Answer to Several Late Treatises, Part 1

Answer to Several Late Treatises · Part 1

p. 13AN EXAMINATION OF THE PAMPHLET, Entituled, Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet.

HAving thus far laid open their present way of dealing with their Adversaries, §. 1.I now come to a particular consideration of these two Pamphlets; The insufficiency of his way of Answering.and begin with that called Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet, &c. The Author of which is to be commended for so noble an enterprise (which few of the Champions of former Ages could accomplish) viz. to make his Adversary fall by his own sword. But the mischief of it is, these Romantick Knights do hurt no where but in Paper and p. 14their own imagination. But I forget his grave admonition,P. 14. that I would treat these matters seriously, and lay aside drollery. To be then as grave as he can desire, there are these two things which I design to prov… against him. 1. That on supposition I di… contradict my self, in the way he insists upo…n it, that were no sufficient answer to my Book. 2. That I am far enough from contradicting my self in any one of the things which … insists upon.

1. Supposing what he contends for were true, yet my Book remains unanswered; the design of which was to shew that no man can joyn in the Communion of the Roman Church without great hazard of his salvation. If I had any where said the contrary, this indeed would have made it evident that I had contradicted my self. But what then? doth the force of all the arguments used by me in this last Discourse fall to the ground, because I was formerly of another opinion? Let me ask these revolters from the Church of England one question; whether they do not now more plainly contradict themselves as to their former opinions, than they can pretend that I have ever done? I desire to know, whether this makes all their present arguments for the Roman Church of no force? If they think their present reasons ought to be answered p. 15whatever contrary opinion they had before; why, on supposition I had contradicted in a a former Book what I say in this, must this render all that I have said, or can hereafter say in this matter, invalid? Doth the strength of all lye upon my bare affirming or denying? was it ever true because I said it? if not, how comes it to be untrue now, because I deny it? I do not remember I was ever so vain, to make use of my own authority to prove a thing to be true, because I believed it; and if I had, the world is not so vain to believe a man one jot the sooner for it. If my authority in saying or denying be of no importance to the truth of the thing, then he may prove that I contradict my self, and yet all the arguments of my Book be as strong as ever. I do not desire any one to follow my opinion because it is mine, but I offer reason and authority for the proof of what I say; if those be good in themselves, they do not therefore cease to be so, because they are, or seem to he inconsistent with what I have said elsewhere. So that self-contradiction being proved, overthrows not the reason of the thing, but the authority of the person; and where things depend meerly upon authority, it is a good argument, and no where else. If a witness in a Court contradicts himself, his testimony signifies nothing; because there is nothing else but his authority that makes his p. 16testimony valid; but if a Lawyer at the Bar chance to speak inconsistently, if afterwards he speaks plain and evident reason, does that take off the force of it, because he said something before which contradicted that plain reason? If the Pope, or those who pretend to be infallible, contradict themselves, that sufficiently overthrows their pretence of infallibility; for he that changeth his mind, must be deceived once; but for us fallible mortals, if we once hit upon reason and truth, and manage the evidence of it clearly, that reason doth not lose its former evidence, because the same persons may afterwards oppose it. Suppose I should be able to prove that Bellarmine in his Recognitions contradicts what he had said in his former Books; doth this presently make all his arguments useless, and him uncapable of ever appearing in controversie more? Doth this make all his authorities false and his reasons unconcluding? doth it hence follow that he spake no where consistently, because once or twice, or perhaps as often as his neighbours, he contradicted himself? But my grave Adversary, I. W. imagines that we Writers of Controversies are like Witnesses in Chancery, and are bound to make Affidavits before the Masters of this Court of Controversie; and that whatever we say is to be taken as upon our oath; this indeed would be an excellent way of bringing Controversies p. 17to an issue, if we were to be sworn whether such a thing as Transubstantiation were true or false; and I cannot tell whether this, or laying wagers, or the Popes infallibility be the best way to end such Controversies; for any one of them would do it, if people could but agree about it. But now my Adversary says, that if a man once contradict himself he is to be looked on as a perjured person, and whatever he saith, his word is not to be taken. This he not only begins with, but very triumphantly concludes with it in these words, and this alone may suffice to annul▪ whatever he has hitherto, St. against St. p. 14.or shall hereafter object against us; for a witness, who has been once palpably conuinced to have forsworn or contradicted himself in matters of moment, besides the condign punishment he is lyable unto, he does vacate all evidences produced by him, against his Adversary, and deserves never more to be heard against him in any Tribunal. I see now what it is they would be at, no less than perpetual silence and being set in the Pillory with that Pamphlet on my forehead Dr. Still. against Dr. Still. for being guilty of contradicting my self, would satisfie I. W. and his Friends; This I suppose was the meaning of stopping my mouth for ever, when this Answer was to come out. But now I perceive it is so dangerous a thing, I had best p. 18stand upon my defence, and utterly deny that I have contradicted my self in any thing, in which I. W. hath charged me.

2.§. 2. To make it then out that this is a groundless charge, I must go through the several particulars insisted on.

The first is in the charge of Idolatry; No contratradiction about the charge of Idolatry.but how do I contradict my self about this? had I vindicated the Church of Rome from Idolatry in my Defence of Arch-bishop Laud, this had been indeed to contradict my self: but this is not so much as pretended; and if it were, nothing could be more easily confuted; for in that very Book, as it falls out very happily, there is a discourse to the same purpose, proving the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, Rational Account. p. 596, 606.in Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images, and that the Heathen, in the worship of inferiour Deities and Images, might be excused on the same grounds that those of the Church of Rome do excuse themselves. Here is then no appearance of a contradiction in terms; and it is only pretended to be by consequence, viz. from yielding that the Church of Rome and we do not differ in Fundamental points, and that the Church of Rome is therefore a true Church; from whence he inferrs, that it cannot be guilty of Idolatry: because to teach that, would be a Fundamental errour, and inconsistent with the Being of p. 19a true Church: and therefore to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, and to allow it to be a true Church is a contradiction. This is the substance of what he saith upon this head: to which I shall answer by shewing, 1. That this way of answering is very disingenuous. 2. That it is Sophistical, and proves not the thing which he intends.

