is which is due only to God. For, the Honour we give to Images, or Saints, either is due only to God, or not. If the Dr. saies it is; then it is a palpable Contradiction, for the Dr. to affirm that our Church is True, and yet that she allows Saints and Images such an Honour. If he saies it is not, then how can he accuse our Church of Idolatry, because she gives to Saints and Images such an Honour? Where­fore, without descending to the particu­lar Honour due only to God, we prove, that either Dr. St. must confess, that our Church is free from the aforesaid Idolatray, or that he contradicts him­self; which was my proper task in that place: and is not this enough?

He adds, pag. 27. That it cannot ex­cuse us from Idolatry, to say, That we ac­knowledge it to be Idolatry, to give that Honour, which we suppose to be due only to God, to a meer Creature, in case that he can prove, that we give to meer Crea­tures any part of that Honour which is due [Page 123]to God. I do confess, that were it once proved, that we give any Honour, duly only to God to a meer Creature, such an acknowledgment would not excuse us from Idolatry; as it did not excuse the Heathens from the like Crime, although they acknowledged the same Truth. But here we must reflect, That some­times the Dr. saies, that 'tis Idolatry to give to a meer Creature, the Honour due only to God: and in that he saies the truth: Othertimes, as in this place, he omits only, and speaks of Honour due to God. For some honour is due to God; but not only to God. As when our Sa­viour was upon earth, without doubt the Honour of kneeling down before him, was due unto him: which Honour notwithstanding is due unto a King, and to ones Father. But what is all this, that Dr. St. sets down in this Paragraph, to clear himself from Self-contradiction, in asserting our Church to be a true Church, and yet charging her with Ido­latry? which was the design in this se­cond part of his Answer; and my im­mediate intention, in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet, was to prove [Page 124]him guilty of Self-contradiction, as he saies, page 28. His immediate intention was not to clear their Church from Idolatry, but to accuse me of Contradiction: yet I have shewn above, that if I evince that he contradicts himself in the way I insist upon I do manifestly clear our Church from Idolatry; and that this part was of my design.

My 2d Proposition was, as follows. To teach Idolatry, is to err against the fore­mentioned Article of Faith, & Fundamen­tal point of Religion, i.e. (as he saies) to teach Idolatry, is to teach That the Honour which is due only to God, is to be given (I sayed may be given) to a meer Creature. To this second Proposition he Answers thus, pag. 27. That this is to teach Idolatry, no one questions: but he adds, that they who do not teach this, i. e. that the Honour which is due only to God, may be given to a meer Creature; may yet teach Idolatry: and therefore he saies, We should, if we had proceeded as we ought to have done, have laid down an universal Negative, viz. No Church, that does not teach this, can be guilty of Idola­try; and not a particular Affirmative, [Page 125]as he fancies this Proposition of mine to be, To teach Idolatry, is to teach, that the Honour due only to God may be given to a meer Creature. Hence we may discover, how great a Logician Dr. St. is. I won­der how he should fancy that Propositi­on of mine to be a particular Affirmative; and not an Universal. Is this Propositi­on a particular Affirmative, To be a man is to be Animal rationale? Sure no body that understands any thing of Rationa­lity, can take 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 [Page 126]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 [Page 127]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 [Page 128]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 [Page 129]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, [Page 130]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 [Page 131]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, 'tis false: But if by Man be meant only that kind of Animal, which is man, 'tis 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 [Page 132] 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. [Page 133]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 Ʋniver­sal 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 [Page 134]cannot hinder the truth of my Proposi­tion; which was an Ʋniversal 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 'tis 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 [Page 136]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 [Page 137]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 [Page 138]the Dr. are bent to shew in what sense this Concession is made by him, and of what force it is in this present Debate. I prove this to be Dr. St.'s Sentiment, (which some did question, when my book first came forth, as I insinuated above) from several places, quoted out of his Rat. Account: amongst the rest I alledged the page 54, 55. where he affirms (adding that this is the sense of the English Church) That those points, which they defend in opposition to the Roman Church, and wherein only they impeach us of Errours, agreeing with us in the rest, are meer pious Opinions, and inferi­our Truths, which no body is obliged to be­lieve, either necessitate medij, or necessitate praecepti: and consequently that they are not Articles of Faith, or Fundamental points of Religion; every one being ob­liged, either necessitate medij, or necessi­tate Praecepti, to believe all such points: and he expressly asserts in the foremen­tioned pages, praising thence the mode­ration of the English Church, that she does not acknowledge any thing, as an Article of Faith, which is not acknow­ledged as such by Rome it self. Since [Page 139]therefore 'tis manifest, that Rome does not acknowledge as Articles of Faith, those Points which the English Church maintains in opposition to her, it evi­dently follows, according to Dr. St.'s Concession, that neither the Church of England does acknowledge such points as Articles of Faith.

Whence I shew'd the truth of this our Proposition, against Dr. St. and his Cabal. The substance of the Argument is this.

The Church of Rome does not err, nor cannot err, against any Article of Faith, or Fundamental point of Religion; un­less the points, at least some of them, against which she is supposed to err, be Articles of Faith, or Fundamental points of Religion. This is evident.

But none of these points, against which Dr. St. supposes the Roman Church to err, are in his opinion either Articles of Faith, or Fundamental points of Religion, as manifestly appears by what we have quoted even now out of him: for he supposes her to err only a­gainst those points, wherein the Church of England differs from us; which in [Page 140]his opinion are no Articles of Faith.

Therefore, according to Dr. St.'s o­pinion, the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith, or Funda­mental point of Religion; which is the Proposition set down by me.

Neither can the Dr. say, that al­though the Church of Rome does err im­mediately only against those points, which the English Church defends in op­position unto her; yet these points being connexed with Articles of Faith, she cannot err against these, without erring mediately, and by consequence, against Articles of Faith: he cannot, I say, affirm this. For otherwise he would ne­ver grant this our Fifth Proposition, as he does: Because to err mediately a­gainst an Article, is to err against that, and another point too; and so he should absolutely have denyed, That the Ro­man Church does not err against any Ar­ticle of Faith: which he does not. In the like manner it would be ridiculous to affirm, That one did not kill such a man, because he did not immediately destroy the Union between the Soul, and the Body; in the dissolution whereof death [Page 141]formally consists; but only mediately and by consequence, because he destroy­ed some disposition, necessary to the conservation of that Union: as if one Arraigned for having killed a man, should answer, That he did not kill him; That he only cut off his Head. Nay, if those particular Tenets of the Protestant Church are so connexed, and linked with Articles of Faith, that whoever denies, or destroies the former, must also deny, and destroy the latter, one would be obliged necessitate medij, or praecepti, not to dissent from such points; Because we are obliged not to deny any Article of Faith; and consequently not to deny any thing, which being once de­nyed, an Article of Faith is also denyed, and cashiered: which is contrary to what he asserts in the place above quo­ted: where he affirms, that men are prohibited to oppose them [particular Tenets of the English Church] exteri­ourly, but not to dissent from them in­teriourly: So because men are prohibi­ted to kill others, they are obliged, not to destroy any Disposition, whereon the life of man necessarily depends.

Nor is this Fifth Proposition laid down by me, only as Dr. St.'s and his Associates opinion; but, as I proved in my Book, it is also the common asserti­on of other Protestants; some of them averring This to be the judgment of all Learned Protestants, accusing the con­trary party of their Brethren of an ig­norant Zeal; and King James adds they are worthy to be burnt. Hence is that common speech of Protestants, boast­ing of their Charity therein, that the Roman Church doth not teach any Er­rour Fundamental, Damnable, or De­structive to Salvation; That she does not err in the Foundations, but in the Su­purstructures; nor in Fundamentals, but only in Not-fundamentals; nor against Articles of Faith, but against inferiour Truths only. Now to err in Fundamen­tals, or to admit a Fundamental Errour, is to err against a Fundamental Truth. Whence I conclude, that according to the constant perswasion, not only of Dr. St. and his Partizans, but also of all Learned Protestants, The Roman Church does not Err against any Article of Faith, or Fundamental point of Religion: which [Page 143]was the very Proposition I laid down in the fifth, and last place.

Let's examin yet farther, how Dr. St. still boggles at the forementioned Proposition. All that in substance he saies is this, That he never granted the Roman Church to be a Sound Church, or conse­quently, that she did not err in some matters of Religion, requisite to the Soundness, and Integrity of a Church: neither can he shew, that I alledged him to the contrary: neither does this fifth Proposition express any such thing, as is manifest. What therefore here, and in other places, he confessedly grants, is, That our Church is a True Church, un­erring against all Fundamental, and Essential points of Religion, and against all Articles of Faith: which is all that is necessary to the absolute Truth of the forementioned Proposition. Wherefore, as it would be very absurd to answer one, who intending only to prove such a person not to be dead, should take this Proposition, Such a person is yet a true man, retaining all the Essentials of a man, to answer (I say) that what he a­vouches of him is true; but that such a [Page 144]person is not a sound man: So it is very impertinent, when I proposed only to him, that the Roman Church does not err against any Article of Faith, or Fun­damental point of Religion, requisite to the Essence of a True Church, (as all Fundamental points are) to tell me, that the Roman Church does err against some points of Religion, requisite only to the Soundness of a Church: such as he fancies the particular Tenets of the Protestant Church to be: which is to tell me in plain English, That what I say is true, but what I say not is false: which answer is very impertinent, and good for nothing, but to trifle away the time.

And hence will appear, of what force this Concession of Dr. St. is to our pre­sent Design; which is to shew him guil­ty of Self-contradiction, by granting our Church, not to err against any Fun­damental point of Religion; and yet affirming that she teaches Idolatry, and such gross Idolatry. For, to teach Ido­latry, especially such a gross Idolatry, as he is pleased to Father upon us, is, according to his own express assertion, [Page 145]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 [Page 146]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 'tis a very different thing to say, A Church, that [Page 147]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 [Page 148]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 [Page 149]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, [Page 150]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 [Page 151]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 a Dr. or of Divinity should not be ignorant of them: and all that he does in this kind is, as appears by the instances above produced, First he feigns me to speak what I do not, and then he affirms, that I speak Sophistically, and Capti­ously.

Thirdly, 'tis the common stile of our Polemical Divines here in England, whether Catholicks or Protestants, to use this Syllogistical way, both in their Books and conferences, concerning matters of Religion, when they will write or speak close to the Subject they handle. Let my Adversary be a presi­dent; who in his Answer to the two Questions proposed by one of the Church of Rome, he reduces almost all his Discourses to formal Syllogisms, al­though he laboured that Answer, only for the satisfaction of a Lady; and La­dies [Page 152]do not use to be much verst in Arti­ficial Logick, or formal Syllogisms. And in the late Disputes betwen the Anna­baptists and Quakers, the greatest of their Auditory being made up of Wo­men and Tradesmen, who have not fre­quented Universities, yet their Argu­ments were framed in a Syllogistical way.

Since therefore I had never heard this common method of treating Controver­sies reprehended in our Divines, Prote­stants or Catholicks; and being more­over inclined thereunto, as having been bred, the greatest part of my life in Fa­mous Universities, where a Scholastick, and Dialectical method is most in vogue, I thought no just exception would be made against me, should I in­dulge my self in a thing nothing extra­vagant, and suitable to my inclination: especially when I intended my Book particularly for learned men, who are not unacquainted with Syllogisms. And for the satisfaction of Protestants in this matter, 'twill without doubt be enough to see, that my Adversary, Dr. St. al­though he seems to have been resolved [Page 153]to pardon me in nothing which he could find to be any way obnoxious to his Re­proofs, has not carped at me upon this account. However, if any one be not satisfied with these Reasons, he may pass over the Formal Syllogisms, laid down at the closing of each point, in Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet: only I desire him to make the Deducti­on by himself, in the manner he shall think best.

The Two Syllogisms therefore, wherewith, out of the Propositions a­bove mentioned, and assented unto by the Doctor, I demonstrated the Roman Church to be free from Idolatry in the Veneration of Images, Adoration of the Hoast, and Invocation of Saints, were these:

A Church that does not err against any Article of Faith, or Fundamental point of Religion, does not teach Idola­try. See Prop. 3.

But the Roman Church is a Church, that does not err against any Article of Faith, or Fundamental point of Religion. See Prop. 5.

Therefore she does not teach Idolatry.

But she does teach Veneration of Ima­ges, Adoration of Christ in the Eucha­rist, and Invocation of Saints. See Prop. 4.

Therefore none of these Practices, as taught, and allowed of, by the Roman Church, are Idolatry.

We may add this farther Discourse: A Church, that does not err against this Fundamental point, viz. The Honour due only to the Creator, is not to be given to the Creature, does not teach Idolatry; all Idolatry being destructive to the fore­mentioned point. See Prop. 3.

But such is the Roman Church, as is evident by the fifth Proposition.

Therefore she does not teach Idolatry.

And hence manifestly appears, how palpably Dr. St. Contradicts himself, in charging the Roman Church with Ido­latry, and yet granting her to be a True Church, unerring against all Fundamen­tals. For it is as much, as if he had said, she does not err against any Fundamental point, yet she does err against some.

CHAP. VIII. Several Quibbles against the aforesaid Doctrine removed.

FRom what we have hitherto set down, may easily be answer'd several Quibbles, which Dr. St. & others, do, or may, object against the Doctrine above established. The Doctor often insinuates that there are two sorts of Idolary. The one consistent with the Being, but not with the Soundness of a Church: The other inconsistent with the very Be­ing of a Church: and he makes the Ro­man Church guilty of the former kind of Idolatry, and not of the latter. Whence he concludes, that he does not commit any Contradiction by charging the Roman Church with this sort of Ido­latry, and yet granting her to be a true Church. But this objection vanishes to nothing; because we have shewn, that the general notion of Idolatry, allowed by the Dr. is inconsistent with a Funda­mental, and Essential point of Religion; [Page 156]and consequently with the very Being of a True Church. And since there can be no kind of Idolatry, which does not participate the general notion of Idola­try, as is evident, it manifestly follows, that all sorts possible of Idolatry are in­consistent with the Being of a Church.

