put it the Absolute Certainty of the Catholick Rule You will grant to be your part if you think it need any proof as I question whether you do or no for L. p. 12. you say It is vain to talk against one Infallibility unless we will set up another I. S. It has been demonstrated to you Faith Vindic. p. 37 38. that Infallibility and Certainty are the same R. p. 39. C. I have not seen your Demonstrations yet nor can I hope that I ever shall because I am sure there are degrees of Certainty and there can be none of Infallibility If you think otherwise to what purpose talk you of Absolute Certainty and will not consent to have the word left out If Certainty be no less than Infallibility Absolute Certainty can be no more therefore you might have spared the word I. S. Nature tells us that all Discourse supposes something Certain Ib. C. What thon I. S. How is it possible then to Discourse against Infallibility or any thing else without setting up and proceeding upon something that is Certain or Infallibly true Ib. C. A Certainty we grant Infallibility we deny The former's enough to ground a rational Discourse upon even against Infallibility I. S. If you will needs declare against Infallible Certainty be but so candid as to say still you are Fallibly Certain and see how your Readers will smile at your Folly. Pray speak to this Point Ib. C. To be still telling men what they know already might make them smile indeed but should we tell them whilst we are denying Infallibility that we are infallible it would make them laugh outright I. S. Are you not deserters of Humane Nature supposing there is no Infallibility that is true Certainty to be found amongst men R p. 40. C. True Certainty there is and that 's enough for Human Nature I. S. Are you not heirayers of Christion Faith whilst you leave it all capable to be a lye nay maintain the full sence of that wicked Position All Christian Faith is passible to be false in Discourses directly framed for that for purpose Ib. C. Have the Authors of those Discourses no Names Or are you too modest to name them All we say is That Men are capable of being deceived We affirm ourselves as certain as men can be that no part of the Christian Faith can be a lye or is possible to be false I. S. Are you not Blasphemers of God's Providence in declaring that he hath left less certain grounds for Faith and for the salvation of Mankind for which the World was created and God himself died than he hath for other things of trifling importance C. Do we declare all this when we say The Infallible God hath by Men inspired with his Infallible Spirit left us his Word plainly written which is a sufficient means to secure us from being dangerously deceived in any thing necessary to our Salvation if we diligently attend unto it and use the proper helps of understanding it A. p. 17 18. I. S. Will it expiate from those Crimes to talk cantingly Sayings fit to take the good Women that are much pleas'd with Godly talk in a Sermon but frivalous in our Controversie Ib. C. Nay Sayings that shew his wickedness that focuseth us for denying the certainty of the Christian Faith against his own knowledge and esteems the talking of what God hath done to secure us from Error frivolous Talk in a controversie about the Certainty of our Faith and which show we have sufficient certainty I. S. I suppose you mean a certainty that is neither fallible nor infallible Ib. C. An undoubted certainty so as we cannot doubt that we are thô 't is not impossible but we may be deceiv'd I. S. You tell men that after all their pains they can never be satisfied but their Faith may be false that is they can never be satisfied that it is true R. p. 41. C. Not satisfied Yes fully Which they can never be if they must stay till they be infallible I. S. When the certainty of your Grounds fail you your last Refuge is that the same Infallible God that hath given the means has assured his blessing to them that diligently use them Ib. C. I confess 't is God's blessing we most trust to And if you can hope for certainty by the use of any means without it 't is more than we can do I. S. This begs the Question For if the Rule you follow be not the means ordain'd by God to arrive at Faith you have neither the right means nor can you be assured of any blessing by using them Ib. C. The present Question is of Infallibility without which say you we want means of securing us from being deceived and are discouraged from taking due pains to compass the good we desire No say I for thô there be no Infallibility among men yet if we use the means we may be secured by the promise of a blessing from the infallible God. How doth this beg the Question If our Certainty be not enough where shall we find this Infallibility of your's In Tradition sure if any where for after we have been sent from place to place to seek it we have missed it every where else A. p. 18. I. S. Pray Sir who sent you We with whom you are discoursing never directed you to any other but to that of Tradition Ib. C. Roman Catholicks they were who sent us And who you are I know not whether One or Many or what your We signifies I. S. What an everlasting Trifler are you to confess you have been running after Butterfties all this while Ib. C. Is your Infallibility but a Butterfly Then it is fitter for you to keep and play with than for me to run after I. S. The certainty of Scripture is from Tradition L. p. 7. C. We have the Books of Scripture from Tradition c. Ap. 19. I. S. Therefore Tradition causes certainty Ib. C. Tradition we own a ground of sufficient certainty of this matter of Fact But this Tradition is not that of the Church of Rome only but a more universal Tradition of all Christians Ib. I. S. Then Tradition makes Faith as certain as Scripture Ib. C. Conveying the Book to us it conveys the Faith contained in the Book and witnessing to the Book as written by men divinely inspired it gives as good credit to the Faith therein contain'd as humane Testimony can do yet this certainty comes not up to Infallibility Ib. I. S. Yes it does for the certainty here spoken of was absolute certainty and I proved it was the same with Infallibility R. p. 42. C. It does so I know in your Account But I now say humane Testimony is not enough to ground an infallible certainty upon I. S. You say Tradition for Scripture was more universal suppose it so was not Tradition for Doctrine large enough to cause absolute certainty Ib. C. More universal I meant and said than that of the Church of