1. That it is a disingenuous way; because he barely opposes a judgement of charity concerning their Church, to a judgement of reason concerning the nature of actions, without at all examining the force of those reasons which are produced in the Book he pretends to answer. Can I. W. imagine, that any one who enquires into the safest way for his salvation, and hears the Church of Rome charged with Idolatry in her worship, by arguments drawn from the plain Law of God, the common sense of mankind, the repugnancy of their way of worship to the conceptions we ought to have of the divine nature, the consent of the ancient Christian Church, the parity of the case in many respects with the Heathen Idolaters, should presently conclude, that all these arguments are of no force, meerly because the person who made use of them, had upon another occasion judged so charitably of that Church, as to suppose it still to retain the essentials of a true Church? I will put a case p. 20paralled to this; suppose one of the Church of Iudah should have call'd the Church of Israel in the time of Ieroboam a true Church, because they acknowledged the true God, and did believe an agreement in that common acknowledgement to be sufficient to preserve the essentials of a Church among them; and afterwards the same person should go about to convince the ten Tribes of their Idolatry in worshipping God, by the Calves of Dan and Bethel: would this be thought a sufficient way of answering him, to say, that he contradicted himself, by granting them a true Church and yet charging them with Idolatry? whereas the only true consequence would be, that he thought some kind of Idolatry consistent with the Being of a Church. Might not such a person justly say, that they made a very ill use of his charity, when he supposed only that kind of Idolatry which implyes more Gods than one, to unchurch a people; but however, those persons were more concerned to vindicate themselves from Idolatry of any kind, than he was to defend his charitable opinion of them; and if they could prove to him, that this inferiour sort of Idolatry does unchurch them as well as the grosser, the consequence of it would be that his charity must be so much the less, but their danger would be the same. This is just our case with the Church of p. 21Rome; we acknowledge that they still retain the Fundamental articles of the Christian faith, that there is no dispute between them and us about the true God and his Son Iesus Christ, as to his death, resurrection, glory, and being the proper object of divine worship; we yield 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: but then we charge the Roman Church, with gross corrupting that Worship which is proper to the divine nature, by her worship of Images, adoration of the Host, and Invocation of Saints; which being done, not in express terms against the worship of the true God, but by consequence, we do not think this doth destroy the Being of a Church among them; although it makes the salvation of persons in her communion extreamly hazardous: and after we have gone about to prove this by many and weighty arguments, is it reasonable for any one to tell us that we contradict our selves, and therefore our arguments do signifie nothing? whereas in truth, here is no appearance of a contradiction to that which is our own sense in this matter. For what shadow of a contradiction is it, to say, that the Roman Church is a true Church, and yet is guilty of Idolatry; p. 22supposing that we believe some sort of Idolatry which is very sinful, not to be yet of so high a nature as to unchurch those who practise it; And we choose the Instance of the ten Tribes for the ground of this charity. If they can prove that all sorts of Idolatry do necessarily destroy the essentials of a Church, the consequence is, we must have less charity for them, than we had before; And such a concession from us doth not shew their guilt to be less, but only our charity to be greater. Suppose a man should exceed in his charity towards a person guilty of some grievous faults, and say, he believes he may be a pious man for all this; but withall severely reproves him for his faults, and tells him the danger he continually runs by such actions; would it be fair for such a man to answer him, that his reproofs were not to be regarded, because he contradicted himself, for he told him he believed him to be a pious man, and yet upbraided him with those faults which were inconsistent with piety? what would the consequence of this be to the thing it self? would this make those faults ever the less, because he judged so charitably of the person notwithstanding his committing them? But when we allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church, we are far from understanding by that a sound or a good Church free from corruptions, which would be p. 23the most proper sense to found a contradiction upon, in this matter of Idolatry; but we mean no more by it, than as a man is a true man though he hath the plague upon him; those which we account the essentials of a Church we deny not to it, but withall, we contend that it is over-run with such corruptions in worship, as do mightily endanger the salvation of those who live in the communion of it.

2. Having thus discovered the disingenuity of making so bad a use of our charity against us, I now come to shew how Sophistical this way of answering is,§. 2. The Sophistical cavils in this argument. by a closer examination of it.

First, The starting of a new objection answers no argument, and all that this amounts to is only raising a new difficulty; whereas he ought in the first place to have answered all the arguments I had brought to prove them guilty of Idolatry; and when he had done this fairly and plainly (which for some good reasons he had no mind to do) he might then have insisted on the inconsistency of it with principles owned by me; but to do this without giving an answer, so much as to any one argument, is a clear evidence of a sophistical and cavilling humour, rather than of any intention to satisfie an inquisitive mind.

2. The force of this objection lyes in the different sense and meaning of several expressions p. 24made use of by him, which being explained, the objection will signifie nothing. For if we rightly understand the notion of Idolatry, the manner of teaching it, the sense of Fundamental errours and a true Church, as it is owned by me, the very appearance of any contradiction vanisheth.

I agree in the general, that the true notion of Idolatry is, giving the honour due only to God to a meer creature; and I desire no greater advantage against the Church of Rome, than from such a concession; but then we are to understand, that this may be done several ways. 1. When the worship proper to the true God is given to a false God. 2. When the true God is acknowledged and worshipped, but the unity of the God-head is denyed, and many false Gods are joyned with him in the same worship. In these two sorts of Idolatry, I acknowledge that the true God is rejected, either wholly in the first way, or by consequence in the second. But withall I say, that the giving the Worship to a creature which is due only to God may be consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supream God, and that these ways. 1. When one Supream God is acknowledged, but no difference is put between the external Worship of him and creatures. This was the Idolatry of the wiser Heathen, who did in their consciences p. 25acknowledge that there was but one true and supream God, but yet gave the same worship to inferiour Deities, that they did to him. These men might have pleaded for themselves, for all that I know, as much to their advantage, as those of the Church of Rome do against me. 2. When the worship proper to the true God is given to an Image: or the supposing of God to be truly honoured by us, by prostrating our selves before any corporeal representation of him. This likewise the Heathen were guilty of. St. Paul hath long since told us of some, who profess that they know God, Tit. 1. 16.Titus 1:16but in works they deny him; so there may be some who may profess a worship due only to God, but in their actions may contradict it. As suppose a company of rebellious men, should declare over and over that they acknowledge but one Soveraign Power of this Nation, invested in the person of the King; but yet, should take upon themselves to raise forces, to appoint great Officers of State, and require that the very same outward reverence and honour be given to them, which is given to the King himself; would any man in his sense say, that because these men still declared the supream Authority to be in the King, that there was no Treason in such actions? or that those persons contradicted themselves, who allowed that p. 26their profession was such as became good subjects, but their actions made them guilty of Treason. The same we say of the Church of Rome; we confess they own the supream Power of the world to be in one true God, and we have no controversie with them about the essential Doctrines of Religion (which is, that we mean by their being a true Church) but withal we say, they overthrow what they say in their own practice, they rob God of the honour due only to him, by giving it to Angels, and Saints, and Images and other creatures. And what contradiction now is there in all this, and a Church agreeing with us in the object of worship in general, should act contrary to its own profession, by requiring those things to be done, which take away from God that honour which is due only to him, and giving it to creatures? And this, if I understand it, is all that this first contradiction in the charge of Idolatry doth amount to.

To appply this now to his own propositions, for the greater clearness and satisfaction of all indifferent persons▪§. 3. A distinct answer to his propositions.

His first Proposition I agree to, viz. That '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. But I desire it may be taken notice p. 27of, that this proposition is Sophistically expressed; for although it be no dispute between us, whether that honour which is due only to God, may be given to a creature, yet it is a very great one, and the foundation of the charge of Idolatry, what that honour is which is due only to God: and in case we can prove that they do give to meer Creatures any part of that honour which is due to God, it cannot at all excuse them to say, that they acknowledge it to be Idolatry to give that honour, which they suppose to be due only to God, to a meer creature. This proposition therefore, though in it self true, is captiously set down, and with an intention only to deceive unwary readers, as will appear by the next proposition.

2. To teach Idolatry is to err against the formentioned article of faith and Fundamental point of Religion; i. e. to teach Idolatry, is to teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a meer creature. That this is to teach Idolatry, no one questions; but our question is, Whether they who do not teach this Proposition, may not teach men to do those things, whereby the worship due only to God will be given to a meer creature? If he can prove, that they who do not in terms declare that they do not dishonour God cannot dishonour him; if he can p. 28demonstrate, that those who do not teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a creature, cannot possibly by any actions of theirs rob him of that honour which is due to him: this will be much more to his purpose than any thing he hath yet said. And this proposition, if he had proceeded as he ought to have done, should not have been a particular affirmative but an Universal Negative; For it is not enough to say, that to teach Idolatry is to teach that the honour which is due only to God is to be given to a creature, but that No Church which doth not teach this can be guilty of Idolatry; for his design being to clear the Roman Church, his Proposition ought to be so framed that all particulars may be comprehended under it. But because he may say, his immediate intention was, not to clear their Church from Idolatry, but to accuse me of a contradiction, I proceed to the next Proposition.