Moreover, we have already demon­strated, that Dr. St. affirms, in the pla­ces quoted above, the Idolatry allowed of by the Roman Church to be as bad, nay worse, than the grossest Idolatry of the Heathens. Now if the grossest Ido­latry of the Heathens be destructive to the Being of a Church, as certainly it is, (neither does, nor can Dr. St. deny it) how is it credible, that an Idolatry yet worse than that, should be consistent with the Being, and Essence of a True Church? The Dr. might as well, with the subtlety of his wit, distinguish two Antichrists; the one, that is contrary to Christ; the other, though worse than the former, that is not contrary to Christ, but his intimate Friend. For I am confident, that one may as easily find out an Antichrist, not contrary to Christ, as an Idolatry not dstructive to [Page 156]the Being of a True Church. In the like manner he might say, (and therein he would highly oblige the Libertins of our Nation) that there are two sorts of De­bauchery, the one, inconsistent with a good life; the other, though far worse than the former, yet consistent with it: and then tells us, that one cannot be a good, and pious man, and yet a De­bauchee in the former sense; But that if one be a Debauchee in the latter sense, (which is yet far more horrible, than the former) he may very well be a good and pious man, without the least shew of Contradiction: and then laugh at us, as half-witted men, because we cannot understand these Niceties.

Certainly, there has never been yet in the world a man, who has more ob­liged Idolaters, than Dr. St. has done. I, and many more with me, have al­wayes believed, that there is no Idola­try, which is not Idolatry; and that all Idolatry is inconsistent with the Being of a True Church. But the incomparable Dr. St. has found out one Idolatry, that is no-Idolatry; another Idolatry, which kills a Church; another, though [Page 158]worse than the former, that makes her only sick; and another finally, that is an Essential perfection, and a necessary ingredient of a True Church; as we shall see, when we come to examin his Answer to our Appendix. Now since the Dr. has invented such pretty kinds of Idolatry, who can blame him for ma­king our Church, both True and Ido­latrous?

Again the Dr. answers, (clear himself from Self-contradiction) that he never affirmed, the Roman Church did, or does teach in express terms, any sort of Idolatry, or that the honour due only to God, may be given to a meer Creature. But that she only teaches those things, wherein Idolatry lies: which is not to teach Idolatry expressly: as for instance, she does not teach the Veneration she exhibits to Images to be Idolatry, and yet lawful; for that would be to teach Idolatry in express terms: but rather she affirms the contrary, viz. That the forementioned Veneration is not Idola­trous: for she thinks, that the honour she exhibits to Images, is not Divine Worship: however, because the Dr. [Page 159]will have her to be mistaken in these per­swasions, he impeaches her of Idola­try.

Now the Substance of this Answer comes to be, that although to say, that the Roman Church is a True Church, and yet that she does teach Idolatry in express terms, be a palpable Contra­diction; yet there is no appearance of contradiction in saying, as he does, that the Roman Church is a True Church, but yet that she does teach those things wherein Idolatry lies; which are his words, pag, 29. or that she does teach Idolatry, not in express terms, but only by Consequence, as he saies pag. 21.

But I leave to others to examin, how this does agree, with what Dr. St. affirms, in several places of his Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Roman Church: endeavouring to shew, that she does expressly act against the Second Commandment of God, (accor­ding to their account) wherein is prohi­bited Idolatry) when she teaches the Veneration, and Worship of Images.

Besides, this objection is cashiered, by what has been already discuss'd. For [Page 160]since the Idolatry Dr. St. fathers upon the Roman Church is destructive to a Fundamental point of Religion, and consequently to the very Being of a True Church, as has been already de­monstrated, 'tis impossible, that a Church, remaining a True Church, should teach such an Idolatry, either in express terms, or by good Consequence: and as the Dr. will not grant, that to teach Idolatry only by Consequence, teaching those things wherein it lies, is enough to free the Roman Church from being really Idolatrous; otherwise by this Answer he himself would discharge her from the Crime of Idolatry he casts upon her; so neither can it excuse the Roman Church from being no True Church; the oppositeness of Idolatry with the Essence of a Church, consisting in the Reality of the thing, and not in the particular perswasion of such as teach it. Wherefore to say, that the Roman Church is a True Church, and yet that she does teach Idolatry in the manner aforementioned, is to commit a palpable Contradiction.

Moreover, 'tis certain, neither can the [Page 161]Dr. question it, that the Churches of the grossest sort of Heathens, did teach Idolatry, destructive to the being of a true Church, and in a manner destructive thereunto; and yet they did not teach Idolatry in express terms, but only by Consequence, teaching those things wherein it did lie. For either they did affirm (though by mistake) that the object, to which they gave Divine Wor­ship, was not a meer Creature; or that the honour they gave, was not proper­ly Divine. For what Heathen did ever teach in express terms, That the honour due only to God, may be given to a meer Creature? So that were this objection of any force, it would excuse the grossest Heathens from practising, or teaching any Idolatry, destructive to the Essence of a True Church. Nay, if Ido­latry, because it is taught, not in express terms, but by consequence, is not de­structive to the Being of a Church, he might also affirm, that upon the same account it is neither destructive to the soundness of it; and consequently the Roman Church would not be, according to the Dr. 's opinion, not only True, [Page 162]but Sound also. For if this Doctrine be true, the destructiveness of Idolatry is not to be taken from the thing, which is practised or taught, but from the manner of practsing it, or teaching it. All Here­sies, if they be truly such, are destructive to the very Being of a True Church, be­cause they separate the Societies that profess them, from the Church of Christ, as the very notion of Heresie does import: yet according to this an­swer of the Doctor, they would be con­sistent with the Essence of a True Church; because there is no Heretical Church, which is not mistaken in some thing that it teaches; or which does teach to be an Errour or Heresie, that which she maintains as a Truth: yet be­cause she teaches those things, wherein her particular Heresie lies, and because she teaches to be true what really is an Errour, and an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith; therefore she is an He­retical, and no True Church.

Whence it follows, that should one affirm, that such a Church is True, and yet that she teaches those things, where­in Heresie, and Errour against Faith [Page 163]does lie, he would, beyond debate, con­tradict himself: and if it be a contradict­ion to affirm, that such a Church is true, and yet Heretical, will it be no Contra­diction to defend, that the Roman Church is True, but yet Idolatrous? For certainly Idolatry is no less destruct­ive to the Being of a Church, than Heresie.

Wherefore, as to kill a man, 'tis e­nough for one to do that, which necessa­rily infers the Separation of the Soul from the Body, whether he does it by mistake, or without mistake; know­ingly, or not knowingly: So, to destroy the Being of a True Church, 'tis e­nough, if she teaches any Fundamental, or Essential Errour, destructive to the Essence thereof; as she must necessarily do, if she teaches Idolatry, whether she teaches it in express terms, or only by consequence, whether by mistake or not: For although mistake may excuse him, who has it, from erring maliciously, yet not from erring, nor the Church that should teach such an Errour, from being Erroneous.

Since therefore Dr. St. does not ex­cuse the Roman Church from Erring a­gainst [Page 164]this Fundamental point, The Ho­nour due only to God, is not to be given to a meer Creature, he cannot excuse her from a Fundamental Errour, inconsist­ent with the Being of a True Church; and consequently he cannot excuse him­self from a manifest Contradiction, in granting the Roman Church to be a True Church, and yet charging her with Doctrines containing Idolatry.

After all these attempts, on the part of the Idolatry he fathers upon us, had proved unsuccessful; he turns himself to the other part of the Contradiction, saying, that when he grants the Roman Church to be a True Church, he means thereby nothing else, but that she does embrace all Essential points of Faith, couched in the Antient Creeds of the Ca­tholick Church; and he thinks it very far from any contradiction, to affirm, that a Church may embrace all such points, and yet teach Idolatry: and therefore he saies, that although the Church of Rome does own the Fundamentals of Christian Faith contained in the Antient Creeds, yet she debauches those very Principles, which she professes to own, [Page 165] 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, [Page 166]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 'tis 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 [Page 167]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, [Page 168]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 [Page 169]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 [Page 170]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 [Page 171]are quite out of the way to Heaven: and whether this be not pure non-sense, I leave it to the judgment of any impar­tial person whatsoever. Whence I con­clude, that all men of Reson must needs understand by a True Church, a Church that does not only positively embrace all those points, and Articles, which are requisite to the Being of a Church; but moreover does not teach, nor require any thing whatsoever destructive to Sal­vation; as doubtless gross Idolatry, and open Violations of the Divine Laws, are.

As insignificant and senseless as this, is another evasion, (or rather the same in other terms) the Dr. makes use of, viz. that we may be saved as Christians, but not as Roman Catholicks; and that we may be saved, if we repent; but not otherwise. And what Roman Catho­lick did ever affirm, that Protestants, or any Hereticks whatsoever, are dam­ned as Christians; or because they hold the general Principles of Christianity, wherein they agree with good Christi­ans? but only as holding the particular Errours of their respective Religions: [Page 172]neither will they be damned, if they Re­pent. And yet Dr. St. pretends, that Protestants have a more Charitable o­pinion of Catholicks, in order to their Salvation, than Catholicks have of Pro­testants. See my book, pag. 7, 8. Yea, there is no Religion, which does not hold some general Truths, viz. That we ought to repent of our sins, and retract our Errours; That we are bound to be­lieve, and do whatsoever God will have us believe, or do, and such like: neither is any one damned for holding these Truths; nor if he sincerely repents of all his sins, and retracts all his errours: and yet sure Dr. St. will not grant, that all Religions in the world are True, and the very same with Protestancy, as he saies ours is.

The forementioned Answer of Dr. St. puts me in mind of what one answer­ed a Prince, who was also a Bishop, when being checked by him for having committed some great misdemeanour unbeseeming a Bishop, he said, that he had done it as a Prince, not as a Bishop; the other replyed, But if the Devil car­ries away your Highness as a Prince, what [Page 173]will become of you as a Bishop? In the like manner, if Dr. St. affirms, that Roman Catholicks, as such, are damned, can he imagin, that they will be saved as Christians? In fine, accor­ding to this answer of Dr. St. it is no more possible for Roman Catholicks to be saved, than for a man to become a Horse; which is altogether impossible. For the repugnancy that is, for a man to become a horse, is not grounded up­on the Generical Predicates, wherin he agrees with a Horse; but upon his spe­cial difference: and Dr. St. confesses the particular Tenets of Roman Catho­licks to be repugnant to Salvation; but not the general: and if this be the possi­bility of Salvation he grants us, and whereof he so much vapours, what Ca­tholick ever denied it to Protestants? and to say, that we may be saved, if we repent of our particular Tenets, and recal them, (which we can never do without quitting the Roman Catholick Religion) is as much, as if he should say, that the Roman Catholick Religion is a true way to Salvation, but that it will never carry you thither, unless you [Page 164]quit it; which is, as I insinuated in the place above quoted, a pretty piece of Non-sense.

Whence we conclude, that, as Dr. St. to shew that the Roman Church may be Idolatrous, though True, forges an Idolatry, which is no Idolatry; so to prove that she may be a true Church, though Idolatrous, he feigns a true Church that is no true Church. And who can wonder now, that Whitby should stile Dr. St. a Prodigy of Inge­nuity and Learning; since he has been able to invent such prodigious distincti­ons of a true Church, no true Church; and of an Idolatry, no Idolatry.

And hence by the way, I infer a thing of great comfort for Roman Catholicks, which is, that when they hear their Church impeached of Idolatry, in so many Ballads cryed through the streets, and in so many Pamphlets, that lie up­on every Stationers Stall, there is no more meant by the Idolatry they accuse us of, than an Idolatry that is no Idola­try; or an Idolatry that is an essential per­fection of the true Religion: and there is no great harm to be feared from such Idolatries as these.

One thing there is, that I cannot but wonder at; which is, that since Dr. St. is so eminent in composing things, though never so opposite one to the o­ther, the Anabaptists and Quakers did not chuse him for Arbiter in their late Contests concerning Religion. For though the Anabaptists had proved the Quakers no Christians, as they pre­tended; notwithstanding the Dr. out of his immense charity, would have demonstrated, that they were both still of the very same Religion, not only a­mong themselves, but even with him also. For if he be able to bring to a com­position things, that grin so much one at the other, as a True Church and an Idolatrous Church, even with the grossest sort of Idolatry, what will he not compose? and if he be so charitable as to make his own Church the very same in substance with an Idolatrous Church, why not also with a No Chri­stian Church? besides, the Quakers and Anabaptists follow the very same Rule, whereby Dr. St. regulates Pro­testancy. See his Principles, 5, 13, 15. For after a sober and sincere enquiry [Page 176]made into the Truth, (and whether they have made such an enquiry or not, they must be their own Judges, with­out being bound to submit to any Exte­riour Guide) they follow the Light within, or a faculty in them of discerning Truth and Falshood, in matters proposed to their Belief: whereby they judge of the Truth of Divine Revelation, and of the Genuine sense thereof. So that, if this fa­culty (which is, and ought to be, ac­cording to the Dr. their sole Guide) tells them, That Christ is not God, That Chri­stian Religion is not true, or that there is no Scripture; All goes well, and they are of the very same Religion with Dr. St. adjusting themselves to his very rule. A late Book, entituled A Treatise of Humane Reason, disgusted much the Protestants as I have heard: and yet it is nothing else, but an abstract of those very Principles and Grounds, whereon this Champion of Protestancy, Dr. St. builds the Vindication of the Protestant Religion.