Rome only yet not enough to cause absolute that is with you infallible certainty I. S. Are not Ten-Millions of Attesters as able to cause absolute certainty as Twenty Ib. C. Caeteris paribus the more Attesters the more certainty yet how many soever they are but men and fallible I. S. When the number comes to that pitch that it is seen to be impossible they should all be deceived in the thing they unanimously attest or conspire to deceive us their Testimony has its full effect upon us and begets in us that firm and unalterable assent we call absolute certainty and the addition of Myriads more adds nothing to the substance of that Assent since 't is wrought without it R. p. 43. C. This is as good assurance of a matter of Fact as any man can desire but what 's all this to Infallibility Here 's some certain pitch of number which is it I wish you could shew us unto which when Attesters every man of them fallible are come one unite short may spoil all it may be seen infallibly or we may be deceived that 't is impossible no less will serve they should be deceived or deceive Thus add fallible to fallible they become infallible and infallibly honest too And then we may firmly assent it should have been infallibly and the addition of Myriads more will adde nothing to the substance of that assent since it is wrought without it Now what this substance of assent is but assent who knows Of the firmness of assent I am sure there are degrees Do not these words seem then to intimate that though Myriads of Attesters cannot add to assent barely consider'd as such for so it was before yet possibly they may add to the degrees of firmness If so then seeing that assent was before infallible do not you seem to admit degrees of Infallibility I. S. But the main is you quite mistake the nature of a long successive Testimony Ib. C. My comfort is I have a wise and compassionate Instructer to set me right I. S. Let Ten Thousand men witness what two or three who were the original Attesters of a thing said at first and Twenty Thousand more witness in the next Age what those Ten Thousand told them and so forwards yet taking them precisely as Witnesses they amount to no more in order to prove the truth of that thing than the credit of those two or three first Witnesses goes R. p. 43. C. All this I knew before Where 's my mistake all this while I. S. The Tradition for the several Books of Scripture is not in any degree comparable either in regard of the largeness or the firmness of the Testimony to the Tradition for Doctrine Ib. C. I grant not this yet let 's suppose it in part at present I see first that your charging me with mistaking the nature of a successive Testimony arose from a mistake of your own I said we have a larger Testimony for Scripture than that of the Church of Rome you fancy me to speak of a larger Testimony for Scripture than for Doctrine And so all you have said since is to no purpose Again though the Testimony were larger for Doctrine than for Scripture yet is it not so firm because not so competent an Attester of Doctrine as of a Book It is sufficient indeed for the Book the Doctrine whereof depends on the credit of the first Attesters and being sufficiently attested by them leaves no credit for any other Doctrine not agreeing with it by how many soever at this day attested Still yours is but humane Testimony and that 's not infallible I. S. Is not your Tradition for Scripture humane too R p. 44. C. It is I. S. If that may be erroneous may not all Christian Faith be a company of lying Stories Ib. C. We have no reason to think or doubt it is and therefore ought not to say it may be I told you before that neither Papists nor Protestants content themselves with Tradition for the truth of their Faith but produce abundance of other Arguments for it A. p 19. But you had no end to trace me there I. S. Seeing certainty of Scripture is proved by Tradition what should hinder me from 〈◊〉 that unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same chanel it must bring them down infallibly too R. p. 45. C. If no special difficulty be found in them you may infer it may bring them down as certainly These other things are I suppose things unwritten in that holy Book I. S. So your gift of interpretation expounds these words of mine but I do assure you Sir you are mightily mistaken Ib. C. All things written in the Book are convey'd down in it what then can those other things be but things unwritten in it I. S. I never yet told you that all Faith was not contain'd in Scripture explicitly or implicitly Ib. C. Well if all be either explicitly or implicitly in the Book then by Tradition all is brought down in the Book still implicitly at least And then once more whan can those other things be but things not written in Scripture I. S. The whole Body of Christ's Doctrine nay the self-same Doctrine of Faith that is contain'd in Scripture comes down by Tradition or the Church's Testimony Ib. C. I had told you all this but still you talk'd of other things How I beseech you other things and yet the same What mean you by nay the same A man would think by this you made the Doctrine of Scripture either but a part or not so much as a part of the whole Doctrine of Faith. I. S. But with this difference as to the manner among others that the Church that testifies it having the sense of it in her breast can explain her meaning so as to put it out of all question to Learners Doubters and Inquirers which the Scripture cannot Ib. C. Here 's a difference indeed The Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture but it cannot discover it self there to Learners c. The same is in the Church's breast and there alone it may be learn'd The Church testifies of the Scripture that it is the Word of God but 't is Jesuitically with an Aequivocation or Mental Reservation for it is not indeed the Word of God but a dead Letter till the sense be put to it and that 's in her breast We have now found the Scrinium pectoris but what 's in the Box who knows or when it will all come forth However the whole sense of Scripture is safely lock'd up there and by the Key of Oral Tradition it may be open'd as there is occasion Now to me it seems all one whether these call them same or other things be contain'd or not contain'd be explicitly or implicitly in Scripture they are there if they be there at all to no purpose whilst the sense is in her breast Not a rush matter if such a Book had sunk in