3. A Church that does not err against any article of faith, nor against any Fundamental point of Religion, does not teach Idolatry. This proposition is likewise very Sophistical and captious; for by article of faith and fundamental point of Religion is either understood, the main fundamental points of doctrine contained in the Apostles Creed, and then I affirm, that a Church which doth own all the Fundamentals of doctrine, p. 29may be guilty of Idolatry, and teach those things, wherein it lyes; but if by not erring against any article of faith, be meant, that a Church which doth not err at all in matters of Religion cannot teach Idolatry, the Proposition is true, but impertinent.

4. That the Church of Rome doth teach Veneration of Images, adoration of the Host, and Invocation of Saints, is agreed on both sides.

5. That the Roman Church does not err against any article of faith or Fundamental point of Religion; This being that concession of ours, from whence all the force of his argument is taken, must be explained according to our own sense of it, and not according to that which he puts upon it; which that it may be better understood, I shall both shew in what sense this concession is made by us, as to the Church of Rome, and of what force it is in this present debate.

For the clearer understanding in what sense it is made by us, we are to consider the occasion of the Controversie about Fundamentals between us and the Church of Rome: §. 4. In what sense the Church of Rome is owned by us as a true Church.which ought to be taken from that Book to which he referrs. There we find the occasion of it to be, the Romanists contending that all points defined by the Church are Fundamental, Rational Account. p. 47.or necessary to salvation, on the account of such a Definition; upon this the controversie p. 30about Fundamentals was managed against them, with a design to prove that all things defined by the Church of Rome are not Fundamental, or necessary to be believed by all persons in order to their salvation, because they were so defined. To this purpose I enquired. 1. What the grounds are, on which any thing doth become necessary to salvation? 2. Whether any thing whose matter is not necessary, and is not required by an absolute command in Scripture, can by any means whatsoever afterwards become necessary? 3. Whether the Church hath power, by any proposition or definition, to make anything become necessary to salvation, and to be believed as such, which was not so before? For the first, I proposed two things. 1. What things are necessary to the salvation of men as such, or considered in their single or private capacities? 2. What things are necessary to be owned in order to salvation by Christian Societies, or as the bonds and conditions of Ecclesiastical communion? For the resolving of this I laid down these three Propositions.

1. That the very being of a Church, doth suppose the necessity of what is required to be believed in order to salvation.

2. Whatever Church owns those things, which are antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church, cannot so long cease to be a p. 31true Church. And here I expresly distinguished between the essentials of a Church, and those things which were required to the Integrity or soundness of it, among which latter I reckoned the worship of God in the way prescribed by him.

3. That the Union of the Catholick Church depended upon the agreement of it in things antecedently necessary to its being. From hence I proceeded to shew, that nothing ought to be owned as necessary to Salvation by Christian Societies, but such things which by all those Societies are acknowledged antecedently necessary to the Being of the Catholick Church. And here I distinguished between necessary articles of faith, and particular agreements for the Churches peace. I did not therefore deny, but that it was in the power of particular Churches, to require a Subscription to articles of Religion, opposite to the errours and abuses which they reformed; but I denyed it to be in the power of any Church to make those things necessary articles of faith, which were not so before. And here it was I shewed the moderation of the Church of England above that of Rome; in that our Church makes no articles of faith, but such as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self: p. 32but the Church of Rome imposeth new articles of faith, to be believed as necessary to salvation; as appears by the Bull of Pius 4. This is my plain meaning, which half-witted men have stretched and abused to several ill purposes: but not to wander from my present subject, what is it that I. W. can hence infer to his purpose? viz. that from hence it follows that the Church of Rome does not erre against any article of faith, or any point necessary to salvation; which if it be only meant of those essential points of faith, which I suppose antecedently necessary to the Being of a Church, I deny it not, but do not see of what use this concession can be to them in the present debate: since in the following Discourse I made the ancient Creeds of the Catholick Church the best measure of those things, which were believed to be necessary to salvation: so that the force of the argument comes to this, whatsoever Church does embrace the ancient Creeds cannot be guilty of Idolatry; but the Church of Rome doth embrace all the ancient Creeds by my own concession, therefore it is a contradiction for me to grant that they hold the ancient Creeds, and yet to charge them with Idolatry. And these matters being thus made plain, there is no great difficulty to answer, by denying the major Proposition, and asserting that p. 33a Church which does own all the articles of faith which are contained in them, may yet teach and practise those things, which take away from that worship which is proper only to God, and give it to meer creatures; as I have proved the Church of Rome doth in the worship of Images, adoration of the Host, and Invocation of Saints. But to make this yet more plain, there are two things we consider in a Church, the essence, and the soundness of it; as in a man, we consider his being a man and his health: when we discourse of his meer Being, we enquire into no more than those things which make him a man, whether he be sound or not: so in a Church, when we enquire into the essentials of it, we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of faith; the reason is, because Baptism admits men into the Church upon the profession of the true faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and whatever is sufficient to make a member of the Church, that is in it self sufficient, being embraced, to make a Church; but when we enquire farther into the moral integrity, or soundness of a Church, then we think our selves bound, not barely to know what is acknowledged and received, but how far it is so; and whether that Church which owns the Fundamentals of Christian faith, doth not by gross p. 34and damnable errours corrupt the Worship of God, and debauch those very Principles which they profess to own. And in this respect none of us ever said, That the Church of Rome did not err; nay we do say and have manifestly proved, that she hath erred against the Christian faith, by introducing palpable errours in doctrine, and manifold Superstitions and Idolatries in practice. From hence it plainly appears, that the concession I. W. urges me with of the Church of Rome being a true Church signifies nothing, in the sense by me intended, which contradicts the charge of Idolatry; unless they can prove that none who own the Apostles Creed, or their Baptism, can so long as they so do, teach Idolatry, or be guilty of giving the honour due only to God to meer creatures. These things being thus explained, I hope the Sophistry of this way of arguing is made so evident, that no man of understanding, that resolves not before hand what to believe, is capable of being deceived by it.