Finally, because the Dr. seems ex­tream fond of his distinction of a True Church, and a Sound Church, insinua­ted [Page 177]above, it will not be amiss to examin what he can mean by a Sound Church, and secure way to Salvation; which in this debate signifie the same. Does he mean by it a Church, that is free from all difficulties, and Temptations? if so, then there is no True Church in the world, that is sound and secure. For, even according to our Saviours Testi­mony, the true way to Heaven is nar­row, and difficult, beset with several dan­gers, and temptations; which render the Salvation of men extream hazard­ous; and encompassed on all with cross and by-paths, and dark turnnings; wherein many are miss-led; yea Chri­stian Religion, taken in its greatest pu­rity, contains high Mysteries, not easie to be assented unto; and hard Precepts which go against the grain of our nature; and many miscarry, deterred by these difficulties. Does he therefore mean by it a Church qualified with such Laws, that whoever keeps close to them till death, (and let the way to Salvation be never so secure, yet if one does not keep to it 'till death, what will it avail him?) will certainly be saved. If this [Page 178]be his meaning, there is no True Church which is not sound and secure, in this sense. For a True Church must contain all things necessary to Salvation, both in order to our Belief, and Practice, as is certain: neither does Dr. St. deny it: and sure, whoever dies, having dis­charged all things necessary to his Salva­tion, as well in reference to his Belief, as Practice, will certainly be saved; as is manifest from those words of our Sa­viour, Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva man­data: which is a much as if he had said, whoever observes my Commandments, shall certainly be saved: and doubtless no Body can do all, that is necessary to Salvation, without observing Gods Commandments.

Does he mean by it a Church, that does not teach any thing whatsoever, as an Article of Faith, which is either an Errour, or Corruption? This seems to be his meaning. But neither is it possi­ble, that any Church whatsoever should be a True Church, and yet not sound, and secure in this sense. For it is a ma­nifest Contradiction to affirm, That such a Church is a True Church, but [Page 179]yet that she fathers upon God, or teach­es God to be the Author of some Errour or Corruption; as necessarily she must, if she teaches any Errour or Corruption, as an Article of Faith. A True Church must not err against any Fundamental point of Faith, as is certain; nor conse­quently, against this point, God is not the Author of any Errour or Corruption whatsoever: which, doubtless, is Fun­damental. A true Church therefore must not teach any Errour or Corruption, as an Article of Faith; or (which is the same) must not teach God to be the Author of any Errour, or Corruption. For to teach this, is to err against the forementioned point.

Does he mean by it a Church, that does not require, or enjoyn, any Pract­ice, or any other thing, destructive to Salvation; as doubtless all Idolatry is, whether she teaches it as an Article of Faith, or not? But how can a Church be true, and yet not sound nor secure, in this sense also? A true Church must lead men to Salvation; and certainly it cannot lead men to Salvation, if it en­joyns, and requires them to do things [Page 180]destructive thereunto. Wherefore I cannot see what Dr. St. is able to mean by a Sound and Secure Church; which does not prove, either that there is not in the world any Church True and Sound; or that there is no Church True which is not Sound, and secure: and we are so far from confounding a True Church with a Sound and Secure Church in the first sense abovemention­ed; i. e. with a Church free from all dangers and difficulties, as Dr. St. will needs suppose we do, that we con­stantly affirm, that there is no True Church in the world, Sound and Secure in that sense; according to what I set down in my Book, pag. 5. But the Dr. did not think fit to take notice thereof.

From what has been agitated in the precedent Discourses, it manifestly ap­pears, that Dr. St. is guilty of Self Con­tradiction, by asserting that the Roman Church is a True Church, and yet char­ging her with Idolatry, yea the grossest Idolatry of the world: and as I promi­sed at the beginning, I am willing to ad­mit, as Judges in this plea, the Learned men in our two famous Universities.

CHAP. IX. The Doctor's Answer to my Appendix, proved Frivolous.

I Come now to consider, what Answer Dr. St. is pleased to afford to the Appendix of my Book; which he At­tacks in the next place: wherein, to confirm the former Doctrine, concer­ning the Nullity of the Charge of Idola­try, cast upon the Roman Church, I pro­ved, that either his Principles, whereon he bottoms the forementioned Charge, were not good, or that he himself was an Idolater: and the greatest part of his Answer, being contained in less than three leaves in Octavo, is stuffed up with Scoffs, gawdy expressions, jingling Metaphors, superfluous Digressions, Railery, and such like Chaff, the com­mon Ingredients of his Books. After I had declared each premise by it self, I summed up the substance of my Argu­ment in this manner.

Whoever Worships God represent­ed in a way far inferiour to his Great­ness, [Page 182]is an Idolater, according to Dr. St.'s main Principle; whereby he pretends to make good the Charge of Idolatry laid upon us in the Veneration of Images.

But whoever Worships God repre­sented unto him without the Beatifical Vision, either by Images, by words, or by Imagination, he worships God repre­sented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness, as is manifest.

Therefore whoever Worships God, represented unto him without the Bea­tifical Vision, either by Words or Ima­ges, or by his own Imagination, as is ding to Dr. St.'s Principles, is an Idola­ter: but Dr. St. does worship God re­presented unto him without the Beatifi­cal Vision, either by words, by Images, or his own Imaginations, as is evident, if he Worships God at all. Whence I conclude, that he is an Idolater, accor­ding to his own Concessions.

Now Dr. St. cannot deny the Conse­quences, if he once grants the Premises: neither can he deny the Premises with­out eating his own words, or denying some manifest Principle. For, certainly he is not so wicked, as to confess that he never Worships God; nor so Pha­natically [Page 183]pround, as to say, That he does enjoy the Beatifical Vision. Whence it follows, that he must grant, that he Worships God represented unto him in some manner beneath the Beati­fical Vision. For it is certain, that all o­ther Representations of God, different from the Beatifical Vision, must necessa­rily fall beneath it. Hence I infer, that all Representations of God, excepting the Beatifical Vision, (which is an In­tuitive Knowledg of God) are inferi­our to his Greatness. For all such Repre­sentations, as the Apostle teaches us, are Enigmatical, and per speculum, not representing God, on the part of the object, sicuti est, as he is, but (as Scholastical Divines term them) inade­quate and abstractive, per species alienas, by Idea's alien, and far estranged from the Nature of God; and consequently, infinitely beneath his Greatness. For whatsoever is not God, must necessarily be infinitely beneath him. Since there­fore all Representations of God not as he is, but by alien Species, and Idea's (such are all Representations of God by words, by Images, or by abstractive, and imperfect Imaginations) are far [Page 184]inferiour to his Greatness, and Majesty; it is manifestly inferred, that whoever Worships God, represented unto him in either of the forementioned manners, must needs worship him represented in a way far inferiour to his Greatness. Neither does Dr. St. in his Answer to this point, any where refute this Doct­rine; but rather confirms it, confessing plainly, pag. 39. That his Conceptions can­not reach the Greatness of God; and he would be a Fanatick should he assert rhe contrary. Now since Dr. St. worships God represented unto him by his own Conceptions, these remaining far be­neath his Greatness, we conclud that Dr. St. worships God represented un­to him in a way inferiour to his Gran­deur, and Majesty. Wherefore, to save himself from being an Idolater, he must necessarily deny this Principle to be true, viz. Whoever worships God, represented unto him in a way inferiour to his Great­ness, is an Idolater. Yet this is the main Principle, whereon he grounds the Charge of Idolatry, cast upon the Ro­man Church, in the Veneration of Ima­ges: and hence is manifestly proved, [Page 185]that the aforesaid Charge, as bottomed upon a false and Sandy Principle, is al­together groundless, and frivolous: which was what I intended by this Ap­pendix, made in confirmation of what I had laid down before, to prove our Church guitless of Idolatry.

Let's now examin, what Artifices the Dr. uses, to clear himself from this im­putation of Idolatry, drawn up against him out of his own Principles, and to prevent the Train (as he saies pag. 35.) laid to blow him up, fetch'd from his own Stores. First, he seems to have been in­clined to suspect, that this Charge of Idolatry cast upon him, was intended on­ly for a piece of Drollery. This is a pretty way to stave off all Arguments ab absur­do; which are very concluding, and fre­quent among Learned men; when to prove the inanity of some Principle pro­duced by the Adversary, they lay open the absurdities which thence ensue. A compendious Answering to all such Ar­guments, according to this incomparable Doctors way of answering, is to tell those who frame them, That they are in jest, and that without doubt they intend [Page 186]only to Droll. But if this manner of An­swering be warrantable, 'twill be suffi­cient to tell Dr. St. That his whole Di­scourse of Idolatry, and Fanaticism, charged upon the Roman Church, and almost all his other works, were inten­ded only for pieces of Drollery. Aper­son of Quality, and no Roman-Catho­lick, could find no fitter place in his Li­brary for Dr. St.'s Discourse of the Ro­man Idolatry, than to put it among the Play-books.

After this, to annul the aforesaid Charge of Idolatry, he betakes himself to admiration. What, saies he, pag. 35. is it come to this at last? and am I become an Idolater too, who was never apt to think my self inclined so much as to Superstition? I marry Sir, This is a speedy way in­deed to dispatch Arguments, with no more than an Admiration. What! Dr. Stillingfleet and Idolater? Dr. Stilling­fleet, that Zealous man for Religion? who knows not how to defend his own Church to be True, without laying down Principles, that prove all Chur­ches, never so Heretical, or Schismati­cal, to be true, and Orthodox. Dr. [Page 187] Stillingfleet, that pious and godly Pro­testant! who has so great a kindness for the Protestant Church, that he makes her the very same with an Idolatrous Church, and with such a kind of Ido­latry, that is worse than the adoring a red Cloath for God! Dr. Stillingfleet, so Reli­gious a man, that by all we can guess by his Principles alledged above, we cannot determin, whether he be of any, or of no Religion! What, such a man as this, an Idolater! no, God forbid. And why? Because (forsooth) he was never apt to think himself inclined that way. Excel­lent! just as if one should say, The Heathens did not think themselves Ido­latrous, nor inclined that way: There­fore they were no Idolaters. I wonder; why Dr. St. who boasts so much of his Charity, does not go to Newgate to in­struct the Malefactors there, how they may defend themselves, when they are Arraigned for Thieves, or Murderers; telling them with one sole Exclamation, they may invalidate all the Evidences brought in against them. What, They, Thieves? They, Murderers? They, take away mens Goods, and Lives too? who [Page 188]were never apt to think themselves inclined but to works of Piety? and as coming in­structed by so good an Advocate, they would, doubtless, be instantly dischar­ged.

But if this be the Champion of the English Church, as he is cryed up to be, she is in as miserable a condition, any of her Enemies con wish her. Such Defen­ders as these, have brought the English Protestancy so low, that 'tis no wonder they should in a every Session of Parlia­ment give her a Cordial to keep her a­live. Such Ministers contribute far more to the ruine of Protestancy, than any Roman Priests. Yea, if this manner of answering be solid, it follows also, that the Charges of Idolatry, and Fanati­cisme, wherewith he impeaches our Church, are without difficulty repealed, saying only, What, The Church of Rome Idolatrous! That Church, which has ba­nished Paganisme from the greatest part of the World! Should she introduce an Ido­latry more detestable, than the grossest Ido­latry of the Pagans! That Church, which even Protestants themselves confess, to have been the only visible Church of Christ, [Page 189]for above 1000 years, and acknowledge her to be the Mother Church, the Patriarchal Church of the West, the first See, prima Sedes, a true Member at least of the Ca­tholick Church, unerring in all Articles of Faith, the very same with their own Church; from whom they pretend to derive the Ordination of their Bishops, and by whom have been handed down to them the Books of Scripture; upon which alone they ground their Religion: that such a Church, and acknowledged as such, should be im­peached by Protestants, and among the rest by Dr. St. who in most things agrees to the former Character given of her: Should, I say, be impeached of an Iddolatry more de­testable, than the Adoration of an Animal, a Statue, or a red Cloth, for God; is in­deed a thing worthy of Admiration, and whereof several moderate Protestants are ashamed. But why should any one won­der, that Dr. Stillingfleet (Dr. Stilling­fleet I say) should be an Idolater; and only because he was never apt to think himself inclined that way? Although I never absolutely accused him of Idola­try; but only on supposition, that the Principles whereon he pretends to [Page 190]establish the Charge of Idolatry cast up­on us, were warrantable: which is ve­ry different, as presently shall be made to appear.

He goes on, and saies ( pag. 53.) That all the comfort he found left, was to­wards the conclusion of my Book; wherein, as he affirms, I confess, That the same Argument proves the Prophets, Evange­lists, and the Holy Ghost himself, to be I­dolaters: and then he adds, that he hoped there was no great harm to be feared in so good Company. But Dr. St. very disinge­nuosly leaves out this Clause contained in my Book, viz. or it proves nothing: which renders the sense very different fcom what those words, as quoted by the Dr. may seem to import. For sure he will not deny, but that it is a very different thing to say absolutely, Dr. St. is an Hypocrite, without adding any thing more, or to say, Dr. St. is an Hy­pocrite, if he holds one Religion in his heart, and professes another exteriourly. Now my intent was, by discovering the vast absurdities, which wait upon Dr. St.'s Argument, whereby he pretends to prove Roman Catholicks guilty of I­dolatry, [Page 191]to shew the inanity, and nulli­ty thereof, according to that irrefraga­ble Maxime of Rational Discourses, Out of Truth alone neither Falsity, nor Ab­surdity does follow: and because perhaps some might not think it any absurdity to grant, that Dr. St. is an Idolater; and consequently, admitting it, might stick to his Argument, I added, that the same Argument of the Dr. had it any force in it, would prove the Evangelists, and the Holy Ghost to be Idolaters: an absurdity so great, that no Christian can assent un­to: and when we argue ab absurdo, the greater, and more evident the absurdi­ty, we infer, is, the better is the Ar­gument. So that my Discourse runs thus:

Either Dr. St.'s Argument proves the Evangelists, and Holy Ghost, to be Ido­laters, or it proves nothing; as I have shewen throughout that Appendix.

But it does not, nor cannot prove, the Evangelists, and the Holy Ghost to be Idolaters. For certainly there can be no good proof of a Falsity, or Absurdi­ty:

Therefore his Argument proves no­thing.