from the Faith first taught for this is but supposed hitherto A. p. 22. I. S. Was it not proved in the Fourth Proposition and by me p. 9 R. p. 51. C. At your rate it may be And from this self-evident Supposition you necessarily conclude thus Suppose Traditionary Christians neither did nor could err it is certain they neither did nor could err Make what more you can of it A. p. 22. I. S. You falsifie our words who ever said a Supposition is self-evident R. p. 52. C. Who ever said you did May I not use an Irony without the guilt of falsifying I. S. You falsifie again in affirming that from this self-evident Supposition I necessarily conclude c. Ib. C. Just as before in saying you necessarily conclude from a self-evident Supposition I say all you conclude amounts to no more And make you what more you can of it I. S. Our entire Discourse runs thus if we must needs put it into form for you Those who adhere to Tradition all along from the beginning neither did nor could err in Faith. R. p. 53. C. No not if it was true Apostolical Tradition and they adhered wholly and solely to it doing so they did not could not err I. S. The Roman Catholick Church does now and did from time to time adhere to Tradition Ib. C. To Apostolical Tradition wholly and only I deny that I. S. They could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it Ib. C. You hope then we can have no advantage by pleading either of these in barr to the Infallibility of Tradition A. 22. I. S. You do not I suppose desire we should prove that Men had always memories or that Christians were never so malicious as to damn themselves and their posterity wittingly and yet it can stick no where else L p. 32. C. Were there no danger of Mens forgetting what had been taught 't is hard to say why the Pen-men of the Scripture should have been at the needless pains to write it A. p. 23. I. S. Your Discourse is this 'T is hard to say That Christians should have remembred their Testerday's Faith had not the Scripture been written R. p. 54. C. As thô to remember it from Night to Morning were enough I say 't is hard to say why the Scripture was written if men might in no Age forget what had been taught I. S. The Reasons why Scripture was written you might have read in St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.16 17. Where there is no such thing as to make men remember their Yesterday's Faith nor that Scripture is of necessity at all but only that it is profitable for many uses there enumerated Ib. C. I know how unwilling some of you are that Scripture should be thought necessary at all and also how much ashamed they are to say it is unnecessary altogether Let it be as you say only Profitable for Doctrine Reproof Correction Instruction For my part if men once taught the Faith can never forget it If Oral Tradition can do all this without Scripture and Scripture nothing of all this without Tradition I think it is wholly useless and unprofitable and therefore see no reason it should be written And yet if mens memories be so very faithful St. Peter seems to me to have been too forgetful of it when with so much earnestness he endeavour'd that men might be able after his decease to have these things always in remembrance 2 Pet. 1 15. and that by leaving them in writing A. p. 23. I. S. There is not so much as one word in the whole Chapter concerning the remembring or forgetting their Faith but of remembring his particular exhortations to good life R. p. 55. C. Neither said I there was it was enough for me to prove hence that men might forget what they had been taught and if an exhortation to good life why not an Article of Faith I. S. Notwithstanding all you have answer'd men had memory enough not to forget their yesterday's Faith. R. p. 56. C. Well at present suppose it Why might they not have Malice enough to alter or corrupt it I. S. Were Christians so malicious as to damn themselves and their posterity wittingly C. May they not be as careless of preserving the Faith as of maintaining Holiness in themselves and their posterity when they know that Sin is as damnable as Error A. p. 23. I. S. Be Judge your self Do not many of your Congregation sin often and yet few or none of them desert their Faith once Ib. C. I grant men may often sin yet be neither Apostates not Hereticks I. S. The Reasons why the Parallel holds not are these Ib. C. The Word of an Infallible Instructer shall pass with me for a thousand Reasons Tell me only what these Reasons prove it will suffice If it be this that men may sin often and yet not desert their Faith 't is already granted Is it any thing else you would prove by them I. S. My Reasons thwart the universal alteration of Faith while Christians proceeded on the former Rule of Tradition R. p. 59. C. 'T is granted also that Christians adhering to Apostolical Tradition there could be no universal alteration of Faith. I. S. They clearly evince an universal change in the Rule of Faith over the whole Body of Believers is absolutely impracticable R. p. 57. C. Whatever your Reasons evince we grant such an universal change will never be because Christ will always have a Church of true Believers But why might not a considerable part of the Whole Body alter the Faith first taught I. S. The change must be professed and open otherwise it alters not the case and posterity will believe still on according as things appear outwardly R p. 56. C. Men may change the Faith and at first privately teach it to a few not professing at all that they change it but that they retrieve it after a change had been made in it and they who are taught it may believe it and spread it and it may at last be openly profess'd without professing a change from what it was at first which is not the wont of Hereticks I. S. Not unless it be said they went conscienciously upon some other ground than Tradition R. p. 57. C. And why might they not do so I. S. 'T is impossible they should take up another ground Ib. C. Your reason I pray I. S. Because if they could not innovate in Faith they could not innovate in that upon which they held all their Faith. Ib. C. Very good You were proving they cannot innovate in Faith because they adhere to Tradition now you prove they must adhere to Tradition because they cannot innovate in Faith. I. S. Men are more tenacious of their Principles than they are to relinquish all they have receiv'd upon those Principles Ib. C. That which they hold upon the Principle of Tradition is all their Faith and you said but