Before I come to the next contradiction charged upon me,§. 5. I shall for the diversion of the Reader,His Appendix considered. and the suitableness of the matter, take notice of his Appendix, wherein I. W. goes about so pleasantly to prove me an Idolater, by a notable trick, which it seems came into his head a little too late, after he had finisht p. 35this worthy Treatise. I should have suspected it had been intended only for a piece of Drollery, but that the man so severely rebukes me for it, and withall talks of nothing less than demonstration in the case. What? (thought I) is it come to this at last? and am I become an Idolater too, who was never apt to think my self enclined so much as to superstition? but what can not the controverting Wit of man do, upon second and serious thoughts? All the comfort I found left was towards the conclusion, wherein he confesses that the same argument proves the Prophets, Dr. St. against Dr. St. p. 21.Evangelists and Holy Ghost himself to be Idolaters; Nay then, I hoped there was no great harm to be feared in so good company; and by that consideration armed my self against this terrible assault. But at last as he made nearer approaches to me, I found no mischief was like to come, but what I brought upon my self; for he charged me with nothing but my own Artillery, and the train that was laid to blow me up was fetched from my own stores; only he had disposed it in a way fittest for this deep design. But the best of it was, his plot went no farther than my Idolatry, and both lay only in Imagination. For there he makes the seat of my Idolatry, which he demonstratively proves must be so by my own argument. I shall therefore conside… p. 36what that was, and with what great art he imploys it against me. Among other arguments to shew that the prohibition of worshipping Images was not peculiar to the Iews, but of an unalterable nature, I insisted upon Gods declaring the unsuitableness of it to his own infinite and incomprehensible nature,Roman Idolatry. p. 55. 2. edi…. which could not be represented to men, but in a way which must be an infinite disparagement to it.Isa. 40▪ 19, 22.Isa 40:19Isa 40:22 To whom will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare to him? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, &c. and the reason given of the Law it self was,Deut. 4. 15, 16.Deut 4:15Deut 4:16 because they saw no s…militude of God; from hence I shewed, that the wisest Nations and Persons among the Heathen looked on the Worship of God by Images, as unsuitable to a Divine and Infinite Being, and that the Gospel still more discovered Gods Spiritual nature, and the agreeableness of Spiritual Worship to him; that the Apostles urged this Argument against the Heathen Idolatry; and the Fathers of the Church thought the reason of this Law did equally oblige us with the Iews; now by what art doth he from hence prove me necessarily to be an Idolater, as well as they of the Church of Rome, who Worship God by Images against the very words and reason of this Law?… ▪ 20. The argument is briefly summed up by himself thus: Whoever p. 37Worships God represented in a way far inferiour to his greatness is an Idolater; but whosoever Worships God represented to him without the Beatifical vision, either by words or by imaginations as well as Images, he Worships God in a way far inferiour to his greatness; ergo, whoever worships God represented unto him without the Beatifical vision is an Idolater: but Dr. St. Worships God without the Beatifical vision (no doubt of it) ergo, Dr. St. is an Idolater: there is no help for it. Nay, from hence he proves, that I cannot so much as think of God without Idolatry my self, nor Preach of him without provoking others to it. O the insuperable force of reason, and the dint of demonstration! but the mischief is, all this subtilty is used against the Law-maker and not against me. Did I not cite the words of God himself, who therefore did forbid the making any likeness of him, because nothing could be like him? Is there no difference between having imperfect conceptions of God in our minds, and making unworthy representations of him to our senses, with a design to worship them? Why did not God as well forbid the one as he did the other? Were the Israelites then in the Beatifical vision? were their conceptions of God suitable to his incomprehensible nature? if not, why were they not forbidden as well p. 38to think of God as to make any Images of him? Is God as much disparaged by the necessary weakness of our understandings, as by voluntarily false and corporeal Images of him? Nay doth not God design to prevent the errour of our Imaginations by such prohibitions as those are? and thereby commands us to think worthily of him, and when we pray to him, to consider him only as an Infinite Being in his Nature and Attributes? I do not know what Imaginations others have of God; it may be those in the Church of Rome measure all by themselves, and God by their Images of him, and thence conclude, that no men can think of God, but as they picture him, like an Old man sitting in Heaven; but I assure them, I never had such an Imagination of him, and if I had, should think it very unworthy of him. I know no other conception of God, but of a Being infinitely perfect; and this is rather an intellectual apprehension, than a material imagination of him. I am assured that he is, by mighty and convincing arguments, but to bring him down to my Imagination, is to contradict the evidence that I have of his Being; for the same reasons which convince me that he is, do likewise convince me that he is infinite in power, and wisdom, and goodness. If I thought otherwise of him, I should know no p. 39reason to give him the Worship of my mind and soul. Although my conceptions cannot reach his greatness, yet they do not confine it, nor willfully debase it; they do not bring him down to the meanness of a Corporeal Image. But because we cannot think highly enough of God, must we therefore devise ways to expose him to contempt and scorn? And we cannot but despise a Deity to whom any Image can be like. But such absurd and silly arguments deserve no farther confutation. They indeed may take more liberty, who write to those who are bound not to judge of what is writ, but only to cry it up. As for us, who think it not fit to have our People in such slavery, we dare not venture such idle stuff among them.

I come therefore to the second contradiction he charges me with,§ 6. which is, concerning the danger of salvation which they are lyable to who communicate with the Roman Church, The second contradiction Examined.when yet I acknowledge that Church to be a true Church, and therefore to be a true way to salvation: and withall Arch B. Laud, whom I defend, doth grant a possibility of salvation to those in the Church of Rome. The force of this contradiction depending on these concessions, I shall, 1. Shew in what sense they are granted by us. 2. Examin the strength of the propositions p. 40he draws from hence, towards the making this a contradiction.

1. Concerning the Roman Church being a true Church: The Arch-bishops Adversary having falsely charged him with granting the Roman Church to be a right Church, he complains of his injustice in it;… p. 293. and saith, that it is a Church and a true Church he granted, but not a right Church; for Truth only imports the Being; right, perfection in conditions; thus a Thief is a true man, though not an upright man. So a corrupt Church may be true, as a Church is a company of men which profess the faith of Christ, and are baptized into his name; but it is not therefore a right Church either in Doctrine or Manners; and again saith, It is true in that sense, as ens and verum, being and true, are convertible one with another; and every thing that hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of subtance. The Replyer to him,P. 295. saith, that the notion of a Church implyes Integrity and Perfection of conditions; upon which I gave him this Answer, That he did herein betray his weak or willful mistakes of a Church morally for Metaphysically true. If he could prove it impossible for a Church to retain its Being that hath any errours in doctrine, or corruptions in practice, he would therein do something to p. 41the purpose; but when he had done it, all that he would get by it was, that then we should not so much as acknowledge the Roman Church to be Metaphysically a true Church; and therefore the Reader is left to judge, whether his Lordships Charity for, or his Testimony against their Church was built upon better grounds. By this it is evident in what sense it was granted, that the Roman Church was a true Church.

2. Concerning possibility of salvation in that Church; To the question that was asked my Lord of Canterbury, whether a person might be saved in the Roman faith?Arch B. La…ds Conference. p. 280. he gives this Answer, that the Ignorant that could not discern the errours of that Church, so they held the Foundation and conformed themselves to a Religious life might be saved:P. 282. and after explains himself more fully, that might be saved grants but a possibility, no sure or safe way of salvation; the possibility, I think, saith he, cannot be denyed to the Ignorants, especially because they hold the Foundation and cannot survey the building. And the Foundation can deceive no man that rests upon it: But a secure way they cannot go, that hold with such corruptions when they know them.P. 285. And again, Many Protestants indeed confess, there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church; but yet they say withall, p. 42that the errours of that Church are so many, (and some so great, as weaken the Foundation) that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven, especially to them that have had the truth manifested.P. 299. And in another place, I do indeed for my part (leaving other men free to their own judgement) acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church: but so as that which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are Romanists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they believe the Creed, and hold the Foundation Christ himself, not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross Superstitions of the Roman Church. And I am willing to hope there are many among them, which keep within that Church, and yet wish the Superstitions abolished which they know, and which pray to God to forgive their errours in what they know not, and which hold the Foundation firm and live accordingly, and would have all things amended that are amiss, were it in their power. And to such I dare not deny a possibility of salvation, for that which is Christs in them, though they hazard themselves extreamly, by keeping so close to that which is Superstition, and in the case of Images comes too near Idolatry.Rational Account. p. 622. These are my Lord of Canterburies own words, and laid together in my Defence of him, which I. W. p. 43ought to have represented, if he had designed any thing but Sophistry and trifling. But his game had been then quite spoiled; the fine sport of making contradictions had been lost, and his cross purposes had come to nothing.

I now come to see what contradictions he wire-draws from hence by the help of his Propositions.

1. Whoever is in a condition, wherein he is certainly saved, is in no danger or probability of being damned. If by he is certainly saved, he speaks of the event, then he were a hard hearted man that would not grant, that he that is actually saved is in no danger or probability of being damned; if he means it of a certain way to salvation, then it is yet capable of several meanings. For to be in a certain way may imply one of these three things. 1. That the way it self is so plain that a man cannot miss of it. 2. Or that the way is in it self certain, but there are so many by-paths and turnings lying hard by it, that it is a very hard matter for any man to keep in it. 3. To be in a certain way, is, when not only the way it self is certain, but a man keeps constantly in that way. According to these several senses this Proposition may be understood; if by it be meant. 1. He that is in a certain way to salvation, is in no danger or p. 44probability of being damned, i. e. he that keeps constantly in that way which will certainly lead him to Heaven, the Proposition is true, but impertinent; but if by it be meant no more but this, that he is in a way which in it self leads to Heaven, but there are so many cross and by-paths near it, that though it be possible for him to hit it, yet it is extreamly hazardous, no one can imagine that such a one is in no probability of miscarrying, for we say he is in very great danger of it, notwithstanding the tendency of the way it self.