When shall we find any thing in the Dr. that looks like a rational Answer to this Charge of Idolatry, which lies so heavy upon him, out of his own Te­nets? He saies ( pag. 37.) That God did forbid, in the Commandment, the wor­ship of him by Images; but not the wor­ship of him by our Conceptions, although unsuitable to his incomprehensible nature; without taking any notice of what I ob­jected to the contrary: for pag. 19. I affirmed, that the Dr. himself, pag. 59. in his Discourse concerning the Roman Idolatry, did understand the prohibiti­on contained in the Commandment, of all kind of Similitudes, or Representations whatsoever, whether of a real, or imagi­nary Being. For the words of the Law being general, all sorts of Representa­tions, or Likenesses of God are necessa­rily comprehended therein. Now, not only Corporeal Images, but also Words and Conceptions, are certain Repre­tations, and Resemblances of their ob­jects: which Dr. St. never denied. Yea Knowledge, or Mental Concepti­on, is commonly defined a Formal Re­presentation of an Object; and it is an [Page 193]ordinary opinion among Philosophers, that in obscure, and abstract Concepti­ons, the mind frames an Idea of the Ob­ject. And certainly should one adore his own thoughts, and Idea's, he would commit Idolatry, and transgress this Commandment. Wherefore this Com­mandment does forbid the making any Image, or Representation of God, whether Spiritual, or Corporeal; not absolutely; but as the Law saies, to adore it. Since therefore, as Dr. St. con­fesses in his former book, and the Rea­sons now alledged do evince, the Law speaks of all kinds of Representations, and Resemblances, in order to that ef­fect, why does he, in his Answer to my Book, confine the Law only to Corpo­real Representations?

Again, if according to the Dictates of Nature, (as Dr. St. affirms. pag. 36. who therefore thinks this command­ment to be of an unalterable Nature, common to all, and not peculiar to the Jews) 'tis Idolatry to represent God by Corporeal Images, or to adore him so represented; because Corporeal things represent God in a way far be­neath [Page 194]his Greatness, (which is the rea­son he produces for the Law) it follows evidently, that whoever adores God re­presented unto him in a way beneath his Greatness, whether by words, Images, or gross Imaginations; (for neither of these waies do represent him in a man­ner suitable to his Majesty, and there are unworthy Conceptions of God, as well as unworthy Images) is an Idola­ter: which is, what I intended to prove against him. For in natural Precepts (such as this is) the Law extends as far as the Reason of the Law; and accor­ding to the constant Axiome of Logici­ans, Causalis vera infert universalem ve­ram. If the Proposition, which contains the cause, or reason of a thing be true, there follows necessarily an universal Truth. Wherefore if this Proposition, who adores God represented by Corpo­real things is an Idolater, because he adores him represented in a way inferi­our to his Greatness, be true, as Dr. St. will needs have it to be, this Universal must also be true, Whoever adores God, represented in a way inferiour to his great­ness, is an Idolater. But the Dr. thought [Page 195]it best not to take any notice at all of these things: and I find, that among many other his rare accomplishments, one is, that he is excellent in forgetting such things, as he knows he cannot an­swer.

In the same page he will seem to lay in the dust my whole Discourse, with these only words: But the mischief is, all this subtlety (of my Argument) is used against the Law-maker, and not a­gainst me. O Irrefragable Answer! if such Answers as these wll serve the turn, I'le warrant you the Dr. will ne­ver be puzzled. Let any one interpret the Law of God never so ridiculously, if he be urged with the Absurdities, that flow from such an Interpretation, his answer may be according to this learn­ed Dr. when he hath nothing else to say, That all the Absurdities they pretend to draw from his Interpretation, are against the Law-maker, and not against him. Here occurs unto me, what I have late­ly read in a brief account of the most material passages between the Quakers and the Baptists, at the Barbican Meet­ing, London, October 9. 1674. pag. 9, [Page 196]10. The Anabaptist press'd the Quaker in this manner: the Apostle saith, Let Women be silent in the Church. Why suffer ye Women to declare? The Quaker answered, The Woman to be silenced, is the Flesh. Has the Flesh, replies the Ana­baptist, a Husband? Yea, saies the Qua­ker: and who is it, replyed again the Ana­baptist. the Quaker promptly answered, The Devil. But the Anabaptist goes on, and urges, The Text saith, Let a Wo­man ask her Husband at home; must the Flesh be instructed by the Devil in matters of Religion? Here the poor Quaker seemed, according to this account, to be puzzled. But had Dr. St. been by him, he would have suggested to him this easie answer. Alas for thee! Thou canst not understand. All thy subtlety is a­gainst Paul, and not against me.

The debate between us and Dr. St. is concerning the right meaning of Gods Commandment. The Dr. saies, that thereby are prohibited all Representati­ons of God, in a way inferiour to his Great­ness, and the Adoring of him so Represen­ted. And after I had shewn out of un­deniable Principles the absurdity of this [Page 197]interpretation, can the Dr. think it a sufficient answer to say, All this subtle­ty is against the Law maker, and not a­gainst him? Whenas all the Absurdi­ties I deduce, are against Dr. St.'s inter­pretation of the Law, not against the Law it self, nor the Law-maker.

In the pag. 38. he seems to place the difference between Thoughts of God, and Corporeal Images of him, in order to our present design, That the former proceeds from the necessary weakness of our understanding, not being able to reach the Greatness of God; who there­fore has procured by several waies, to prevent the errour of our Imaginations. But the latter are voluntary. This diffe­rence, or disparity, is very insignificant. For, as it proceeds from the necessary weakness of a mans understanding, that we cannot represent God in our Con­ceptions and Imaginations, but in a way far beneath his Greatness: so it proceeds also from the necessary weak­ness of all humane Art, and Learning, that we cannot represent him either by Words, or Corporeal Images, but in a manner very unsuitable to his Majesty. [Page 198]And as I have insinuated several times, 'tis certain, that there are as unhand­some, and unworthy Representations of God, and as far beneath his Great­ness, in Imaginations, and in words, as in Corporeal Images. For what are Ima­ges, or Pictures, as I hinted pag. 20. but mens conceptions, and Idea's either cut out in Stone, or set down in Co­lours? And as God does procure to prevent the Errours of our Imaginati­ons relating to him, by securing us, that he is far greater, than we can imagin; so he does procure in like manner, to prevent the Errours in our Words, and Images concerning God, by securing us, that he is far greater, than he can be exprest, either by Words, or Images.

Moreover, if the Dr. understands, (for neither he himself seems to know what he would be at) by the difference assigned here by him, that we may chuse whether we will make Corporeal Images of God, or not; but we can­not chuse but think of God; and by consequence, Thoughts of God are ne­cessary: but Corporeal Images of God are voluntary; Then I reply, that this [Page 199]disparity dos not solve the difficulty, concerning the expression, or represen­tation of God in words; which is as voluntary unto us, as the representati­ons of him in Images. And yet Dr. St. will not say, either that we cannot speak of God without committing Idolatry; or that we are able to express in words his ineffable Majesty, as it deserves to be expressed.

Again many times to think of God is, in some manner, free unto us; because it is free unto us, whether we will hear Sermons, read Books, and recite Pray­ers, wherein several expressions of God are contained; and consequently they excite in us Thoughts of God, as re­presented by them. And although the first Thought of God be not free unto us, yet the continuation thereof is so: nay sometimes Corporeal Pictures of God occur unto us, when by chance we light upon them, without more free­dome on our part, then the Thoughts of God: so that were there no other dispa­rity, than what the Dr. here hints at, 'twould in that case be no less Idolatry to adore God represented by our Ima­ginations, [Page 200]than by Corporeal Images.

Another disparity he insinuates, is, That our Conceptions, although they reach not the Greatness of God, yet they are Spi­ritual Representations of his Nature; but Images are Corporeal Resemblances; and it is a great disparagement to God, to bring him down to the meanness of a Corporeal Image. This answer is also very frivo­lous. First, because words are Corpo­real Representations; yet it is no Idola­try to adore God as represented unto us in the words of Scripture. Neither will Dr. St. dare to affirm the contrary, al­though by such words, God be repre­sented unto us in the same, or like man­ner, as he is represented in a Picture, viz. with Hands, Arms, Mouth, Sitting, and with such like Corporeal Expressi­ons. Secondly, because, since our Con­ceptions do not reach the Greatness of God, we cannot think of God without abasing him, and bringing him down to the Meanness of our thoughts. Seeing therefore, that according to Dr. St.'s Sentiment, it is Idolatry to represent God by Corporeal Images, because they cannot reach his Greatness, but [Page 201]necessarily bring him down to mean Ex­pressions; upon the same account it would be Idolatry to represent him by our Conceptions; and the difference, if any, would only be, that the former is somewhat grosser, than the latter. Thirdly, to adore as God any Creature, whether Spiritual, as an Angel, or the Devil, or Corporeal, as an Animal or Statue, is flat Idolatry; neither the dif­ference of Spiritual, or Corporeal, can save the one from being Idolatry, and not the other: and it would be very absurd to say, that to adore the Devil as God is not Idolatry, because the Divil is a Spirit; but to adore the Sun, as God, is Idolatry, because the Sun is a Body. Wherefore in the like manner there can be no reason to affirm, that the Adorati­on of God by our Conceptions is not Idolatry; but that the Adoration of God by Images is, because these are Corporeal, but those are Spiritual.

Finally he answers, pag. 38. That he had never such an Imagination of God, as to apprehend him like an old man sitting in Heaven; that he has no other Con­ception of God; but of a Being infinitely [Page 202]perfect. But with the Dr.'s leave, unless he enjoyes the Beatifical Vision of God, & sees God face to face, (facie ad faciem) which we have no reason to believe he does, the Knowledge, and Conception, he frames of God, must necessarily be Enigmatical, as the Scripture terms it, and Abstractive; and consequently by the Species, and Similitude of Things far estranged from God: whether of an old man sitting in Heaven, or of some o­ther object it matters little: Because whatever is not God, is infinitely be­neath him. Besides, when Dr. St. re­cites his Creed, with attention to what the words signifie, he must needs con­ceive God by the Species, or Similitude of one, who has a right hand, when he pronounces those words, Sedet ad dex­teram Dei Patris Omnipotentis, and it is an intolerable arrogance in Dr. St. to scorn, as it seems he does, to conceive God, as he is represented unto us in se­veral places of Scripture, under Corpo­real Similitudes; and as the Prophets themselves, who writ those Books, con­ceived him: their words being expressi­ons of their Thoughts and Conceptions.

Moreover, I desire to know from Dr. St. whether he ever lifts up his heart, and Adores Christ, as he conceives him in Heaven, or not. If not, 'tis no won­der he should not dare to Adore Christ in the Eucharist for fear of committing Idolatry; whenas upon the same ac­count he dares not Adore him in Hea­ven. If so, can the Dr. imagin, that he conceives Christ in Heaven, as really he is there, with that Glory, Majesty, and Beauty, which neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man has been able to comprehend? Is not the Con­ception he has of Christ in Heaven, like to some Pictures we have of our Savi­our in Glory; which are only fancies of the Painter? And if he cannot conceive the Humanity of our Saviour, as he is in Heaven, much less his Divinity. Wherefore he must Adore Christ in Heaven, if ever he Adores him, consi­dered in a manner far beneath his Greatness.

Neither do we deny God to be a Being infinitely Perfect: which is the notion of God. Yet this does not hin­der, but that such an Infinite Being may [Page 204]be conceived by men under the Species, or Similitude, of some Corporeal Sub­stance: as we all confess, that an Angel is a meer Spiritual substance; yet we conceive, and paint an Angel under the Species of a young man with wings on his shoulders; when as in reality such a man is neither an Angel, nor has any Physical likeness, unless it be very re­mote, with him. Yet such a Picture, or Idea, is commonly taken to signifie an Angel.

And here 'tis necessary to advertise, what Dr. St. will not seem to reflect on, That it is a very different thing, to take such a Statute, Picture, Enigma, or Em­bleme, to signifie such an object, and to take such a Statue, Picture, Enigma, or Embleme, to be the very object it self, or very like thereunto. In the City of London are put up three Statues of Women, with such Attirement, to sig­nifie Faith, Hope, and Charity; with whom they have no likeness at all: so that those Statues are taken by the Citi­zens to signifie those Vertues, and to put them in mind of them. But sure Dr. St. will not say, that the Citizens of [Page 205] London are so silly, as to take Faith, Hope, and Charity, to be really three Women in such a Dress; or that they have any real likeness, unless very re­mote, with them. The same is to be seen in all Emblems, and Hierogly­phicks; which are taken to signifie things very different. So a Ring is an Emblem of Eternity: But who does think that Eternity is a Ring?

In the like manner to take God to be really an old man sitting in Heaven, with Hands, Arms, Mouth and Feet, or to have a great likeness with him, would, beyond question be very dishonourable unto God, and unworthy of him; but to take the Idea, or Picture of an Old man sitting in Heaven (Antiquus Die­rum) as God is described by the Pro­phet) or some other Corporeal Hiero­glyphick, contained in the Apocalypse, or other places of Scripture, to signifie, and represent unto us God, a Being in­finitely Perfect, is by no means dishono­rable, or injurious unto him: otherwise the Prophets and Evangelists would be to blame for representing him under such Idea's or Expressions. Neither are [Page 206]the Pictures of God more obnoxi­ous to the mistakes of vulgar peo­ple, then the like expressions by words, contained in the Creed and Scripture, as I insinuated in my Book. But the Dr. thought good to pass it over. Wherefore if Dr. St. has a more subtilized manner of conceiving the Divine Essence, than the Prophets, and Apostles had, he may keep it to himself: we, poor men, shall content our selves to conceive God as the Apostles and Prophets represent him in the Creed and Scripture.