true I. S. The truth is a Grammar Rule is not a Rule till it be understood Ib. C. Then no School-boy can misunderstand his Rule and every School boy makes his Grammar by learning it I. S. He that understands not what 't is for Nominative Cases and Verbs to agree has no Rule to make them agree Ib. C. Not in his understanding but surely in his Grammar he hath or he goes to School in vain to learn it I. S. You will make the Letter of Scripture first understood to be the Rule of understanding it Ib. C. We make the Letter of Scripture having plain Sence and intelligible the Rule of our Vnderstanding it and being understood the Rule of our Belief But when you say a Rule is no Rule 'till it be understood do not you make Tradition first understood the Rule of Vnderstanding it If not by what other Rule do you understand it I. S. You Question on Must a Way be a wrong Way because some that take it will not keep it Riddle my Riddle again R. p. 26. C. More Riddles still Well let 's have ' em I. S. Pray who are or can be those some who take it and will not keep it Ib. C. The very same who as you have told me at one time follow it and at another leave it I. S. As long as they take it they keep it I think Ib. C. And when they leave it they keep it not I am sure I. S. He who has no will to keep it may when he pleases go out of it but then he does no longer take it and is none of the some of whom the Question speaks Ib. C. So may he that has no care to keep it go out of it when he considers it not Yet are they both the same of whom the Question was if it was not impertinent who first took it and after went out of it and then kept it not You ask Who can do this You answer Whoever will may do it I. S. He that takes the Way shall certainly arrive at his Journey 's end let him will what he pleases and the way must needs be a wrong way if he do not Ib. C. Yea Thô he will go out of it And is the way a wrong way when he goes out of it Doth a man's taking or leaving a Way make it right or wrong This I imagine is it you would have The way is Right that you take and Wrong that you leave and so we need not ask for the Right way but which Way you go and that to be sure is right I. S. You imagine we are talking of one who only takes the Way at first and after leaves it Ib. C. If you talk of one that takes it and cannot leave it you talk of no body that I know and so may talk on for me I. S. The Argument proceeds of such as make the way their choice and persist to follow no other to their lives end Ib. C. It proceeds of those whom you suppose to err in Faith and if it be true which you suppose thô they may pretend to chuse the Scripture for their Rule they do not indeed follow it In short till it be proved that God hath left such a Way or Rule as no man can possibly err out of it mistake it or abuse it and that it is not enough that he hath left us such a Way or Rule as men may understand and observe if they be not wanting to themselves it will not follow that the Scripture's Letter as we own it is not the Way thô not only Presbyterians and Socinians but the greater number of Mankind should own it and yet differ about Fundamental Points contained in it A. p. 15 16. I. S. As many as leave the Catholick Church leave the Way left by God and you like a right pleasant man would have it prov'd that the thing cannot possibly be done which we see is done by Millions and would have us who say they all do err and mistake to prove they cannot R. p. 27. C. I say nothing now of the Catholick Church but asle if it be not as pleasant in you to suppose me to bid you prove it because I say till it be proved which I grant it can never be your Argument's naught I. S. Will it not follow that the Way by which a man that goes in it comes to Error is not the Way to Truth R. p. 28. C. If the Way lead him into Error it is not the Way to Truth I. S. Since Presbyterians and Socinians both Interpret Scripture by their own Judgments and one side knows not the Doctrine of Christ it follows unavoidably that the Way of Private Interpretation is no sure Way to know it R. Ib. C. Scripture we affirm to be the Rule you will prove Scripture's Letter Interpretable c. is not the Rule and at last conclude Private Interpretation is not the Rule What 's all this to us You have thus Hackney'd out a pair of Metaphors Way and Rule to course it on all four which no Metaphor can do so long after your nimble Fancy till you have quite jaded them and then you would turn them up to us for Riddles No Sir take them as you have used them and let them rest at Private Interpretation for Scripture has no longer any room for them so used I. S. What do you talk of erring or mistaking the Way 'T is true these erring men mistake the true Way but they mistake not the Way which you call the true Way Ib. C. If they err as you suppose they mistake what we call the true Way the Scripture I. S. They 〈◊〉 by their Private Judgment and so take not mistake use not abuse it Ib. C. Private-Interpretation you must mean by It. for that is it which you would make us call the true Way though it be not Scripture is the true Way and their private interpretation is their abuse of it I. S. Sure you mean they mistake the Doctrine of Christ and so by mistaking the Way you wisely understand mistaking the Eud. Ib. C. The Doctrine of Christ in the Scripture is the Way to a right Faith and by mistaking that Way they err in Faith. I. S. To what purpose do you tell us that men may understand and observe as if observing concern'd our question of knowing if they be not wanting to themselves Ib. C. A rare kind of knowledge it is that comes without observing Should we not observe what you say we should answer you as you defire without knowing your craft It is sure to some purpose to tell of understanding a Rule and observing or keeping so I meant a way I. S. They who take a right way not only may but must and cannot possibly fail of coming whither it leads Men have no more to do with a way but to travel in it and so cannot be wanting to themselves in that respect if they do Ib. C. Men have not so much
