tell all the World when he is wrong'd I gather hence that in your Account To say a thing more plainly is to disguise it and to say we know it is to laugh at it I. S. Thence you start aside to tell us That the Vulgar Catholick has less Certainty than the Vulgar Protestant because the one has only the Word of his Priest the other hath the Word of his Minister and the Word of God in Seripture besides Ib. C. Had I a mind to turn the Dispute into a Wrangle I should here tell you as you did me You leave out those words you do not like But take and leave what you please Only tell me why I must be thought to stare aside when I step straight forward only to a conclusion which naturally follows from your own Premises If Truth depend on intrinsical grounds and not on mens saying this or that can it depend any more on the Word of your Priest than of our Minister And therefore if the Word of your Priests be all that your Vulgar Catholics have doth it not also follow on this supposition that they have less certainty than Vulgar Protestants have who have besides the Words of their Ministers the Word of God too But this is to walk where you have no mind to see me and therefore it must needs be a starting aside out of the way I. S. Do you think Catholick Priests are at liberty to tell the Vulgar what Faith they please as your Ministers may interpret Scripture as seems best to their judgment of Diseretion When you cannot but know they dare not teach them any Faith but what the Church holds nor does the Church hold any but upon Tradition R. p. 4. C. Say and Prove Sir is your own Rule and thereby you have here set your self a very hard task Prove then We cannot but know first That your Church holds no Faith but upon Tradition whilst the Council of Trent takes the Word written as well as unwritten Traditions for the Rule of Verity and Discipline Prove again that the same Council held no Faith but upon Tradition decreeing the No-necessity of Communicating in both kinds and yet confessing there was neither Scripture nor Tradition to build that bold Decree upon Prove We know that your Priests dare teach no Faith but what the Church holds Not to mention any more Have none of them ever taught the Pope's Deposing Power And doth your Church give that liberty or dare they do it without her leave Yet be it all as you say Have the Vulgar Catholicks any more than the Priest's word for their Faith If not what I said is true and they cannot with reason hold your Doctrine for Truth unless you will have a groundless presumption that Priests dare not teach any Faith but what the Church holds pass for an intrinfical ground of Truth which proves all they teach to be such I. S. Again you do well to say your People have it in Scripture or in a Book for they have it no-where else Ib. C. If by it you mean the Word of God I say they have it there I. S. You know Vulgar Socinians and Presbyterians and all the rest have it as much there Ib. C. For what reason you couple Socinians and Presbyterians so frequently I must not now stay to ask I grant they have the Word of God in the Scripture as well as we I. S. Then I suppose you do not think they truly have the Word of God on their side R. p. 5. C. I do not think that any who err in Faith have the Word of God on their side I. S. To tell me that Truth can depend no more upon the saying of a Romish Priest than of an English Minister when I tell you it depends not on any private man's saying is not the Reply of a man well awake Ib. C. Let it pass but for a Dream if you please Yet may the Interpretation of it be of some concernment to your Vulgar Catholicks For if I say true as you grant I do then whilst they have no more but the Word of their Priests to build their Faith upon they have according to me less Certainty than the Vulgar Protestants and according to you none at all I. S. But two things more say you follow from my Position which you fear I will not grant Ib. C. I remember them very well The First was That we cannot with Reason hold any thing for a Truth merely because the Church of Rome hath determined it for her Determination is no intrinsical ground of Truth but only an outward Testimony or Declaration of it and then what 's become either of her Infallibility or Authority to command our Faith I. S. Slips of honest Ignorance deserve Compassion and Instruction and because I do not know this to be any more I will be so charitable as to set you right R. p. 5. C. Such Slips I may be guilty of for I am but a Man and am not exempt from humane Infirmities I shall thankfully therefore accept your Compassion be attentive to your Instruction and the rarer such Charity appears in you the more highly do I prize it I. S. Authority amongst those who already admit it for true has force to prove that to be Truth which depends upon it and will conclude against those who allow its Veracity if it be shewn to be engaged against them R. p. 5 6. C. By the way what kind of Authority do you speak of I. S. Humane Authority such as that of the Church the Infallibility whereof in deriving down Christian Faith we go about you see to demonstrate Ib. C. So far good but now supposing this Authority be of force with those who already admit it what is it I pray tell me which can oblige men to admit it If nothing they may reject it and be blameless I. S. It has not this effect upon humane nature by its proper power as 't is meer Authority but because intrinsical Mediums justifie it worthy to be relied on Ib. C. Must not those intrinsical Mediums be known before it can oblige men to admit it I. S. Let that Authority come into dispute it will lose its credit unless it can be prov'd by such Mediums to deserve what it pretends to No Authority deserves any Assent further than Reason gives it to deserve Ib. C. Till that Reason then appear no man is bound to assent unto it I. S. The Authority of the whole Catholick Church would be no greater than that of an Old Woman were there no more reason to be given for believing the former than there is for believing the later Ib. C. I hear all this have you any more to add for my Instruction I would not lose a drop of your Compassion it is so rare a thing I. S. By this time I hope you see that all Truths are built upon intrinsical Mediums Ib. C. Not one jot more I assure you than I did before for you
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
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