From what hitherto has been discust, in relation to this point, it evidently ap­pears, that either Dr. St. must grant himself; and if that be not absurdity great enough, the Apostles, Evangelists, and the Holy Ghost, to be Idolaters; or confess, that the main Principle, whereon he pretends to make good the Charge of Idolatry, laid upon us in the Veneration of Images; to be frivolous, and insignificant: which is what we aim at. But such is the obstinacy of some men, that to maintain one folly, they will run into a thousand; and they will be sure to do their work, whatever [Page 207]comes of it. Dr. St. seems to be so Complaisant, that to the end we may be Idolaters, he is willing to bear us com­pany, and to be an Idolater himself, and to bring with him too the Prophets and Evangelists: and what harm is there to be feared in so good Company?

Yea, the way he takes to prove us guilty of Idolatry in the Veneration of Images either is a meer dream, or it shews, there is no Church in the world, though never so Orthodox, Pure, and Sound, which does not require Idolatry. For all Churches require, that we should adore God, and as represented to us in this life. Since therefore, according to the ordinary Providence, we cannot re­present God in this life, as he is, but in a manner far inferiour to his Greatness, it follows manifestly, that all Churches, and all Religions, though never so Pure, and Sound, require, we should Adore God, represented unto us, in a way far inferiour to his Majesty: which according to Dr. St. is flat Idolatry. So that the Dr. to be sure to perswade his Devotes to be no Roman Catholicks, he perswades them to be of no Religion; or, which [Page 208]is the same, deters them from that, which is Essential to all Religions; as is the Adoration of God, represented in a manner inferiour to his Greatness: and as to prove Roman-Catholicks, Idolaters in the Veneration of God by Images, he proves himself, the Prophets, and E­vangelists; and all persons whatsoever, that profess any Religion, to be like­wise Idolaters; so to shew us guilty of the same Crime in the Adoration of the Eucharist, (which is the grossest Idola­try he Fathers upon us) he must declare as Complices, the Lutherans, who ad­mit the Real Presence, and Adore Christ in the Eucharist, as we do: and what good Reformers of the Roman Church were the Lutherans, (and yet as such they are look'd upon by English Prote­stants) if they left her depraved with a more detestable sort of Idolatry, in the Dr.'s perswasion, than is the Adoring of a Red Cloath for God. But such is Dr. St.'s Zeal. So that Roman-Catholicks be Idolaters, whoever else be so, he cares not. Friends or Foes, 'tis all one to him. It is to affront the Dr. to imagin, that a man of his Employments has leisure, [Page 211]to consider the vast absurdities, that flow from what he maintains.

And, to use the same words I set down in the Appendix, pag. 21. I infer, and conclude hence, how little account is to be made of the Charge of Idolatry laid upon the Roman Church by Dr. St. seeing that the very same Principles, whereby he pretends to prove, that Roman-Catholicks are Idolaters, do prove, or they prove no­thing, (as is most certain: for an Argu­ment, that proves too much, proves nothing) that the Prophets, the Evangelists, and the Holy Ghost, are Idolaters. And if in this main point of Idolatry, which he pre­tends to make manifest, and undeniable a­gainst us, he does err so Sacrilegiously, and so Enormously, may we not prudently think that the other Charges, of lesser moment, which he laies upon the Roman Church, and wherein he does not pretend to so great an Evidence, are meer Whimsies, and ma­licious Calumnies?

CHAP. X. Concerning the other Contradictions com­mitted by the Dr. in the Charges he laies upon the Roman Church.

MY design at the beginning was, to pursue in particular the other Contradictions, wherewith I charge the Dr, But what hitherto has been set down is sufficient, First, because I have manifestly convicted him of Self-contra­diction, in asserting the Roman Church to be a True Church, and yet Idola­trous, with the grossest Idolatry: and since the main aspersion the casts upon us is this of Idolatry, (which therefore he terms the Mouth of the Dragon) if he can 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 [Page 210]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, [Page 211]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 [Page 214]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 [Page 215]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 'twill 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 [Page 216]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 [Page 217]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 [Page 218]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 [Page 219]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 [Page 220]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, [Page 221]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 [Page 222]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 [Page 223]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 Reason in the Interpreta­tion [Page 224]of Scripture, and obliges all to sub­mit to her judgment. On the contrary, the Church of England, as it is consti­tuted, according to Dr. St. 's Expositi­on, favours all sorts of Fanaticisme; since it permits every one to be led by his own private Spirit in the Interpreta­tion of Scripture, without obliging him to submit to the Judgment of any Church in such matters.

He answers secondly, that if whate­ver is countenanced by the Authority of a True Church, ceases to be Fanaticisme, there flow hence monstrous Absurdities. The first is, that a prevailing Fanaticisme ceases to be Fanaticisme, ( pag. 55.) Is not this a strange whimsie of the Drs. and a pregnant Argument, how little he values church Authority, to say, that because some particular way of Devotion comes to be approved, and countenanced by the Authority of a True Church, the ap­probation of the Church serves only to make it a greater, and a more prevailing Fanaticisme, than it was before? where­as I proved in my Book ( pag. 9.) with several instances, That the appro­bation of a True Church is sufficient to [Page 225]clear particular waies of Devotion from the imputation of Fanaticisme. So that the difference between Fanatick, and Non-fanatick waies of Devotion, does not consist in the extravagancy ra­ther of the one, and not of the other; (for both may be extravagant enough) but in that the former are against Autho­rity, the latter according to Authority. I will explain this Doctrine, with the Example the Dr. alledges in the place now quoted, of Treason and Rebellion. What difference is there between a Loyal, and Rebellious Army? Both Plunder, Harras, Fight, and Kill. The difference only is, that a Loyal Ar­my proceeds according to Authority, and by order of their true Sovereign: But a Rebellious Army acts contrary to Authority, and to the orders of their Prince. As therefore it would be ex­tream ridiculous to affirm, That the ap­probation of a True and Lawful Prince serves only to make the proceedings of his Subjects approved by him, more Rebellious, or a more prevailing Rebel­lion: so it is absurd to defend, as Dr. St. does, That the approbation of a [Page 226]True Church renders particular waies of Devotion, approved by her, more lyable to Fanaticisme, or a more pre­vailing Fanaticisme.

But the Dr. urges, That this would be an excellent way to vindicate the Fa­naticisme of the late times; which, because countenanced by an Authority supposed com­petent enough by some, who then writ of Obedience and Government, it ceases to be Fanaticisme. Speak out Doctor, was Cromwell a True and Lawful Governour of this Kingdome, or not? if you say, he was not, how can you have the confi­dence to parallel our case with theirs? since you your self defend the Roman Church to be a True & Lawful Church; and the very same with your own, if you say, that he was a True and Law­ful Governour, and his Authority com­petent, where is your Loyalty? As for the Writer of the Book entituled Obe­dience and Government, let him answer for himself. I detest that Doctrine: nei­ther am I responsable for what that Au­thor affirms: as neither Dr. St. will think himself obliged to own, whatever Protestants did in the late Rebellion.

The second Absurdity he pretends to infer from our Doctrine is, That Pro­phets, and Apostles, nay our Lord him­self, are according to this Rule, una­voidably Fanaticks. For what competent Authority, saies he ( pag. 56.) had they to countenance them? Are you in earnest Doctor, had Christ, the Prophets, and Apostles no competent Authority to countenance their proceedings? This indeed is to cast them into the common heard of Fanaticks, since no competent Authority, neither Humane, nor Di­vine, did countenance, or approve their Preaching. Can the Dr. deny, but that Christ, the Apostles, and Prophets were countenanced by Divine Authority, ma­nifested by unquestionable Miracles? or will he say, That Divine Authority, manifested by these Miracles, is not an Authority competent enough to vindi­cate such actions as it approves of from the Crime of Fanaticisme?

But the Dr. presses, that the Jewish Church, though not yet cast off, while our Saviour lived, did not countenance him, nor his Apostles. What then? did I ever affirm, that the Authority of a [Page 228]True Church was determinately necessa­ry to clear particular practices from Fa­naticisme, as the Dr. most grossly sup­poses I did. I defended indeed, that the Authority of a True Church is suffi­cient to clear such actions from Fanati­cisme; but I never asserted that it was necessary; yea I insinuated the contra­ry ( pag. 9.) There are two waies to commission men to Preach, and to Au­thorize their manners of Devotion: Both of them sufficient; but neither of them determinately necessary; the one extraordinary, when God by evi­dent Miracles declares, that such men are commissioned by him: and in this manner Christ, the Prophets and the Apostles were commissioned by him: the other Ordinary; when the Pastours of the True Church authorize men to Preach, or approve of such particular waies of Devotion: and in this sense I cleared the particular waies of Devo­tion countenanced by the Roman Church; which the Dr. confesses to be a True Church; from the Aspersion of Fanaticisme. Neither can one reason­ably argue, that what is not countenan­ced [Page 229]in the Second and Ordinary way, is not countenanced by a competent Au­thority; since it may be approved of in an Extraordinary way.

And though the Jews did not follow the Doctrine of Christ, yet they ac­knowledged his Commission, and Gods Broad seal, viz. evident Miracles wrought by him; when in a full Assem­bly they affirmed ( Joan 11.) Hic homo multa Signa facit; This man (Christ) works many Miracles: and certainly, such a publick attestation as this was e­nough to countenance and acknowledge his Commission; though out of obsti­nacy they would not submit to his Do­ctrine: as Pilate declared our Saviour to be innocent, and guiltless, yet out of fear, lest he should disgust Caesar, con­demned him to death.

I cannot omit here the two famous, yet Contradictory Revelations, which are said to have been made to St. Brid­git, and St. Catherin, concerning the im­maculate Conception of our Blessed Lady: To St. Bridgit, that she was con­ceived without Original Sin; To St. Catherin, that she was conceived with [Page 230]Original Sin. Dr. St. scarce publishes a Book, wherein he does not insert these Revelations; pretending thereby to blow up the Infallibility of the Roman Church; since she Canonized for Saints both St. Bridgit, and St. Catherin; and approves their Revelations; and conse­quently something that is false; as ne­cessarily one of the forementioned Re­velations must be: particularly he endeavours to prove hence against me, That submission to the Judgment of the Church is not a Rule to judge Fanaticisme by. For both these Revelations were ap­proved of by the Roman Church; and yet one of them was false; and there­fore Fanatical: and one of those Saints either was deceived, or went about to deceive; and by consequence was a Fanatick. See the Dr. pag. 61, 62.

To this I answer, that the Dr. has ne­ver yet shewn, That those two Revela­tions of the abovementioned Saints, were approved of in particular by the Roman Church, or in general. True it is, that the Roman Church declares them both to be Saints, and to be famous for their Revelations: but she does not there­fore [Page 231]approve of every porticular Reve­lation, related to have been made unto them. The whole Christian Church looks upon Christ, and his Apostles as famous for their Miracles and Do­ctrines: shall we therefore hence infer, that the whole Christian Church ap­proves of every particular Miracle, related of them by any Author whatso­ever; and of every particular Doctrine which some one, or other teaches, to have been delivered by them? Are there not many false Miracles, and Do­ctrines, father'd upon Christ and his Apostles? wherefore to the end, that the Roman Church be proved Fallible, by reason of the two forementioned Re­velations, contrary the one to the other, it was necessary for Dr. St. to have shewen, that they were both approved of by our Church: which the Dr. has not yet done. Those two Saints might be famous for their Revelations, and deservedly look'd upon as such, though the abovesaid two Revelations, or at least one of them, had been forged.

Moreover, though one of these two Revelations, as being contrary one to [Page 232]the other, was false; and the person to whom such a Revelation is sayed to have been made, either deceived, or was deceived, supposing she affirmed, that she had had such a Revelation; yet it does not therefore follow, that either such a Revelation was Fanaticisme, or such a person a Fanatick. For sure Dr. St. will not enlarge so much the roll of Fanaticks, as to affirm, That all such as are deceived, are Fanaticks. For so he must cast himself into that heard: since, certainly he is not so vain, as to think, that in no Interpretation of Scripture, in no Tenet whatsoever, of so many, as he has laid down in his Books, he has been deceived. Wherefore, as an un­just Warr is not Rebellion, if it be coun­tenanced by the Authority, of a True and Lawful Sovereign Prince: For Sove­reigns may wage unjust Warrs: So nei­ther a false Revelation is Fanaticisme, if it be countenanced by the Authority of the True Church; supposing, that the True Church may countenance such Revelations. For it is Essential Fana­ticisme, as we have seen, to be contra­ry to Authority.

I have enlarged my self upon this point of Fanaticisme, because the Dr. seems to hugg it, as the Benjamin of his Mimical Wit, and presumes so much of his endeavours in this kind, that he boldly attests, as we hinted above, that his Adversaries have not said so much as one wise word, to clear their Church from the Aspersion of Fanaticisme. The Dr. vapours, pag. 59. that this Charge of Fanaticisme was a new Charge (yet the Author of [...], Stillingfleeton, tells us, whence he borrowed it) snd neither Bellarmin, Becanus, or any of their old beaten Soul­diers, could give them any assistance, they found not the Title of the Fanaticisme of the Roman Church, in any of their Com­mon place Books; therefore plain Mother-wit must help them. 'Tis a wonder, that order has not been given to erect a Sta­tue to Dr. St. for so rare an Invention as this is, of the Fanaticisme of the Ro­man Church; and if his Mother-wit could help him, without the assistance of Common-place Books, to frame this new Charge against us, well may the Mother-wit of his Adversaries help [Page 234]them, without needing the assistance of any Staunch-Author; for such he terms our Antient Writers, to answer it? There is a short way to answer Dr. St. 's Books, without needing to read Antient Authors. Read only his Books, and you will find the Answer to whatever he objects against us: so full they are of self-contradictions: They are like to certain venemous Beasts, that breed in themselves the Antidote against their own poison.