now the care of their Faith made them hold their Principles now you say they are less careful of their Faith than of their Principles Thus have we Circle after Circle Why would they hold their Rule or Principle Because they were render of their Faith. Why were they so tender of their Faith Because they were more tender of their Rule or Principle I ask not how men may be properly called Tenacious to relinquish but pick the best sense I can out of your pure non-sense I. S. Tradition is the Authority of the whole Ecclesia docens which could never permit it self to be thought to have attested a lye hitherto Ib. C. If Tradition be the Authority of the Church then as you said of that Authority it is of no more credit than a story told by an old woman till better reasons be given for it nor hath it this effect upon Humane Nature by its own proper Power to prove Truth But why may not the whole Ecclesia docens supposing it the Church of Rome attest to a lye I. S. It could never permit it self were there nothing but its own interest to be thought to do it Ib. C. You say well not to be thought to do it for that would spoil all Thô I know not how it can be hinder'd but some will think so It might be its Interest to advance it self and for that to pretend a false Tradition and to forge evidences to fasten a lye on former Ages I. S. None could be competent Judges what was fit to be a Rule of Faith but they who were so concern'd both in Duty and Interest Tradition should not be set aside Ib. C. Then if Interest prevail'd above Duty a false Tradition might be pretended and the World must receive it on their credit because they alone are to be accounted competent Judges I. S. There must be some great time betwixt their discarding Tradition and espousing a New Rule during which time we must imagine the whole Church except perhaps some few that discover'd it first would be made up of Seekers some hovering one way some another in which case they would as yet have no Faith and consequently there could be no Church R. p. 57 58. C. No Sir a pretence to Tradition as the only Rule might still be kept afoot and yet changes made in Points of Faith whil'st they who publickly oppos'd or privately disown'd them adhering only to the true Apostolical Tradition were the true Church I. S. If they could innovate in Faith they must pretend to Tradition still when they had evidently deserted it that is They must profess to hold the Testerday's Faith when all the World must see and every one 's own heart must tell him the contrary Which is the highest impossibility Ib. C. They might pretend to Tradition when evidently to others they had deserted it in many things and some of them not impossibly when their own hearts told them so I. S. 'T is impossible any Temptations should move all men to fall into this one sin of altering the Faith. Ib. C. How impossible I know not but I think it neither ever did or shall come to pass I. S. Summing up my Discourse Sect. 45. 't is manifest you have no way to answer our Argument but by supposing there was a time in which there were no considerable Body of Men in the World either good Christians honest Men or valuing their credit but only a company of Brutish Godless Lying Russians without the least degree of Grace or Shame in them R. p. 60. C. It is then unanswerable by me for I cannot suppose this Thô I am not convinced that Men cannot innovate in Faith till it be shewn not only that they have memory enough to remember Testerday's teaching but that they made a right use of their Memory to that purpose and farther that they had so little wickedness as not only not wittingly to damn themselves and their posterity but as not to neglect any care that should be taken for their salvation and many things more not yet shewn For what if all Sons did not understand aright all that Fathers had taught them I. S. If all did not most of the intelligent Pasters would and could easily instruct them it being both so obligatory and so easie Ib. C. Obligatory indeed yet not so easie so to instruct them as to convince them as you I doubt not find it in those whom you suppose in error Suppose again some Sons were so negligent as to take no care either to remember or teach what they had been taught by their Fathers I. S. Then the diligent would reprehend them and see things amended and those careless Persons especially if Pastors reduced to their Duty there being Orders on foot in the World to oblige them to it R. p. 61. C. How came it to pass then that all Hereticks were not long ago suppressed I. S. 'T is an unheard of Negligence not to know or remember Yesterday's Faith. R. p. 61. C. But 't is a very possible thing either not to heed what is taught to day and so to be ignorant of it to morrow or not to remember to morrow every thing that is taught to day or being taught to day to think of it no more to morrow nor many days after and to forget something of it at last But what if some through Ambition Vain-glory and Popularity set abroach New Doctrines and taught them for Apostolical Tradition I. S. Good men would set themselves to oppose them make known their Pretences and lay open their Novelties Ib. C. I doubt it not but not always so effectually as the Errors should not have many followers What if others to save themselves from Persecution conceal'd part and corrupted more of the Doctrine of Christ by their own Traditions I. S. Others would oppose their unchristian proceedings reveal what they had conceal'd restore what they had corrupted and manifest that Doctrine they subintroduced had not descended by the chanel of the Christian Church's Tradition Ib. C. Yet here 's Tradition pretended against Tradition and many it may be carried away with the Pretence and a great number as you have said attesting the attestation is to be thought sufficient and then a greater number can add nothing to it Let others then oppose and manifest what they can all possibly will not be convinced What if others through a blind zeal ignorant devotion superstitious rigour and vain credulity added many things to the Doctrine of Christ which by degrees grew into more general esteem till at last they were own'd and imposed as necessary to be believ'd and practiced I. S. If they belong'd to Faith they could not come in while the Rule of Tradition was adher'd to as has been prov'd and granted R. p. 62. C. True not whilst Apostolical Tradition wholly and solely was adher'd to by All whether they belong'd to Faith or no. I. S. Perhaps some Points involv'd in the main Body of Faith