2. Prop. Whoever lives and dyes in a true way to salvation, having conformed to its directions, or whoever has done all that was necessary to attain unto salvation is in a condition, wherein he is certainly saved. The Sophistry of this is so palpable, that the weakest eye may discern it; for it supposes that true way to salvation wherein he lives to be a very safe and secure way, i. e. that it be not only true in it self, but free from such errours and corruptions which may endanger salvation; and in that sense it is true, but very far from the purpose. For none of us did ever yield that the Roman Church is a safe way to salvation; nay it is expresly denyed by my Lord of Canterbury, as well as by me. But here lyes still another piece of Sophistry to be taken notice of, whoever hath done all p. 45that was necessary to attain salvation, is in a condition wherein he is certainly saved; no doubt of it; but the doing all that is necessary to salvation is not bare believing the necessary articles of faith, contained in the Creed, but obeying the Will of God; which cannot be done by those who wilfully adhere to gross and open violations of it; as I have charged the Church of Rome to do, in her solemn acts of Worship. Their cause certainly is at a very low ebb when such pittiful Sophistry, must pass for reasoning and demonstration among them. Never men had more need of a self-evidencing cause, as well as propositions, than they; so little help do they contribute to it by their Writings.

3 Prop. The Roman Church is a true way to salvation, and teaches all that is necessary to attain unto it. This is granted, he saith, by me and other Protestants, when we acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church; but in what sense, I have already explained, so far as to leave no colour of arguing from hence to any contradiction in me. For this true way to salvation in our sense is no more, but that the Church of Rome doth acknowledge so much of Christian faith, as is sufficient to save men, on condition they live accordingly, and do not by gross corruptions in doctrine or practice render that faith ineffectual p. 46to them: but withall we assert and maintain, that to these necessary articles of Christian faith, the Church of Rome hath added such errours and corruptions, as make the salvation of any person extreamly hazardous, who lives in the communion of it. And let them have all the comfort from hence which they can, I am sure they have not this, that they have brought me to contradict my self by such concessions as these.

By this, his last Proposition comes to nothing; whoever lives and dyes in the communion of the Roman Church, having conformed to her doctrine, lives and dyes in a true way to salvation having conformed to its directions, and has done all that was necessary to attain to it. Which evidently supposes that we yield that the doctrine of the Roman Church, is a safe way to salvation, which we utterly deny; all that we assert is, that so much of the common Principles of Christianity, as is retained in the Roman Church is sufficient for the salvation of those, who do not wilfully corrupt them by bad opinions and practices, or if they have, do repent sincerely. But for those who conform themselvs to the doctrine and directions of the Roman Church as such, we are far from ever saying that such live and dye in a true way to salvation; for this were to make those doctrines and p. 47directions to be as holy and innocent as we believe them to be false and pernicious. See now what a contradiction here is; for me to assert the Church of Rome to be a true Church, because it retains the Fundamentals of Christianity; and yet to make the condition of those who live in it so hazardous in point of salvation, by reason of the gross errours, which men are bound to believe as necessary points of faith; and horrible Superstitions which they must conform to, if they follow her directions. Surely he could not but know this to be our meaning, and consequently to have no shadow of contradiction in it, no more than is in this plain Proposition, That a possible way to salvation may yet be very dangerous. But though Iugglers know their own cheats, they would lose their trade if they made them known to the people. Something must be said to amuse them, and this seemed the prettiest way, to confound them, by dazeling their eyes with such appearances of contradictions: and thereby to perswade their own party, that they need not fear the the attaque of such an enemy who falls foul upon himself. But it is nothing but the mist he casts before their eyes, can make any have such an imagination; it is but making things clear, and then nothing but order and agreement appears.

p. 48But yet he quarrels with me,St. against St. p. 7. for making the case of living in willful sin and in the corruptions of the Roman Church parallel with each other; 1. because I will not grant that a willful sin, such as adultery, to be a true way to Heaven; and doth he think that I ever imagined Idolatry and gross superstition to be so; If I grant that in the Church of Rome they have a true way to Heaven, it is as other debauched Christians have, who own faith enough to save them, but their destruction comes from not living agreeably to it. 2. Because I grant more to them than to Iews or Pagans, yet they may be saved if they do repent. True, but they are not in so great likelyhood of repenting, as those who own the Fundamental articles of the Christian faith, and have a sincere desire in general to serve God according to his will; the Grace of God being more plentiful, where the Christian faith is owned, than where it is rejected; upon which account Iews and Heathens are in more danger of not repenting, and consequently of salvation than those that live in the Roman Church. 3. Because I grant a greater capacity of salvation to Roman Catholicks than they do to Protestants; but they do not d…ny it to Protestants if they repent. But the difference lyes in the nature and acts of the rep… tance required; We say a … repentanced p. 49and a vertuous sincere mind, which desires to know & do the will of God may be sufficient, together with a particular repentance of all known miscarriages; but they say such a repentacne is necessary for us, as does imply a disowning our Church, as such wherein no salvation is to be had, and a joyning with the Communion of the Church of Rome: therefore the question about their charity and ours, is about the possibility of the salvation of persons living and dying in the communion of either Church; We say on the conditions before mentioned, men may be saved, though they do not in terms renounce their communion, but they say that none who do not return to their communion can be saved; and in this we justly charge them with horrible uncharitableness, when many of their Writers allow a greater possibility of salvation to meer Heathens. 4. Because Arch-bishop Laud grants a greater capacity of salvation than other Protestants; but in what sense I have already shewed. 5. That this is in effect to say, that it is a true way to Heaven if they go out of it. Not if they go out of it so far as it is true, but so far only as it is false and dangerous. If a man were going the right way from London to York, as far as Stamford, and there went quite out of his way into the Fens, here his life is in danger; if I should tell this man that the way p. 50from London to York was a certain way, that the way he went in as far as Stamford was a true way, and if he had kept in it, would have brought him to York, but the way he is now in is very dangerous, and if he does not return, his life is in perpetual hazard; is this all one as if I should tell him, while you were in the true way, you must go out of it? No such sense can be put upon such words, by any man that hath sense; and for others, we give them leave to cry nonsense and contradiction.

All his other petty objections run upon the same palpable mistake,P. 8. and it would be but repeating the same thing to answer the other remaining cavils upon this Argument.

I come therefore to the sore place indeed,§. 7. the touching whereof hath made them to kick and wince so much at me;The charge of Fanaticism de…ended. and that is the Fanaticism of the Roman Church. Which made them complain to Caesar, that it was a new crime, and never heard of before. What? they; the sober, the judicious, the wise people of the Church of Rome turned Fanaticks! it's false, it's impossible; nay, it is absolutely and utterly impossible to be true; and none but Atheists can charge them with it. This hath been their common way of answering to this new charge; but not one wise word hath been said in a just Vindication p. 51of themselves, by giving answer to those many plain, and undenyable Instances I have produced. I wished for no other tryal than to be bound to bring forth their own Authors, and to make good the Authorities I had cited, and my fidelity therein; but they have fairly declined this way of tryal. But how then can they free themselves from this imputation? we have men of art to deal with, and it is some pleasure to observe the skill they use in warding off a blow they did not look for. But if they have nothing more to say then I. W. can help them to, the charge will stick the faster, for his attempt to clear them of it.