I have lately read a perfect Character of Dr. St's. proceedings, in charging Roman Church with Fanaticisme, drawn by himself in a Sermon preached before his Majesty 24. of February last, 1674. Where shewing, how licentious people among the Gentiles heretofore (as in these times among Christians) brought Vertue into Contempt, and having assign­ed for the first Medium they laid hold of to effect their wicked design, viz. The seperating Religion and morality from each other, he adds (page 11.) These words. The next thing was to make it [vertue] to appear ridiculous; which was a certain way to make Fools out of love with [Page 235]it: who do not consider what is fit to be laughed at, but what is so. When So­crates, at Athens, undertook with many sharp, and cutting Ironies, to reprove the vices of his age, and with a great deal of Wit and Reason, to perswade men to the so­ber practice of vertue, the licentious people knew not what to do with him: For they were not able to withstand the force of his Argments. At last Aristophanes, (ha­ving a Comical Wit, whereby he was able to make any thing seem ridicalous) al­though he knew very well the Wisdome and Learning of Socrates, yet to please, and humour the people, he brings him upon the Stage, and represents his grave instructi­ons after such a manner as turned all into a matter of laughter to the people of Athens — This is the method, which men take when they set their wits against Vertue, and Goodness: They know it is impossible to ar­gue men out of it: but it is very easie, by ridiculous postures, and mimical gestures, and profane Similitudes to put so grave, and modest a thing, as Vertue is, out of countenance, among those, who are sure to laugh on the other side. I do not think, that such things can signifie much to wise men: [Page 236]but when was the world made up of such? and therefore it signifies very much to the mischief of those, who have not the courage to love despised Vertue, nor to defend a cause that is laughed down.

Thus far the Dr. All which may be easily applied to Dr. St. himself.

For the main task of the Dr. in his Treatise of the Fanaticisme of the Ro­man Church, was to render ridiculous the Religious practices of the Roman Catholicks, and of so many Saints, fa­mous throughout the world, for their Zeal and Piety; which (to use his own words) was a certain way to make fools out of love with our Church; who do not consider what is fit to be laughed at, but what is so. He could not be ignorant of the great reputation, even the modern Saints of our Church deservedly enjoy, upon account of their Vertue; far be­yond what Socrates had: yet like ano­ther Aristophanes, having a Comical, and Drolling Wit, whereby he is able to make any thing, though never so Sa­cred, to seem ridiculous, only to please, and humour Licentious people, he repre­sents their grave Instructions, and their [Page 237]Charitable and devout practices, in such a manner, as he turns all into a matter of Laughter. He knows it is impossible, to argue judicious men out of the opinion they have of St. Bennet, St. Dominick, St. Francis, St. Ignatius, and St. Teresa: but it is very easie, by Mimical Expres­sions, and profane Similitudes, to ren­der them ridiculous, and contemptible among those, who are sure to laugh on the other side. But such proceedings can sig­nifie nothing to Wise men; but only to such as have not courage, to love despised Vertue, nor to defend a Cause that is laugh­ed down.

Come, Come, Dr. Stillingfleet, it is too notorious to all intelligent persons, what you pretend with this scurrilous, & drolling way of attacking the Roman Church. Your aim is to bring all Religion and Vertue into Contempt, and Deri­sion, however you endeavour to dis­guized so mischievous a design with all Artifices possible. I wish from my heart, I were able to impute your Misdemea­nours, and Miscarriages in your Con­troversial Books, to Ignorance, or In­advertency: But on the one side your [Page 238]Mistakes are so gross, your Contradicti­ons so palpable, and your Aspersions so notoriously scurrilous, that he must needs be a Fool, who cannot see them; and on the other side, the works you have published, do proclaim you no Fool; that I am forced to impute your unhandsome proceedings to the Malice of your Will, not the Ignorance of your Understanding.

The Dr. ( pag. 70.) endeavouring to stave off the Self-contradiction charg­ed upon him, in imputing to the Roman Church Divisions in matters of Faith, saies thus. But the fourth and fifth Propo­sition (viz. of my Book in this point) are the most healing Principles, that have yet been thought on. Fie for shame! Why should we and they of the Church of Rome, quar­rel thus long! We are very well agreed in all matters of Faith; as I shall demonstra­tively prove it from the Argument of J. W. drawn from his two last Propositions. All, who assent unto the antient Creeds, are undivided in matters of Faith, by Prop. 4. But both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds. — Er­go, they are undivided in matters of [Page 239]Faith. And hath not J. W. now done his business, and very substantially proved the thing he intended? But I hope we may en­joy the benefit of it, as well as those of the Church of Rome, and that they will not henceforward charge us with dividing from their Church in any matters of Faith, since we are all agreed in owning the antient Creeds; and seeing we are not divided from the Church, but by differing in mat­ters of Faith, according to his Proposition, it follows, that we are still Members of the True Church; and therefore neither guilty of Heresie, nor Scisme.

By what Dr. St. sets down here, any prudent man may clearly see, how grossly, and wilfully he mistakes him­self. My fourth Proposition, set down by me, pag. 12. whereof the Dr. makes mention in the place now quoted, and to which I refer my self in the Syllogism I frame, pag. 13. runs thus. All those, who assent to the antient Creeds, are ac­cording to Dr. St. 's opinion (mark those words) undivided in matters and Arti­cles of Faith; and that was the Dr. 's perswasion, I proved out of his Ratio­nal Account, pag. 56, 58. and thence I [Page 240]conclude, pag. 13. that according to Dr. St. (mark those words) All those, who agree to the antient Creeds, are of the same Communion, and undivided in matters of Faith. Now this wise Dr. most grossly supposes, that it is the same for me to say, All those, who agree to the antient Creeds, are, according to Dr. St. undivi­ded in matters of Faith, (where I only re­late Dr. St. 's opinion, & argue thence against him ad hominem) or to say abso­lutely, All those, who agree to the antient Creeds, are undivided in matters of Faith: which words pronounced so without any modification, import, as if I were of that perswasion: whereas I am very far from it: neither here, nor in any other place, do I defend any such Doctrine. Wherefore the Major Proposition, in the Syllogism set down by the Dr. is in his opinion True, (and consequently may be subservient to prove against him) but in my opinion it is false, and of no force to demonstrate any thing against me: and I confess, that it is a very compen­dious way to compose the differences between me and the Dr. if one may sup­pose (as he here does) That what he [Page 241]saies, I say, and that it is the very same for me to affirm, such a thing is so, ac­cording to Dr. St's opinion, or it is true, that Dr. St. thinks so, and such a thing is so, or it is true what Dr. St. thinks: which Propositions, doubtless, are very different. For, to the truth of the for­mer Proposition 'tis enough, that Dr. St. be of that opinion, whether his opi­nion be true or false: but to the truth of the latter, 'tis requisite, that his opi­nion be true, and that what he saies be so, as he saies it is.

Certainly, Christians may truly affirm without forfeiting their Faith, that ac­cording to the opinion of the Jews, Christ is not the Messias: will the Dr. therefore infer hence, that Christians may truly affirm, that Christ is not the Messias? or that Christians and Jews are agreed in that main point? Fie for shame! (to use your own expression) you a Doctor of Divinity, and cannot distinguish be­tween Propositions so notoriously diffe­rent? Where is the ingenuity you so much boast of? Sure you imagined, that the Reader would be so silly, as to take upon your bare word, what you write, [Page 242]or quote, without ever examining, or comparing it. By what I have said in reference to the Major Proposition of his Syllogisme, whereby he pretends to prove demonstratively against us, That both Catholicks and Protestants are a­greed in matters of Faith, any one many judge, what Demonstrations we are to expect from Dr. St.

As concerning the Minor Proposition of the Drs. Syllogisme, he supposes it to be the same with my Fifth; wherein he is also wilfully mistaken. For my Fifth Proposition is this, All Roman Catho­licks assent unto the antient Creeds; where­as his Minor was this, Both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the Antient Creeds; where he adds, That Protestants assent unto the Antient Creeds; which I never affirmed: and the Dr. cannot be ignorant, that Roman-Catholicks hold Protestants do not believe in that Article even of the Apostles Creed, Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam; which in its true, and legitimate sense signifies the Roman Catholick Church: and those only are to be thought to believe Scripture, and the Antient Creeds, who believe them [Page 243]in the true, and legitimate sense: which in our Doctrine is only that sense, which is agreable, or not repugnant, to the ex­position of the Roman Catholick Church. So that Protestants, according to the perswasion of Catholicks, do not be­lieve the Antient Creeds; because they do not believe them rightly understood: But according to Dr. St. 's opinion Ro­man Catholicks do believe the Scrip­ture, and the Antient Creeds, rightly understood. For his Rule is, that who­ever understands Scripture, or the An­tient Creeds, as by his natural faculty of discerning Truth and Falshood, he thinks they are to be understood, such an one right­ly understands them. Now Roman Catho­licks understand them, as the Natural Faculty in them of discerning Truth and Falshood, teaches them: and Dr. St. ought to believe that we do so, as he will have us to believe the like of him: and if we do submit to the judgment of the Roman Catholick Church, concer­ning the true interpretation of Scrip­ture, and of the Antient Creeds, the Na­tural Reason that is in us, teaches us so to do. And sure Dr. St. will not so far [Page 244]abase the Authority of the True Church, and of her Doctors, as to assert, that whoever is induced by their Authority, to believe such to be the true sense of such particular places of Scripture, as they expound them in, must needs mis­interpret them.

Hence I infer, that neither the Minor Proposition in the Drs. Syllogisme is granted by us: and is not the Dr. like to demonstrate many things, if such be his Demonstrations, that both the Ma­jor, and Minor are denied by his Adver­saries? is not this to do his business very substantially? Yet the formenti­oned Syllogisme is a demonstration a­gainst the Dr. that Roman Catholicks and Protestants are undivided in matters of Faith according to his opinion; and consequently must be granted by him to be both of the same Church: and I con­cluded thence above, that he must either deny the Protestant Church to be True, or grant the Roman Church to be so.

Moreover, the Syllogisme I form, pag. 13. out of my Fourth and Fifth Proposition. is a demonstration against Dr. St. That all Roman Catholicks, as [Page 245]long as they remain so, are undivided in matters of Faith: which is all I there pretended. For I never intended to prove, that they were so undivided with such, as are out of their Com­munion.

CHAP. XI. Some Difficulties raised by the Dr. against my Judgment concerning his manner of proceeding, Rejected.

BEfore I make an end, I cannot but take notice of some Difficulties Dr. St. sets down in his particular Pre­face, relating to the Judgment I frame of his manner of Proceeding, in these words couched by me pag. 11. I verily believe, that Dr. St. did his Interest byass him that way, could with Lucian, Porphy­rius, and those many Libertines of our Country, (the spawn of such Books as these) he could I say, flurt with as much picquantness, and railery at Christian Religion, as he does as the Roman, char­ging [Page 246]Christians with Superstitions, Cor­ruptions, and Dissensions. What does he not say against these words? He calls them a base Suggestion, wherein there is no colour of Truth. (pag. 8.) A slie Insinuation: a Calum­ny too gross, to need any farther An­swer, (pag. 9.) and that it had been bet­ter to have called him at Atheist in plain terms. p. 8. I perceive the man is angry. 'Tis necessary to treat him mildly, that he may come to himself. But withal I reflect, that many do endeavour to sup­ply with Anger, the want of Reason, and to Hector one with Bravadoes into their opinion, when they cannot draw him with Arguments.

Let us examin in particular what he objects against the fore-mentioned words. He saies That I very honestly di­stinguish the Christian Religion, and the Roman from each other. And sure, I should not deal honestly, did I not di­stinguish the Roman Religion from the Christian, as a Species from the Genus, and as a part from the whole. For we do not deny, but that there are many vul­garly called Christians, because they are [Page 247]truly Christened, and profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge the Apostles Creed, although interpreted in their way. Such were Donatists, Pelagians, Arians, and others, held by us, and Protestants too, for Hereticks; who are never owned to be Roman Catholicks. I confess, I have not learn'd, as yet, so great kindness for our Church, as to make it the same Individual Church, (those who do so with their own Church, let them answer for themselves) with an Heretical, nay with an Idola­trous Church. Wherefore 'tis manifest, that the Christian Religion, taken in the aforesaid sense, does comprehend more than the Roman. So that what I intend­ed in the forementioned place, was, that the way Dr. St. takes to impugne the particular Tenets of the Roman Church, does, if it be of any force, annul the common Principles of Christianity, where­in all those, who own themselves to be Christians, do agree: And that this was my meaning, any one, who was not resolved to quibble, might easily have seen.

In the next place he asks me, pag. 8. [Page 248] What is this verily believe of mine ground­ed upon? Doubtless the rage my words put him into, did not let him see what fol­lowed. For I layed down the Reasons of what before I asserted, in these words. For if it be a rational way of proceeding, to rally together whatever has been objected by the Enemies of a Community, without ma­king mention of the Answers given by them, or the sentence pronounced in their favour; and to Father upon the whole Body, the misdemeanours of some members, although disowned by the Major part, (which are the Artifices used by Dr. St. in his works against Catholicks) what Community is there so holy, which may not easi­ly be traduced? All this the Dr. very handsomly omits, without so much as answering a word thereunto. For he is too wise to take notice of any thing, that may prejudice his design; and only is pleased to divert the Reader with im­pertinent Questions: as whether This verily believe of mine be grounded upon the Authority of our Church, or rather upon some Vision, or Revelation made by some of our Saints? Whereas in the fore­mentioned words the Motives of that [Page 249]my belief are clearly set down. The Dr. cannot deny, but that among Christians, even of the Primitive Church, there were committed Incest, Simony, Adul­tery, and several other horrid Crimes, worse than those, which the very Hea­thens did commit; as may be gathered out of the Gospel, the Acts, and the Epistles of the Apostles; and that there were Heresies among them, as that of the Nicolaites. Wherefore, if the mis­demeanours of some Members may be fathered upon the whole Community, although disowned by the Major part, this absurdity would follow, that the Christan Religion, even when it was in its Primitive purity, might be called an Incestuous Simonical, Adulterous, He­retical, and a worse Religion than Pa­ganisme.