that is cannot chuse but know Ib. C. I confess I took them for terms equivalent as they are often used and therefore I granted all as true thô I could not but smile at the Argument which as I understood it proved only the same by the same that is nothing at all But now you have discover'd my Error you have spoiled my Complement too as you call it for what through Error was granted to your advantage I must now deny I mean the consequence and my reason is in the words you have taught me because you cannot draw Beer out of a Jarr of Oyl More is in the conclusion than in the Premises I. S. I make account the Way to know the Faith of Christ is not a right Way if those who take it can fail to know their Faith and therefore not the Way left by God. Ib. C. I cannot yet pass your account for you have said your self L. p. 15. that they who both take and follow the Way may leave it again You spake of Tradition the only Way as you will have it left by God. Hence by your own confession I think it may be inferred that the Way may be right and yet they that take it mistake in the Faith. I. S. You barely say We may know with which it consists We may not know and so you make us a Way in which they who travel may be always out of the Way Ib. C. This seems a 〈◊〉 too childish I say not that 's the Way in which they that travel may be always out of the way but out of which they may wander and then they travel not in it but are out of it I. S. Scripture's Letter Interpretable by Private Judgments is not that Way L. p. 30. C. Whom do you here dispute against If against us why do you not in terms contradict our Doctrine A. p. 12. I. S. Two very pleasant Questions R. p. 22. C. I hope then we shall have two as pleasant Answers I. S. Your own and my Title-page tells you I am disputing against the D. of P's Ib. C. They do so I had reason therefore to fear you had forgot your self because you did not contradict his Tenet I. S. To ask why I do not use Terms to your mind is to ask why the Defendant does not go to the Plaintiff to draw his Answer Ib. C. An Answer pleasant enough But pray say if an Opponent ought not to prove the contradictory Proposition to that which the Answerer defends I. S. I have happen'd to propose first what I intended to prove before I go about to prove it which I thought was the clearest way and you will needs speak to my conclusion before you speak to the premises R. p. 23. C. And I have happened to say that what you have propos'd to be proved is not the Proposition to be proved and you quarrel with me for speaking to your conclusion before your premises whilst there are yet neither premises nor conclusion I. S. I shall mind only the Proof here and reserve the Inference till I come to the place where I make it Ib. C. If you will needs prove what we deny not as we cannot help it so can we not be concern'd in it But take your own way I must not hinder your course whose business you have made it only to trace you I. S. We experience Presbyterians 〈◊〉 Socinians both take that way yet differ in such high Fundamentals as the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ L. p. 30. C. The force of your Argument seems this If any men can be found who wrest or misinterpret Scripture then can it not be the way to know what Christ and his Apostles taught And must a Rule be therefore no good Rule because some who use it misunderstand or abuse it A. p. 15. I. S. What may you mean by this Ib. C. I say the misunderstanding or abusing of any Rule does not change the Rule it self into a bad or wrong Rule if it was a good and right Rule before or prove that it was not so I. S. I take my Ruler and draw a Line by it does the crookedness or straightness of this Line depend upon my understanding Ib. C. To what end this talk of a Ruler and a Line can come in here I know not a scrupulous man would be apt to fear you were now in good earnest about to shew the Nullity of our Rule by a Mathematical Demonstration seeing you have got your Ruler in your hand We shall see I hope anon what 't will come to Now to your Question Tho' the crookedness or straightness of the Line depend not only on your Vnderstanding yet partly it may He that understands not the use of his Ruler may draw wrong by it It is no news to see a Boy Rule a whole Page with a straight Ruler and yet make never a Line straight Many things else may also cause the crookedness of the Line Your drawing hand may shake your holding hand may slip you may have had eyes or be careless drouzy or drunk However let the Line prove as it will the Rule is straight whether you understand how to draw by it or no which is that I affirm'd I. S. If you make the Letter of Scripture your Rule and so Private interpreting the Vsing of it and the Sence the Line drawn unriddle to us if you can how the Sence drawn from the Letter can any more fail to be true than the Line drawn by the Rule to be straight and which way that Sence can be misunderstood and how the Rule can be a good Rule if it be used and the Sence to which it is a Rule be misunderstood R. p. 25. C. Had you suffer'd me to speak to your Proposition I had possibly prevented all this your speaking to no purpose But you are in haste to suppose I say what I do not say and then will tie me to unriddle all that you say 'T is if you would know the Letter with the Sence that is our Rule our learning it and comparing Doctrines with it is our using it our Belief and Practice are the Lines drawn from or by it And now set your Fancy a working again for a new Riddle if you please I. S. A Grammar Rule let it be never so ill understood will make good construction in case it be used so the Scripture-Rule if it be as you put it used must needs produce right sence Ib. C. Where did I put it barely Vsed or where said I it would produce right Sence Here 's no falsifying Did you indeed Sir never make false Latine by misunderstanding your Rule or did your Master then tell you that a Grammar Rule let it be never so ill understood would make good construction in case it be used and therefore the Rule by misunderstanding whereof you made bad construction was no good Rule Or was it you that made false Latine whilest the Rule being used by you made