He begins with a description of Fanaticism, P. 8.which, he saith, doth necessarily contain a resistance of authority; and for this, very unhappily quotes my own words. By Fanaticism we understand either an Enthusiastick way af Religion, or resisting authority under pretence of Religion; just as if one should say the true notion of Idolatry implyes the renouncing the true God, and to prove it should quote words of mine to this purpose, That Idolatry is either renouncing the true God, or worshipping the true God by an Image: for as in that case, it is evident, I make two sorts of Idolatry; so it is as plain in this, that I make two branches of Fanaticism, whereof p. 52the one is, an Enthusiastick way of Religion, the other resistance of authority under the pretence of Religion. But if this be the true notion of Fanaticism, why doth he not speak one word in vindication of them, from that very kind of Fanaticism, which I had charged them to be so deeply guilty of? Had I not proved by plain testimonies, that the most Fanatick principles of Rebellion were owned by the Jesuitical party among them?Fanaticism of Rom. Church. s. 16. p. 299. 2. …d. viz. the Kings deriving his power from the people, and the peoples authority to call the King to an account, and if they see good to take away his power and change the Government: and not only so but to take away his life too? Had I not proved by clear and late Instances, that the party which owns these principles is to this day the most countenanced and encouraged at Rome? and any honest men among them, as to these principles, are on that account hated and persecuted, as P. W. and his Brethren. But why no answer to this charge? These are things they cannot deny, and yet dare not confess them to be true. If I. W. answer again, let him speak out like a man, and either confess and detest these Principles, or we shall charge them farther with this worst and most dangerous sort of Fanaticism. My duty and just zeal for his Majesties interest and security, will not suffer me to let p. 53go this part of the charge against them, although they would fain have it passed over in silence, as though never a word had been said concerning it. This is one of the best arts I have met with in this Pamphlet; for unwary Readers will not remember the charge, when they find no answer: but if I. W. had attempted to answer it, his shuffling and tricks might have made the deeper impression in the Readers minds. Remember then this charge stands good against them, without so much as their pretending to answer it.

To come now to the other part of Fanaticism, viz. an Enthusiastick way of Religion: and here to proceed clearly, I shall lay down the method of his Defence, and then examine it. The strength of his Defence lyes in these Propositions.

1. That Fanaticism does necessarily contain a resistance against authority.

2. No particular ways of Religion, countenanced by a competent authority, are Fanaticism.

3. Those things which concern religious Orders and Method of Devotion, which I charge them with, are countenanced by a competent authority, viz. The Authority of that Church.

4. That Church cannot countenance Fanatism which obligeth all persons to submit to her judgement.

p. 54So that here are two Principles by which I. W. thinks to vindicate their Church from Fanaticism; viz. competent authority, and submission of judgement to the Church. To shew the invalidity of this answer, I shall do these things.

1. Shew the insufficiency of it.

2. The monstrous absurdities consequent upon it.

1. If this answer were sufficient, he must make it appear, that there have been none charged by me as Fanaticks in their Church, but such as have submitted themselves and their judgement to the authority of their Church. For let us consider the occasion of this charge, and we shall presently discern the insufficiency of this way of answering it. The occasion was, that my Adversary made all the Sects and Fanaticisms among us to be the effect of the Reformation; what answer could be more proper in this case, than to shew, that there were as wild and extravagant Fanaticisms before, as have been since? which is a plain evidence that cannot be the cause of them, to which they imputed them. To make this out, I searched into the several sorts of Fanaticism, and gave instances very clear of as great Fanaticks in the times before the reformation, as have been since: from the many pretenders to immediate Revelations p. 55among them, who were persons allowed and approved by their Church, and some of them Canonized for Saints; but besides these, I gave such other Instances of Fanaticism among the Friers, and others of their Church, as were never heard of in the world before; as the broachers and maintainers of the Friers Gospel, which was to put out of doors the Gospel of Christ; the Spiritual Brethren of the order of S. Francis called by several names, but especially that of Fratricelli, who continued long, spread far, and more distrubed the Church than any since have done, the Dulcinistae in Italy, the Alumbrado's in Spain, &c. What doth he now say concerning all these? were these countenanced by a competent authority among them? did they submit their judgement to the Church? if neither of these be pretended in reference to them, then this answer must be very insufficient, because it doth not reach to the matter in charge.

2. For those who were as he saith, countenanced by authority, and did submit themselves to the Church, yet this doth not clear them from Fanaticism; but draws after it these monstrous absurdities.

1. That prevailing Fanaticism ceases to be Fanaticism; like Treason, which when it prospers none dare call it Treason; an excellent way, this, to vindicate the Fanaticism of the p. 56late times, which because countenanced by an authority, supposed competent enough by some who then writ of Obedience and Government, it ceased to be Fanaticism; and all the wild and extravagant heats of mens brains, their Enthusiasms and Revelations were Regular and orderly things, because countenanced by such Authority as was then over them.

2. By this rule the Prophets and Apostles, nay our Lord himself, were unavoidably Fanaticks; for what competent authority had they to countenance them? The Iewish Church was not yet cast off while our Saviour lived, but utterly opposed his doctrine and Revelation, as coming from a private Spirit of his own; according therefore to these excellent Principles, our B. Saviour is made a meer Fanatick, because he wanted a competent Authority of the present Church to countenance him; the same was generally the case of the Prophets, and of all the Apostles. But what rocks and Precipices will a bad cause drive men upon? If that which makes Fanaticism or not Fanaticism, be the being countenanced or not countenanced by this competent Authority, these horrible absurdities are unavoidable; and all Religion must be resolved into the will and pleasure of this competent Authority. But I need not take such pains to prove this, for my brave Answerer I. W. sets it down in his own p. 57words.St. against St. p. 9. Moreover, otherwise all the particular manners of Preaching or Praying practised by the Prophets, and all their extraordinary visions and revelations would be flat Fanaticism; but because they were countenanced by a competent authority, they could not deserve that character. Excellent doctrine for a Popish Leviathan! are you in earnest sir? do you think the Prophets had been Fanaticks, in case of no competent authority to countenance them? What competent authority had the Prophet Elijah to countenance him,1 King 19. 18.1 Kgs 19:18 when all the Authority that then was,Rom. 11. 3.Rom 11:3 not only opposed him but sought his life? What competent Authority had any of the Prophets who were sent to the ten Tribes? what had Ieremiah, Ezekiel, and the rest of them? It seems then, all these excellent and inspired persons are cast into the common herd of Fanaticks, for want of this competent Authority to countenance them. And yet this is the Man (meerly because I lay open the Fanaticism of some their pretended Saints, such as Ignatius Loyola and S. Francis) who ranks me with Lucian and Porphyrie: hath he not himself a great zeal for Religion the mean while, resolving all revelation into his competent authority? and not only so, but paralleling the expressions and practices of S. Brigitt, and Mother Juliana, (than which scarce any thing was ever Printed p. 58more ridiculous in the way of Revelations) with those of the holy Prophets and Apostles? If a man designed to speak mischievously against the Scriptures and Divine Revelation, he could not do it more to purpose than I. W. hath done in these words? when he compares things whose folly is so manifest at the first view, with that divine Wisdom, which Inspired those holy persons, whom God sent upon particular messages to his people, and gave so great assurance that he sent them; and who delivered matters of great weight and moment, and not such tittle tattle as those two Womens Books are fraught withall. But if this be the way they have to vindicate them from being Fanaticks, it is absolutely the worst that could be thought of; for it cannot discover so high an opinion of them, as it doth a very mean one of the Books of Scripture, and the Divine Revelations therein contained. I could here earnestly intreat the wiser men of that Church, for the honour of God, and the Christian Religion, not to suffer such inconsiderate persons to vindicate their cause, who to defend the extravagant infirmities of some Enthusiastical women among them, are so forward to cast dirt and reproach upon our common Religion, and those Revelations from whence we derive it. But I forbear; only it is a shrewd sign, if this way be allowed, of a p. 59wretched cause, that cannot be maintained without plunging those, who rely upon their word, into the depths of Atheism. But these are not things to be so slightly passed over, they deserve a fuller and severer chastisement. For the present, this is enough to shew, what monstrous absurdities this way of vindicating their Church from Fanaticism hath brought I. W. to. Yet in one respect he deserves some pardon, for they are wont to write their answers upon the common Themes out of some staunch Authors, who considered a little better what they writ; But this was a new charge, and neither Bellarmin, Becanus, nor any of their old beaten souldiers, could give them any assistance; they found not the Title of the Fanaticism of the Roman Church in any of their common-place-Books; therefore plain Mother-wit must help them, and so it hath bravely. But before they again attempt this matter, I desire them to consider these things, least they should in a desperate humour utterly give up the cause of Religion, finding themselves unable to defend that of their Church.