Again, 'tis certain, that many Enor­mous things were objected by the Jews against our Saviour; as he was a Blas­phemer, a Seducer, a Drunkard, and that he Preached Sedition; and that he was possess'd by the Devil, and that the Religion he founded, was a ridiculous, scandalous, and Superstitious Religion. [Page 250]Now should one of a picquant, and ma­licious wit, represent these, and several other blemishes, objected against Christ, & his Religion, without taking notice of the Answers given them, nor of the preg­nant Arguments, produced in favour, and vindication of Christ and his Religi­on; what a low opinion, what an aver­sion from Christian Religion, would such a man breed in those, who either by reason of their Education, or upon some other account were ignorant of the true condition of Christian Religi­on, and had already some prejudice a­gainst it?

That these are the Artifices used by Dr. Still. against Roman Catho­licks might be evidenced by several in­stances taken out of his works. One of the proofs that he alledges, to evince the Roman Church to be guilty of Fana­ticisme (for that was his intent) are the extravagancies of the Alumbradoe's and Fratricelli; who were not only dis­owned, but condemned by the Prelates of the Roman Church.

Moreover, he pretends to father up­on the Roman Church, the Gun-powder [Page 251]Treason, though detested by Roman Catholicks; and without so much as ta­king notice of the Sentence, that King James, who was most concerned in that plot, gave in Vindication of Catholicks, in his own Declaration about it, saying, That the generality of his Catholick Sub­jects did abhor such a detestable Conspira­cy, no less than he himself. If such Artifi­ces therefore as these be warrantable, what Community is there so holy, (I say again) which may not easily be traduced? Should God permit Dr. St. as certainly he may, to declare himself a Jew, or an Atheist; he has already laid up good store of Arguments, wherewith, accor­ding to his manner of proceeding, to traduce Christianity; Fathering upon the Christian Religion all the horrible sins, that ever have been committed by any Christian whatsoever, Protestant or Catholick. And if he should want mat­ter to fill up his Volumes, as following this way of attacking his Adversary, he scarce ever can; he may suppose Chri­stians either to teach Crimes which they do not teach; or what they do teach, to be Crimes: which is the way he com­monly [Page 252]takes, to oppugne Roman Catho­licks.

Since therefore the same Topicks, and Reasons drawn from them, where­with Dr. St. endeavours to traduce the particular Tenets of the Roman Religi­on, may without difficulty, be levelled against the general Principles of Christi­an Religion; That he has been pleased to make use of those Arguments, ra­ther against the former, than the latter, could not proceed out of more Reason for the one, than for the other; and consequently it proceeded from some Interest, (which has so great an Adscen­dent over the hearts of men) or other passion, that byass'd him that way. Whence I affirmed, that had the same passion of Interest byassed him against Christian Religion, which made him so malicious against the Roman, it is very credible, that he would have shewen himself as pievish against the one as the other. All this I have said to signifie, what it was, that this verily believe of mine was founded upon.

In confirmation of what was couched in the forementioned words, I added [Page 243]immediately, But this Dr. is so unfortu­nate, as well in vindicating the Protestant, as in attacking the Roman Church, that he neither produces any thing in vindication of Protestancy, but the same, or the like, may be alledged in defence of Socinianisme, and other Heresies, condemned as such by Protestants. [See the Guide in Contro­versies, Discourse 4.] nor opposes any thing against the Roman Religion; but the same, or the like, may be objected by Jews, or Pagans, against the Christian: which, according to Scripture, is a scandal to the former, and a derision to the latter. So that whoever will be pleased to reflect se­riously upon his Discourses, he may clearly see, that his Proofs for Protestancy will assoon make one a Socinian, as a Protestant; and his objections against Catholicks will assoon make one no Christian, as no Ca­tholick. And what does the Dr. answer to all this? All that he could; which is just nothing: not taking so much as no­tice of the forementioned words: al­though they contain two main points; which are proved at large by several Ca­tholick Authors, and do utterly ener­vate whatsoever Dr. St. brings for him­self, [Page 254]or against us: and do moreover force the Dr. himself, to salve whatever he produces against Catholicks, if he will be a Christian; and to confess the inanity of whatever he alledges for Pro­testants, as such, if he will not be a So­cinian.

The first point is, that he alledges no­thing in defence of Protestancy as Pro­testancy, which may not be alledged, and with the same force too, in vindi­cation of Socinianisme, or any other herefie. This point has been discuss'd at large by those two famous, and solid Divines, the Author of Protestancy with­out Principles, and The Guide in Contro­versies, (Disc. 4. now quoted) where­in is contained a Plea between a Prote­stant and a Socinian. And although Dr. St. has had at last the courage to offer at an answer to the forementioned Books, yet he has not dared to touch this point: which is no small confirma­tion of the opinion some have conceiv­ed, that Dr. St. is a Socinian: and yet the Church of England looks upon Soci­nians as Hereticks.

The second point is, That Dr. St. pro­duces [Page 255]nothing against the particular Te­nets of the Roman Church, but the same, or the like, may be objected by Jews, Turks, Pagans, or Libertins, against the Common Principles of Christianity: Neither is he ignorant, but that some Pagans look upon our Scriptures as Fa­bles. no less than Dr. St. looks upon the Legends of our Saints as such. The Jews also denyed the New Testament; and the Turks make our Scripture to truckle under to their Alcoran. This point is solidly discuss'd in that erudite Book, Reason and Religion: and al­though the Dr. pretends to answer it, yet he prudently waves this point, or very slightly touches it; spending the far greater part of his Answer in scoffing at the Miracles of the Roman Church; even those, which have been authenti­cally approved in particular by her in the Canonization of Saints; thinking this a fit subject for his drolling Wit. Yet what he there saies concerning this Argument, is a new confirmation of this our second point. For he objects no­thing material against the Miracles of the Roman Church; but the same, or [Page 256]the like, is, or may be objected by Li­bertins against the Miracles of Christ, the Prophets and the Apostles; as the same Author, in his late reply does make apparent.

Yet the Dr. to shew us that he is a Christian, saies ( pag. 8.) That he has made it his business to assert the Truth of Christian Religion, in a large Discourse, several years since, published by him. But to this he himself answers, bringing the Example of Vanninus, who writ for Pro­vidence, when he denied a Deity. pag. 9. he concludes thus. In plain terms, I know but one way to satisfie such as you are; (but I will keep from it as long as I can:) and that is to go to Rome, and to be burn'd for my Faith: For that is the kindness there shewed to those, who contend for the purity of Christian Religion, against the Corrup­tions of the Roman. But the Dr. must pardon me, if I tell him plainly, that I cannot believe, he would ever be burn'd for defending the particular Tenets of the Protestant Church, since he himself affirms, in his Rational Account, pag. 54, 55. That such Tenets are neither Ar­ticles of Faith, nor necessary to be believed, [Page 257]either necessitate medij, or praeeepti: no Legacies of Christ, or his Apostles; but only inferiour Truths, and meer pious opi­nions; which no body is bound to believe. Nay we cannot be secure, that the Dr. does assent to them; but perhaps in his heart he holds the contrary Doctrines. For, according to his Cavils about the in­tention of the Priest, one can have no se­curity of the intention, or thoughts of o­ther men. And why should I think, that Dr. St. does love so little his own life, as to be burn'd for the defence of such Tenets, which, according to his own Principles, he is not bound to assent un­to; and perhaps, in his heart, for ought I know, he does not believe them to be true. Certain it is, that should he be burn'd for them, he would not be burn'd for his Faith, nor be a Martyr upon that account: since even in his own o­pinion, they are not Articles of Faith.

Moreover, should Dr. St. be burn'd at Rome for contradicting, or opposing the Religion there established, he would be burn'd as a Malefactour, even accor­ding to his own Churches Principles. For it is the Doctrine of the English [Page 258]Church, that all Soveraign Temporal Princes, at least such as are Christians, are Supream Heads of the Church in their respective Dominions, and consequent­ly, that all are bound, as long as they are in such Dominions, not to contra­dict, nor oppose the Religion there esta­blished by the Supream Prince. Since therefore Protestants confess the Pope to be Supream Temporal Prince of Rome, and its adjacent Territories, and accordingly to be Supream Head of the Church in those places, seeing they own him to be a true Christian Prince, (though they will needs have him to be Antichrist) in manifestly follows, that even according to Protestant Principles, if Dr. St. should be punished at Rome for opposing the Religion there establi­shed, and for drawing from it the Popes Subjects, he would suffer as a Male­factour.

Besides, how civil Rome has shewen her self to several English Protestants, persons of Quality, who have gone thi­ther to view the Curiosities of the City, they themselves, many of them being yet alive, can witness: and from such [Page 259]instances the world may judge, whether Rome has not been kinder to English Protestants, than London to Italian Pa­pists. Yea, if Dr. St. has so much zeal, as to be burn'd for his Religion, 'tis not necessary for him to go so far as Rome. They may do him that kindness here in England; where several have been burn'd for Socinians, since Protestancy came in. In fine, we may secure Dr. St. that should he persist at Rome, to grant such palpable Contradictions, as we have shewen he does, he would never be burn'd there for his Religion: yet I would not secure him, that in such a case he should not be shaved, and sent to the Pazzarelli, as happened some years agoe to Three English Quakers: who having gone to Rome to Convert the Pope, as they said, and Preaching in the publick Streets in a forreign Lan­guage, (it seems they had not yet the Gift of Tongues) were look'd upon as Madmen, and accordingly committed to Bedlam. Yet soon after, information being given in by some of our Nation, what manner of people they were, they were presently set at liberty; and they [Page 260]offered to supply them with Moneyes; which they refused. Whether, Dr. St. would imitate them in this, I know not.

The Dr. in his second Discourse, in the Dedicatory to the Earl of Shaftsbu­ry, saies, That if he once loses his Senses, or his Ʋnderstanding, that is, if he once falls mad, he knows not whether it may be his Fortune to be carried to Rome. But fear not, Dr. you will certainly be left in London, to go about the Streets rant­ing at Popery, and Popish Idolatry; (For commonly Madmen harp upon those things, which made them run mad) or Singing the Catholick Ballad, or some such other, to Tom a Bedlams Tune: and it will not be hard for the Dr. to say them without Book. For, as one affirmed, as truly as ingeniously, all such Ballads, which have been lately published, are nothing else but Dr. St. put in Rhime. And the Dr. would do then quite as much good, by singing such Ballads against Popery, as he has done hitherto by Preaching the like things against it. Dr. St.'s Works were heretofore look'd upon as Play-Books, as I have already Insinuated. But now [Page 261]it seems, they have degenerated into Ballads. He is resolved (I see) out of his exceeding great Charity, and Compli­ance, to oblige all sorts of Merry Wits.

Neither do I blame the Dr. for what he has Writ in defence of Christian Re­ligion: yet I must tell him, that none court one more, than such as are secret­ly contriving his Ruine. What I blame in him is, That with the Objections he makes against the Roman Catholick Re­ligion, he destroys Christian Religion, which before he had vindicated; and pulls down with one hand, what he had set up with the other: and I have evi­denced already, that it is not enough for a Christian, to assent unto all the posi­tive Tenets of Christianity, but 'tis also necessary not to teach any thing de­structive to any of them.

But the Dr. retorts the Argument; and will needs have us to destroy Chri­stianity with our manner of proceeding, ( pag. 9.) and that we cannot maintain the cause we have espoused, without plung­ing those, who relie upon our word, into the depth of Atheisme. He conceives (forsooth) a great fear (alas, good [Page 262]man!) that some, being press'd by our Arguments; will rather become no Christians, or turn flat Atheists, than Ro­man Catholicks. Such is the hatred, and prejudice they have against the Roman Church.

The inanity of this Objection has been laid open above: it is grounded upon this pitiful Principle, That we ought not to press men, out of good and solid Maxims, which they themselves assent un­to, to prove what we pretend, least (per­haps) rather than they will grant what we endeavour to prove, they will denie those common Principles, wherein they agreed with us: and by consequence make the gap, and difference between us wider. If Christian Religion be so beautiful, solid, and incorrupt, as certainly it is; and the Roman Religion so Superstitious, Idolatrous, & Ridiculous as he fancies it to be, sure they are as different one from the other, as black from white. And what fear can there be, that men ever take white for black, or black for white; unless he supposes those, with whom he deals, to have quite lost their senses, and understandings: yea to compare [Page 263]them together, if they be so different, is the best way, to make the Beauty of the one, and the Ill favouredness of the other, appear the greater, according to that Maxime, Opposita juxta se posita ma­gis elucescunt. So that Dr. St. and his As­sociates, do evidence to the world, ei­ther that they have a very low opinion of Christian Religion, even when it was in its greatest purity; since they think it so hard, that being faced with the Roman Religion, (which seems to them to be so full of Corruptions, Superstiti­ons, and abominations) the one may be distinguished from the other: or that the Roman Religion is not so ridi­culous, and ill-favoured, as they re­present it to be; since it is so like the Christian Religion, even in its greatest Purity, that being compared together, 'tis extream difficult to know which is which; and that by such a parallel men are incited, either to embrace them both, or reject them both.

The Dr. goes yet farther; and en­deavouring to supply with counterfeit­ed zeal the difficiency of true, and solid reasons, puts down these words, pag. [Page 264]11. I would fain know of these men, whe­ther they do in earnest make no difference between the Writings of such as Mother Juliana, and the Books of Scripture; be­tween the Revelations of St. Bridgit, St. Catherin, &c. and those of the Prophets; between the actions of St. Francis, and Ignatius Loyola, and those of the Apo­stles? if they do not, I know who they are, that expose our Religion to purpose. If they do make a difference, how can the repre­senting their Visions, and practises, reflect dishonour upon the other, so infinitely above them, so much more certainly conveighed down to us, with the consent of the whole Christian world?