to do it seems as to observe the Way but as long as they trot on any how all 's well enough I. S. Of the same batch is your not understanding and not keeping a Way As if they who interpret by their private Judgments did not keep the way of interpreting by private Judgments R. p. 29. C. As if the way or Rule to be interpreted and the way of interpreting were all one Or as if by keeping his own way of interpreting a man may not mif-interpret or wis-understand or go out of the right way I. S. Yet that very mis-understanding is their understanding it to be the Way and so they even in your opinion mis-understand not the Way however they mis-understand by it Ib. C. Here 's a Riddle indeed Might not all this confusion and blundring have been avoided might I have set your Proposition right at first But so you had lost your advantage of traveling in the dark lest your Errors should be too easily discovered They understand Scripture to be the Way yet cannot their misunderstanding of Scripture be their understanding it to be so unless mis-understanding and right understanding be all one And so in my opinion understanding Scripture to be the Way they may yet mis-understand it but not mis-understand by it I told you It follows no more that Scripture is not the Way because men that own it differ about matters contained in it than it follows that because we see men mis-interpret and break good Laws daily therefore those Laws are unintelligible or cannot be kept and must be thought insufficient to shew what the Lawgiver expects from them R. p. 16. I. S. What breaking and keeping Laws is brought in for you best know that bring them in R. p. 29. C. I brought them in to shew that a Rule may be intelligible and sufficient though some men mis-interpret or break it I. S. Our Discourse is only about knowing the Doctrine of Faith and not at all about living up to it and so hath nothing to do with those who know but will not keep the Laws Ib. C. Yet if the Rule of living be no less a true Rule for being mis-interpreted why must the Rule of Faith be for that no true Rule I. S. You end your Discourse very suitably to the rest with an instance directly against your self You see that Laws left to private interpretation are by all mankind judg'd insufficient and publick Interpreters therefore set up every-where and from the parity with them which are insufficient you conclude the Letter of Scripture is not insufficient Ib. C. The Laws are of themselves a sufficient Rule though liable to a mis-interpretation and so is Scripture What need there is of publick Interpreters of either who they are to be or how qualified is not now the Question nor shall you now engage me in it I. S. Any body but your self would have made another use of this Instance As God can write much plainer than men when he thinks fit and has more care of their salvation than they of their temporal concerns another man would have concluded that God did not intend their salvation should depend on the privately interpretable Letter of the Divine Law which he left less plain than men made the Letter of humane Lows Ib. C. Another man possibly with your self at his Elbow to prompt him might both suppose and conclude as misely and piously too as you do He might suppose first that humane Laws are plainer than the divine Laws which will not be granted him and thence infer that those being of temperal concernment only and these of eternal and God being more careful of our salvation than men of our temporal concerns and able to speak plainer than they 't is reasonable to think that God would give Laws less plain than theirs lest they should be too easily understood and men directed to salvation too plainly For my part I am too dull to learn this way of concluding and must be content with this of my own Because God loves us and hath the greatest care of our salvation and can speak plain he hath left us a plain and certain Rule And because I am sure and all Christians agree that God hath left us his Laws in Writing and no where else that I can find but in Scripture he hath written them so plainly that we may understand them and would have us take them for the certain Rule of Life I. S. We are now free to pass on to our Fourth Proposition Therefore Scripture's Letter interpretable by private Judgments is not the Way left by God to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught or surely to arrive at right Faith. Ib. C. This when it was proposed only to be proved you call'd your Conclusion and would not allow me to speak to it Now 't is your conclusion if there be any for of the Five Propositions whereof your Discourse as you say consisted this Fourth it should seem is now the last you call it only a Proposition and therefore I hope I have liberty to speak to it If then by Scripture's Letter you mean unsens'd Characters I confess it cannot be the Rule or Way to know Yet if you can allow as much to Scripture as you would have us allow to your Letter that it contains good sence in words significant and intelligible we deny your Proposition I. S. I wish some body would tell me for you whether you take Scripture's Letter in this period for unsenc'd or senc'd characters for truly I cannot tell my self R. p. 31. C. If you understand not English I cannot help it any body else might see I take it for senc'd characters I. S. By the terms you put intelligible and significant one would guess you mean unsenc'd characters For intelligible imports what may be understood but is not yet and significant what may be perceived by the sign whether it be or no. Ib. C. You have a mind I see we should know how excellent a Critick you are You have now taught me what I confess I knew not before that when a thing is understood it is no longer intelligible that is cannot be understood and that that is not significant which doth signifie but that is significant which may be signified whether it be perceived to be so or no. If it signifie we must not call it significant or signifying but if it be signified though it signifie nothing to us we must call it significant Who ever heard such stuff as this before from a Critick But I should remember you are of a Communion wherein such Language may be as proper as that other you mention p. 1.2 Worship in an Vnknown Tongue is no otherwise intelligible than as That which may be understood but is not yet And Transubstantiation hath left no sign to signifie but makes the thing signified to be the thing signifying too whether that which may be perceived by it be so or no. I. S. The sence of