1. Whether there can be any greater Fanaticism, than a false pretence to immediate divine Revelation? For what can more expose men to all the follies and delusions imaginable, than this will do? what actions can be p. 60so wild and extravagant but men may do, under such a pretence of immediate Revelation from God? what bounds of order and Government can be preserved? some may pretend a Revelation to take up Arms against their Prince, or to destroy all they meet (which is no unheard of thing) others may not go so far, but may have revelations of the unlawfulness of Kingly Government; others may pretend revelations of a new Gospel, and a more spiritual dispensation than hath been yet in the World, as the Mendicant Friers did.

2. Whether we are bound to believe all such who say, They have divine revelations? or whether persons may not be deceived in thinking they have revelations, when they are only delusions of their own Fancies or the Devil? if not; then every one is to be believed who pretends to these things, and then all follies and contradictions must be fwallowed which men say they have by immediate revelation; and every Fanatick must be believed, to have divine revelation who believes himself, though he be only deluded by his own Imagination, or become Enthusiastical by the power of a disease in his head, or some great heat in his blood.

p. 613. Whether there must not be some certain rules established whereby all persons, and even competent authority it self, must proceed in judging these pretences to revelation, whether they be true or false? for if they proceed without rule, they must either be inspired too, or else, must receive all who pretend to divine revelations: if there be any certain rules, whereby the revelation is to be judged; then if any persons receive any revelation against those rules, whether are other persons bound to follow their judgement against those rules?

4. Whether there can be any more certain rule of judging, than that two things evidently contradictory to each other, cannot both come from divine revelation? For then God must contradict himself, which is impossible to be supposed, and would overthrow the faith of any divine revelation. And this is the plain case of the revelations made to two famous Saints in the Roman Church, S. Brigitt and S. Catharine; to one it was revealed, that the B. Virgin was conceived with Original sin; to the other, that she was not: both these have competent Authority, for they were both Canonized for Saints by the Roman Church, and their Revelations approved, and therefore (according to I. W.) neither of them were Fanaticks, though it is certain p. 62that one of their Revelations was false. For, either God must contradict himself, or one of these must be deceived, or go about to deceive, and what greater Fanaticism can there be, than that is? if one of these had only some Fanatick Enthusiasm, and the other divine Revelation, then competent authority and submission to the judgement of the Church, is not a rule to judge Fanaticism by; for those were equal in both of them.

5. Whether there be an equal reason to look for revelations now, as in the time of the Prophets, and our Saviour, and his Apostles? or whether God communicates revelations to no other end, but to please and gratifie some Enthusiastical tempers? and what should be the reason he should do it more now, than in the age wherein revelations were more necessary? In those times God revealed his mind to men, but it was for the benefit of others; when he sent them upon particular messages, as the Prophets, or made known some future events to them of great importance to the Church, as the coming of the Messias, &c. or Inspired them to deliver weighty doctrines to the world, as he did both the Prophets and Apostles: why should we think, that God now, when the revelations of these holy and inspired persons are upon record, and all things necessary to his Church are contained therein, p. 63should vary this method of his, and entertain some melancholy and retired women, or other Enthusiastical persons with visions and revelations of no use to his Church?

6. Whether God doth ever Inspire persons with immediate revelations without giving sufficient evidence of such Inspiration? For if he did, it were to leave men under a temptation to Infidelity without means to withstand it; if he doth not, then we have reason to examine the evidence, before we believe the revelation. The evidence God gave of old was either the Prophecy of a succession of Prophets, by one whose commission was attested by great miracles, as Moses, who told the Israelites, they were to expect Prophets, and laid down rules to judge of them by; or else by miracles wrought by themselves as by the Apostles whom our Lord sent abroad to declare his will to the world. And where these are not, what reason is there to receive any new Revelations as from God, especially when the main predictions of the New Testament are of false Prophets, and false Miracles?

7. Whether the Revelations of their pretended Saints being countenanced by the Authority of their Church, be equally received among them, with the Revelations contained in Scripture? if they be, then they ought to p. 64have equal reverence paid to them, and they ought to read them as Scripture, to cite their Authority as divine, and to believe them as infallible as Christ and his Apostles; if they be not, than whatever they pretend, they are not looked on as divine revelations by them, as manifestly appears, because they are wholly rejected by some of the wisest of them, doubted of, and disputed by others, as it were easie to prove were it not too large a subject for this discourse, but by none received as writings of divine authority, and equal with the Scriptures, which they must be if they came from the same Spirit. And since they are not, it is evident that they are no otherwise esteemed among themselves, than as the Fanatick heats of some devout persons of disturbed and deluded Fancies; whom notwithstanding they are willing to cherish, partly because they are loth to discountenance any pretence to an infallible Spirit in their Church, and partly that there may never be wanting matter to make Saints of, when the Pope thinks fit, and good consideration is offered. This may suffice to make good this charge of Fanaticism against the Roman Church; and to shew that I am as far from the appearance of any contradiction therein (although their Revelations are not from a real one) as I. W's vain and Sophistical talk is from any appearance of reason.

p. 65The last contradiction charged upon me,§. 8. is,No contradiction in the charge … divisions. about the Divisions of the Roman Church. The occasion of which discourse was, that divisions were objected to me as another consequent of the Reformation; upon which I thought my self obliged to enquire into the Vnity of their Church, and I have at large proved from undenyable Instances, attested by their own Authors, that they have no reason to insult over other Churches on account of their divisions, nor to boast of their own Unity and Peace. For I have there proved that there have never been greater disturbances in the Christian World, than what they call the means of Unity, viz. the Popes Authority, hath procured, no where greater or more lasting Schisms, no where fiercer disputes about matters of order and doctrine, than among them. I considered all their salvo's and from them shew'd, that if they have no divisions among themselves neither have we; nay the same arguments which prove they do not differ in matters of faith from each other, do likewise prove that they and we do not differ from each other in those things. And what saith I. W. to all this? Instead of healing their own divisions, he only designs to prove me to be divided against my self, that he might make up the full Tale of his contradictions.

p. 66But I. W. had so much forgot himself as to make good the very thing I designed; and by that very argument he uses to prove that I contradict my self, he manifestly proves that there are no more divisions in matters of faith, between the Roman Church and us than there are among themselves. This I shall make very evident, but I must proceed as he doth with his Propositions.