In answer to this Objection, I would fain know of the Dr. whether he does in earnest, make no difference between a Door, a Vine, a Worm, a Lamb, a Shepheard, &c. and Christ, our Savi­our? If he does not, then Christ is no better than a Door, a Vine, a Worm, a Lamb, a Shepheard; which to affirm, is Blasphemy: if he makes a difference, how does the Scripture compare Christ to things so infinitely beneath him? Now if he saies, that these things, [Page 265]though infinitely beneath Christ, yet in some of their Properties may resemble him, and his virtues; and upon that account he is compared unto them, without any blemish, or reflexion up­on his honour; why might not we, without reflecting any dishonour upon Christ, say, that Saint Francis, Saint Ignatius, and other Canonized Saints of the Roman Church, do in their Virtues, Miracles, and Practises, resemble those of Christ, and his Apostles, though in­finitely above them?

Besides, 'tis manifest, that Christ, and his works, as being an infinite va­lue, derived from the dignity of the person, were far more above the Apo­stles, and their works, than those were above the particular Saints of the Ro­man Church, and their practices: not­withstanding we have the same Induce­ments, and Topicks, to believe the matters of Fact, of the Apostles and Prophets, as those of Christ, though so far beyond them: and whoever should deny the former, without doubt he would open a way to deny the latter. Although therefore the practises, and [Page 266]Revelations of the particular Saints of the Roman Church be, in several Cir­cumstances inferiour to those of the Apo­stles, and Prophets; yet there may be the same Motives, and Inducements, (we speak antecedently to Scripture, taken as the word of God, as when we prove against Pagans the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles) to believe the one as the other: So that should one de­ny the Virtues, Revelations, and Practi­ses, constantly related, and believed, concerning the Roman Saints, and ap­proved by our Church, (for of such Virtues, Revelations, and Practises we speak in this present debate) he would, doubtless, give a great occasion to Pa­gans, to deny, or question, the Virtues, Revelations, and Practises of the Apo­stles, and Prophets. The reason is, be­cause the same Motives, Inducements, and Topicks, may serve for the belief of things very different one from another; which is what I pretended: and if they are of no force in the one, neither are they in the other. Yet one would think, that the harder the thing is, and the more sublime, the stronger Inducements [Page 267]are requisite to believe it. So that, if the unanimous consent of so many lear­ned, and pious men is not sufficient to induce a Protestant to believe the practi­ses, and transactions of St. Bennet, St. Dominick, St. Francis, and St. Ignatius, handed down by so general a Tradition, and of a far fresher date, how shall the like consent be sufficient to induce Pa­gans, to believe the works of Christ, and his Apostles, far more wonderful, and of a staler date? For commonly, matters of Fact of a fresh date are more easily prov'd, and believed, than of a staler. The difference therefore incul­cated by Dr. St. between Christ and his Apostles on the one side, and the proper Saints of the Roman Church on the o­ther, and the Superminency of the for­mer above the latter, is so far from di­minishing the force of our Argument, that it rather increases it.

Again, Dr. St. and his Partizans, commonly defend, that the certainty we have, that such Books are Scripture, and that they were penned by such Wri­ters, whose names are prefixed unto them, is of the same nature with the [Page 268]certainty, that we have, that such Books were written by Titus Livius, or Plu­tarch, which are unanimously assented unto, as Titus Livius, or Plutarch's Works: and the certainty we have, that there have been such men as Christ, his Apostles, and that they did such and such things, which are commonly ascri­bed unto them, with the certainty we have, that there have been in the world such men, as William the Conquerour, Julius Caesar, and Henry the Eighth, and that they have done such things, as una­nimously are attributed unto them. So that whoever should deny all such meer Humane Histories, would be in a fair way to deny, that ever there have been such men as Christ, and his Apostles; or that they have done such things, which Christians unanimously ascribe unto them.

This Doctrine supposed, (whether true or false I do not now dispute) I would once more fain know of the Dr. whether he does in earnest make no diffe­rence between the Books of Scripture, and the Books of Livy, and Plutarch; be­tween Christ and his Apostles, and their [Page 269]Practises, and William the Conquer­our, Julius Caesar, Henry the Eighth, Practises? if not, then we know who they are, that expose Christian Religion to pur­pose: if he does make a difference, how does he make this Parallel, between things, so far estranged the one from the other? and if he saies, the Parallel he makes is not between the persons, or things themselves, but between the cer­tainty of the one and the other; (and there may be, without doubt, the same kind of certainty concerning things very different) let him apply to the same an­swer to his Argument made against us, and he will see, how it comes to nothing. For what we pretend, is, that there is the same, or the like certainty, the same, or the like motives, and induce­ments (we speak here antecedently to Scripture held to be the word of God; for such it is not held to be by Pagans) to believe, that there have been such men, as St. Bennet, St. Dominick, St. Francis, St. Ignatius, and that they have done such things, as are unanimously attribu­ted unto them by Roman Catholicks, without any hesitation, as that there [Page 270]have been such men as Christ and his A­postles; and that they have done such things as are universally ascribed unto them by Christians. So that whoever should deny, that there was ever such a man as St. Bennet, or that he ever foun­ded any Order of Religious men, he might easily in the like manner be brought to question, or deny, that there ever was any such man as Christ, or that he ever founded Christian Religion: there being the same, or the like evi­dence for the one, as for the other, ante­cedently to Scripture owned as the Word of God; viz. a constant Tradi­tion of men; although Christ, and Chri­stian Religion be far above St. Bennet, and his Order.

I do not deny, but that there is a more Universal Tradition for the Mira­cles, and Transactions of Christ and his Apostles, than for the particular Actions and Miracles, of the forementioned Ro­man Saints. But what then? may there not be several degrees in the same kind of certainty? Protestants aver, as we have seen, that there is the same kind of certainty, and evidence, against [Page 271]a Pagan for the Miracles of Christ, as for the Actions of Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar, though these are at­tended upon by a more Universal Tra­dition; since Jews and Pagans, who deny Christs Miracles, assent unto the Actions of Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar: and yet both we, and Protestants affirm, that they may as well deny, or question the one as the other.

Moreover, there is Tradition enough to induce a Moral certainty for all, and every Book of the Scripture: and yet doubtless there is a more general Tradi­tion for some Books of Scripture, than for others; for the Old Testament, than for the New; and for some parts of the New, than for others. In the like man­ner, though the Tradition for Christs, and his Apostles Miracles, be more ge­neral, than for the Miracles of the above­mentioned Roman Saints, approved of by our Church; yet the Tradition for these is so general, that it renders them Morally certain: so that whoever pro­ceeds rationally, upon the account of Humane Tradition, will either allow both, or neither. Let's suppose, that [Page 272]there are in the world a hundred Milli­ons of Christians; and that threescore Millions of them are Roman Catholicks: For even Protestants confess, that Ro­man Catholicks alone make up the Ma­jor part of Christendome. Now whoe­ver has the confidence to deny the Mira­cles of St. Bennet, though assented unto by so many Millions of Roman Catho­licks, and for the space of above a Thou­sand years, he would not stick, should the like passion carry him that way, to question the Miracles of Christ, and his Apostles, though agreed on by the whole Body of Christians, and for the space of above a Thousand, and six Hundred years. Can we imagin, that any prudent man does now believe the Miracles of Christ, because there is such a precise number in the world (and no lesser) of Christians, who assent unto them, or rather because there is a vast number of Christians, that unani­mously assert them? and certainly the number of Catholicks alone is a vast number. Or would it not be a madness for one to say, That were there no more Christians in the world, to attest the [Page 273]Miracles of Christ, than there are Ro­man Catholicks, he would not think himself obliged to believe them upon ac­count to Tradition, and consent in their favour: when as 'tis certain, there was a time, when there were no more Chri­stians in the world, than now there are Roman Catholicks: and yet even then, doubtless, there was Tradition, and Consent, sufficient to render the Mira­cles of Christ, and his Apostles unque­stionable.

And thus far concerning the Parallel between the Miracles, and Practises of Christ and his Apostles, and those of Ro­man Canonized Saints: supposing the Actions of the latter to be inferiour (as really they are in several Circum­stances) to those of the former. Yet our Saviour expressly saies, John 14.12. I say unto you, He that believes in me, the works that I do, he shall do; and greater works than these shall he do: which words, even according to Calvin, and other Sectaries, extend not only to the Apo­stles, but also to the whole Body of the Church in succeeding Ages. So that, not only the Miracles, and practises of the [Page 274]Apostles, but also those of modern Saints of the Roman Church, considered in themselves, are as great, or greater, than those of Christ. Did Christ do Mi­racles, raising the Dead, casting out Devils, curing suddenly the Lame, the Deaf, the Dumb, and others infected with incurable Diseases? So did the A­postles, and several Apostolical men of the Roman Church. Did Christ Foretel things to come? So did the Apostles, and Roman Saints. Did Christ Convert many with his Preaching? So did the Apostles, and several Saints of the Ro­man Church. Was Christ a Pattern of Charity, Humility, Patience, and all other Virtues? The Apostles, and ma­ny famous Roman Saints have imitated his Virtues: Notwithstanding what Christ did, he did it by his own power, being Omnipotent; but what the Apo­stles, and other Apostolical men did in this kind, they did it by the vertue, and power Christ liberally conferred upon them. And therefore Christ was the Principal Agent of all such works.

Now let any one judge, whether the Parallel between the Inducements we [Page 275]have to be Christians, and those, which we have to be Catholicks; and the cer­tainty of both, antecedently to Scripture owned as the word of God, be so unreason­able, as that only with an Admiration or two, Dr. St. could prudently think to blow it off. Wherefore I repeat what I have already said, That the Drs. Ob­jections against Roman Catholicks will assoon make one no Christian, as no Ca­tholick.

And as for several Extravagant, ab­struse, and mystical expressions, he al­ledges out of the Revelations, and Vi­sions of Canonized Saints of the Roman Church, branding them for Fanaticisme, the Dr. might, as I insinuated in my Book, produce out of the Revelations of St. John, and the Canticles, (which up­on this account are dash'd out of the Ca­non of Scriptures by some Protestants) quite as strange, and extraordinary ex­pressions, and Practises. But Dr. St. is of those men, who whatever they under­stand not, they Blaspheme: and he is as unacquainted with mystical Divinity, as with other Faculties; which he has a greater obligation to know. Now if the [Page 276] Canticles, and Apocalypse are sufficiently cleared from Fanaticisme, notwithstand­ing so many strange, and abstruse ex­pressions they continue, because they are approved of by the greatest part of Christians: also the Revelations of St. Bridgit, St. Catherine, and St. Teresa, are cleared from the like Aspersion, because they are countenanced by the Major part of Christendome, viz. the Roman Catholick Church: which, according to Dr. St.'s concession is a True Church. And sure the approbation of a True Church, and so much extended, as the Roman Church is, is sufficient to excuse particular waies of Devotions, and par­ticular Revelations from the imputation of Fanaticisme; which necessarily im­plies a Resistance against all Lawful, and competent Authority.

Neither did I ever affirm in my Book, as Dr. St. grossly mistakes me, That Divine Authority, manifested by Mira­cles, is not sufficient, to clear particular manners, of preaching or Praying, from Fanaticisme; as it happened to the Pro­phets, and Apostles, as I shewed above. Yea my Third Proposition, pag. 9. was, [Page 277]That the Aathority competent (and by a competent Authority I understand a Lawful Authority) to clear particular waies, and practises, from Fanaticisme, is not necessarily Divine; as I prove there, with several instances. And certainly, Those words clearly signifie, that I thought, the forementioned Authority might be Divine, But such are the Arts Dr. St. uses, in answering his Adversa­ries. He mistakes some places; he takes no notice of others; and he blunders o­ver others: and it is a great wonder, how frequently he makes use of these Artifices, in the Examination of my Book, though so short.

I shall close up the whole Discourse, with an address to Dr. St.'s Friends, (perhaps I shall have better luck with them, than I have had with the Dr. him­self, in the favours I requested at his hands) entreating them,

First, That as they tender the Honor of our Nation, (wherein Dr. St. bears so great a sway) and the Credit of that famous University, whereof he is a Member, they would find out one way or other, to purge his brains from this [Page 278]pestilent Humour of Self-contradiction; which infects all his Works, in such a manner, that they seem to be nothing else, but so many Bundles of notorious Contradictions. This procedure of Dr. St. is a shrewd conjecture, that the Re­port which goes about, is true, viz. That Dr. St. had only the penning of those Books, which he has set forth; and that the Matter was suppeditated unto him from several Authors; who were wiser than to publish such things themselves; and the good Dr. without ever considering the coherency of one thing with another, huddles all together, dresses it with Drollery, Flurts, and Gawdy Expressions, and then presents it to publick View. For it seems impossi­ble, that one Author, if he has an eye to what he writes, should commit such palpable Contradictions: whereas 'tis no wonder, that different Authors should Contradict one another.

Secondly, That since the Dr. as it seems mispent the time that he should have employed in learning Logick, in the perusal of Play-books, and Roman­ces; they would procure some Univer­sity-man [Page 279]to teach him the Rules of Rati­onal Discourses. For it is a great affront for a Dr. of Divinity, to be so deficient, as we have proved him to be, even in the very Rudiments of Rationality: and if the Dr. saies, that it is too late for him to learn such things, then they may per­swade him to leave off Writing. Yea, who forced him to begin, when he knew himself unacquainted with so necessary a Faculty, for such as write Polemical Di­scourses? Has not the Church of Eng­land other men, who understand the Rules of Logick, able to write in Vindi­cation of Protestancy?

Thirdly, That they would obtain of the Dr. if he be yet resolved to write more Books of Controversies, to lay aside Railery, unless he pretends to be, not the Champion, but the Buffoon, of the Pro­testant Church. Let him try whether he be not able to write something, which though devested of all those little Arts, he has hitherto made use of to set of his Works, may deserve, not to lie upon the Stalls to be bespatter'd with the dirt of Coach-wheels, and to be sold off at last for wast-paper.