your Church's saying she did follow it And what say you more I pray Yes say you she could not innovate Why could she not If she could she must either forget or through malice alter it Why not so or some other way alter the Faith You say you need not prove that men had always Memories c. What 's all this but to say your Church has men of good Memories and little Malice And so if we believe you still there 's an end on 't The Fourth Dialogue I. S. YOU Protestants give us only a general Latitudinarian Rule common to all the Heresies in the World. L. p. 25. C. Scripture is our Rule and it is and ought to be the common Rule to All even to Hereticks though they miserably abuse it and though I could tell you too of Hereticks that trusted more to your Rule than to ours A p. 27. I. S. Pray Sir use my words I said a common Rule to them and you R. p. 71. C. Your words were no more but common to all the Heresies in the World. Indeed for Heresies I said Hereticks because though Scripture ought to be a Rule to Heretioks whereby they may correct their Errors yet sounds it ill to say as you do that it is a Rule to all the Heresies or Errors in the World. But let it be as you will have it common to Hereticks and Vs I begin to hope by this that you count Vs no Hereticks I. S. Can that be truly a Rule which they direct themselves by and yet warp into Error Ib. C. It may be truly a Rule yea and the only true Rule of Faith though they who pretend to direct themselves by it err And they warp into Error whilst pretending to be directed by it they direct themselves too much and are not directed by it alone I. S. The Socinians will say the same of you Ib. C. I can easily believe they may But truth depends not on this or that man's saying this or that I. S. How then shall this Quarrel be decided Ib. C. If no way now yet by Him who gave the Rule and will at last judge us according to it In the mean time the Church has done what it could to decide it and hath given it for us I. S. How can an indifferent man seeking for Faith by your Rule be satisfied they abuse it more than you Ib. C. By impartially considering the Rule and comparing the Doctrines with it I. S. 'T is manifest you disagree in the sense of Scripture R. p. 70. C. Suppose we do I. S. What 's the Way to arrive at the sense of it Ib. C. Humble and diligent attendance to it in the use of all good helps we can I. S. Certainly the interpreting it Ib. C. Interpreting is the searching for and conjecturing at the sonse of it by those helps I. S. Interpretation is Giving or Assigning to Words their sense R. p. 71. C. Words had their signification given them in their first invention and admit of alterations by use and custom No Interpreter gives the Words their sense but searcheth to find it out and declareth what he finds I. S. Do not you accept that sense of Scripture which your private Judgment conceives to be truly the meaning and they in like manner as they apprehend it ought to be interpreted Ib. C. What they do I know not We having consider'd well of all things which we know of to be consider'd must needs accept of the meaning which we judge to be true And truly whatever a man may be said to accept I think no man can believe what himself judgeth not to be true I. S. Is it not some clearer Light in you must justifie you for judging them to be miserable Abusers of Scripture Ib. C. We usurp not to our selves a Pretorian power of judging others and therefore need nothing to justifie us for doing what we do not That we say is this that Hereticks whoever are so going about to support their Errors by the Scripture do abuse it All the Judgment we challenge touching Hereticks in particular is no more but a Judgment of Discretion to discern for our selves by the best means we can use whose Doctrine is true whose false that we may know which to chuse and which to avoid This we must do by the best Light that God hath given us and by the same Light whereby we think our own Doctrine true we must needs think theirs false and as long as we do so shun it Which of us judgeth truly we leave to the Judgment of God. I. S. Your own Interpretation of it is beyond all Evasion that which differences you from them and so 't is your peculiar or specifick Rule of Faith. R. p. 72. C. It differences us from them but not our Rule of Faith from theirs if theirs be Scripture neither is it our Rule of Faith at all but our Act about it I. S. Do they who abuse it do it out of Wilfulness Ib. C. I prefume not to know I. S. Do they use their endeavoar to understand it Ib. C. Neither know I that I. S. The fault consists in pitching upon that for their Rule which is indeed no Rule at all R. p. 73. C. That follows not a thousand things may occasion a misinterpretation of the true Rule by some thô neither you nor I can certainly say this or that was it I. S. Your Rule miraculously makes Light and Darkness consistent Christ and Belial very good friends L p. 25. C. God give you repentance of this Blasphemy A. p. 28. I. S. Your Rule equally patronizing true Faith and Heresie I had reason to affirm that it inferred those blasphemous Propositions Ib. C. If you will thus add Blasphemy to Blasphemy I cannot help it Doth the Scripture indeed patronize Truth and Heresie or can it do both This alone you know is our Rule I. S. This being my Charge it was manifestly your Duty to shew it does not and that only true Faith can be grounded on Scripture privately interpreted Ib. C. You charge desperately and it concerns you to make good your charge or to retreat betimes Scripture is the Word of God on which no Error can be grounded howsoever it be interpreted If men will make their own Interpretation the ground Error enough may indeed be built on that but none on Scripture This is as your self say the Generical Rule we give And this you say again is common to all Heresies that is patroniteth true Faith and Heresie reconcileth Christ and Belial I wish you may well discharge your self of all this It concerns you not a little I. S. I only mention the Blasphemy while I am charging you with it R. p. 74. C. That shuffling will not serve your turn when you are charged with blasphemous words first to acknowledge them to be blasphemous next to say you were charging us with the blasphemy who never utter'd any thing like it neither gave you the least occasion