1. No divisions from the Roman Church are divisions of the Roman Church. This is a very subtle principle of unity among them, and by this rule there would be an admirable Unity in the Roman Church, if the Pope himself were left alone in it. For all others would only be divided from it, and I would allow the Pope to be at a very good Agreement with himself, which is more than I. W. will allow me: In this case indeed there would be Vnity, but where would be their Church? Suppose a shepherd should boast of the excellent Government of a great Flock he had under his command, and the Unity and peace they lived in; and a by-stander should tell him that he saw others pretend to the same authority over that flock that he did, and part followed one and part another, he saw some of the chief of the Leaders set themselves against him disputing his authority, he saw many of the sheep continually fighting p. 67with each other, and some had wholly forsaken him; would it not be a pleasant thing for this shepherd to say that notwithstanding all this they had great peace and Unity, because as many as did not quarrel were very quiet, and those that were divided from his Government were not under it? But our question is, whether such authority be the means to preserve the whole flock under Government, when we see it prevents no divisions but causes many? He might have spoken more to the purpose if he had framed his Proposition thus, there can be no divisions in the Roman Church, but such as divide men from it; and in that case the Roman Church would have been reduced to a very small number. But if there may be such divisions which are as contrary to Unity and peace as divisions in matters of faith are, to what purpose is it to shew that they have none in one kind if they have very great in all others? But although this be not sufficient to demonstrate their Vnity, yet it is enough for his purpose, if it doth shew that I contradict my self. But where lyes the contradiction? The force of it lyes here. I charge them with divisions in matters of faith, when divisions in matters of faith make them not to be members of the Roman Church; therefore there can be no divisions in the Roman Church in matters of p. 68faith. Again (for in these two arguments the substance of his own propositions is couched by himself) All those who assent unto the ancient Creeds are undivided in matters of faith; but all Roman Catholicks assent unto the ancient Creeds; ergo, all Roman Catholicks are undivided in matters of faith, and consequently it is a calumny in me to say they are divided in these matters. Now, what an easie matter is it to disposses me of this Spirit of contradiction, which he imagines me possessed with? I need no holy water, or sacred charms and exorcisms to do it with. There needs no more but understanding what is meant by matters of faith; when matters of faith are spoken of by me in the place he refers to,Rational …. p. 56. it is evident to every one that reads it, and by his own words I speak only of the Fundamental and necessary articles of faith, which are necessary to the salvation of all and to the very being of a Church; of which kind I say none ought to be esteemed, that were not admitted into the ancient Creeds. But when I charge them with divisions in matters of faith, I do not mean that they reject the ancient Creeds, but I take matters of faith in their own sense for things defined by the Church; and if I. W. had sought for any thing but words to raise cavils upon, he might have found it so explained in p. 69the very place where I speak of this. For that discourse is to answer an objection of theirs,Divis. of the Rom. Church. s. 15. … 397. 2. ed. that they do not differ in those things which they esteem matters of faith; and particularly I insisted upon that, that they cannot be sure whether they differ in matters of faith or no, because they are not agreed what makes things to become matters of faith. Can this be understood any other way than of their own sense of matters of faith? And is not this fair dealing to make me contradict my self because where I argue against them I take matters of faith in their sense, and where I deliver my own opinion, I take them in another sense? And this being the sense of matters of faith the trifling of his arguing appears; for do all these cease to be members of their Church who dispute any thing which others account matter of faith among them? Are the Iesuits all out of the Church of Rome, because they deny the efficacy of Grace which the Domini…ans account a matter of faith? Are the Iansenists and oral Traditionists divided from the Church of Rome because they deny the Popes Infallibility which the Iesuits account a matter of faith? If not, then all divisions in matters and articles of faith, are not divisions from the true Church and from all her members; and so his second Proposition comes to nothing: and so likewise the third, that p. 70all divisions in matters of faith, so esteemed by them, are divisions from the Roman Church.

But the fourth and fifth Propositions 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, and I shall demonstratively prove it from the argument of I. W. drawn from his two last Propositions. All who assent unto the ancient Creeds are undivided in matters of faith, by Prop. 4. but both Papists and Protestants do assent unto the ancient Creeds; ergo, they are undivided in matters of faith And hath not I. 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 hence forward charge us with dividing from their Church in any matters of faith, since we are all agreed in owning the ancient Creeds; and seeing, we cannot be divided from the Church but by differing in matters of faith according to his Propos. it follows that we are still members of the true Church, and therefore neither guilty of heresie nor Schism. But if those who do own and assent to the ancient Creeds may yet be divided in matters of faith, as they charge us by rejecting the definitions of the Roman Church, then p. 71there is no shadow of a contradiction left in my charging them with differences in matters of faith among themselves, though I say, they own the ancient Creeds.

And now,§. 9. Reader, thou seest what all these pitiful cavils are come to;The Conclusion. P. 14. and what ground there hath been for them to glory in this Pusionello, that with a sheet and a half hath compelled me, as he saith, to be my own Executioner. But these great Heroes must be allowed to relate their famous adventures, with some advantage to themselves: it might have been enough to have rescued the Lady, but not only to destroy the Giant (as any man must be accounted whom such Knights encounter) but to leave him grovelling in the ground and gasping for breath, and that by wounds he forced him to give himself, this is beyond measure glorious. Go thy way then for the eighth Champion of Christendom, enjoy the benefit of thy illustrious fame, sit down at ease, and relate to thy immortal honour thy mighty exploits; only when thou hast done, remember thou hast encountred nothing but the Wind-mills of thy own imagination, and the man whom thou thought'st to have executed by his own hands, stands by and laughs at thy ridiculous attempts. But I forget, that I am so near his Conclusion, wherein he doth so gravely advise me that I would be pleased for once to write Controvesies, p. 72not Play-Books: his meaning I suppose, is, that I would return to the old beaten road where they know how to find a man, and have something to say because others have said something before them; and not represent the ridiculous passages of their Fanaticks; for the defence of which they are furnisht with no Distinctions out of their usual Magazines, their present Manuals of Controversie. I shall be contented to wait their leisure if they have any thing material to say; as I. W. gives me some hopes, when he saith, that other more learned pens (I shall be glad to see them) will give me a more particular and compleat answer. I hope not in the way of cavilling; if they do, I shall hereafter only contemn them; but I am afraid of their good intentions by the Books he mentions as such considerable things in answer to my Vindication of Arch-bishop Laud, viz. the Guide in Controversies, and Protestancy without Principles; if others write as they have done, I shall take as little notice of them as I have done of those. Cannot a dull Book come out with my name in the Title, but I must be obliged to answer it? no, I assure them I know better how to spend my time. I say still, let a just answer come forth, that deals by me as I did by the Book I answered, and then let them blame me, if I neglect it. But at last he gives one general reason why no great matter is to be expected p. 73to come abroad in Print: not, but that they have men of learning among them: No doubt of it: but alas for them! they are so persecuted in the Printing Houses that nothing of theirs is suffered to come abroad, only by great good fortune this complaint is in Print and comes abroad openly enough. How long I pray have these days of persecution been? For, whatever you imagine I was so far from having any hand in it, that the first time I ever heard of it, was from your complaints. Have you not formerly complained thus, when Books too many have been Printed and published in England? And what assurance can you give us that you do not still complain without cause? But, not to suffer you to deceive the people any longer in this kind (by pretending that this is the reason why you do not answer our Books, because you have no liberty of the Press) I have at this time a Catalogue by me of above two hundred Popish Books Printed in our own language (which I shall produce on a just occasion) a considerable part whereof have been published within the compass of not many years. And yet all possible efforts are used by us (saith I. W.) to hinder their Doctors from shewing their learning; P. 14.this of late we must needs say, they have very sparingly done; but all the arts we have, cannot hinder some of them from shewing their weakness, as this I. W. hath very prodigally done in this Pamphlet.

Finis.