not yet so explicitly or universally known might on emergent occasions be singled out defin'd and more especially recommended than formerly without any detriment to the Faith receiv'd but rather to the advantage and farther explication of it Ib. C. I understand you thus All Points of Faith are no more explicitly convey'd to us by Tradition than by Scripture but some of them implicitly only 'T is something else which hath all in its breast and by degrees vents it in parcels as there is occcasion to define and recommend and then thô men might before be saved without the knowledge of it it becomes as necessary an Article of Faith as any of the rest This is the great Mystery had all been given out at first the Box being empty would have been in some danger to have been laid aside and disregarded Well but after all this If somebody should start up and say this or that Article thus defined is no part of the old Apostolical Tradition but a meer innovation who must decide the matter Who but the Church All Truth is lodg'd in her breast But which is this Church That which holds to Tradition the Church of Rome Which is the true Tradition That which the Church viz. of Rome holds What now if Error any of the former Ways brought forth grew multipli'd spread obtain'd most power and drove out all that held the naked truth from all those Countreys where it came I. S. Do any Histories tell you This Error spread over the Whole Church without your supposing the Question that such or such a Tenet is an Error which you pretend such which is above the skill of Historians to decide and is only to be determin'd by examining first who have who have not a certain Rule of Faith Ib. C. Over the Whole Church is too much Histories tell us of the spreading of Error such as both You and We account so over divers Countreys What need is there of supposing the Question that such or such a Tenet is an Error betwixt us who are agreed about it as I think we are in that of Arianism But as to what you add pray tell me If Tradition be the Rule of Faith who can be fitter to decide what Tenet is Error than Historians who should know best what belongs to former Ages But I forget 't is the Oral Tradition of the prefent Church is your Rule of Faith and Historians have to do only with things past and I agree with you that it exceeds their Skill to shew us that all those things which your present Church calls Errors were decided to be such in the first Ages However seeing what is Error is only to be decided by examining first who have who have not a certain Rule of Faith I beseech you be not so hasty as you use to be to call us Hereticks whil'st this Point is but yet under examination I. S. But what are all these rambling Questions to our Argument which insists on the impossibility of altering the Yesterday's Faith but either out of want of Memory or out of Malice R. p. 62 63. C. They ramble home to your Argument where you would not see them I. S. Apply them to this and they lose all their force Ibid. C. If Faith may be alter'd all or any of these Ways then if they all should imply forgetfulness or malice as you say most of them do in some degree men may through forgetfulness or malice innovate in Faith and if they imply neither men may innovate otherwise than through forgetfulness or malice Either way your Arguments spoil'd I. S. I long to see 't made out that an erring Church can still plead Tradition and adhere to it L. p. 18. C. That an erring Church adheres as I have formerly said to Tradition I know no man that will undertake to make out to save your longing But may not a Church that once adher'd to Tradition leave it I. S. That a Church may follow Tradition at one time and leave it at another is no news L. p. 15. C. If this be no News then though we should grant Tradition to be an infallible conveyance of the Truth yet would it not make even that Church which now adheres to it iufallible and therefore the Church of Rome though we should confess her at present to adhere to infallible Tradition could not prove her self thereby to be infallible That Church only is infallible which cannot err the Church that at one time follows Tradition may leave it at another and so doing errs Therefore if the Church of Rome will be infallible she must prove not only that she follows Tradition for so she proves only that she does not err but also that she cannot leave it for infallibility excludes all possibility of erring by leaving Tradition She must therefore seek out a new Medium to prove her self infallible A. p. 25. I. S. Do not you see this already proved to your hand R. p. 63. C. No truly and I despair of ever hearing him prove that a Church which now follows Tradition cannot leave it who has told me 't is no News but a common case for a Church that follows it to leave it I. S. Not to repeat the many Reasons produced for this point Sect. 45. R p. 63. C. You did not sure mean I saw it proved to my hand in those Reasons which you had not then produced And I see as little yet that they were produced for this point I granted you all that for which you told me you produced them when you mention'd them but that the Church of Rome cannot leave Tradition was not it you then told me you produced them for I. S. Innovation and Tradition being formally and diametrically opposite what proves she could not innovate proves also that she could not leave Tradition for this were to innovate R. p. 63. C. But where was it proved she could not innovate I. S. Our Argument you see has already proved it I wonder you should dissemble a thing so obvious and run forwards upon that affected inadvertence of yours 'T is the very thing our Argument chiesly aims at R. p. 63 64. C. Aiming and hitting are two things you say it aim'd at it but I have shewn you it miss'd it And farther I tell you that if ever you hit it you will wound your self Will you prove a Church that follows Tradition cannot leave it and yet say the contradictory to it is true I. S. You would perswade us rather to prove our Church free from Error R. p. 64. C. I think it good advice and for your encouragement have told you that I think we are obliged whenever you prove it to be of her Communion Will you not take my advice to make us your Converts I said also 't is the easier task for you if she be so and if she be not so you in vain attempt to prove her more than so infallible I. S. Your wise advice amounts to this that
you would have us prove our conclusion without beginning with our Premises Ib. C. No but that you would be content with a conclusion easier to be prov'd and enough for you when proved and that you would prove it by better Premises better known than the conclusion I. S. All our Faith may be Error if the Testimony of the Church our Rule may be erroneous and if it cannot nothing we hold of Faith can be so Ib. C. Then either the Faith of Christ may be Error or yours is not the Faith of Christ May the Faith of Christ be all Error if the Church of Rome can err in her Testimony then doth it depend on the Infallibility of your Church for its truth not on Christ's Veracity I. S. Your meaning is we should only prove she embraces no Error now but what provision would this make for her not falling perhaps into Error to morrow Ib. C. Against the possibility of her falling into Error hereafter I know of no provision can be made but to be sure she does not err at present is the best security she can have and to you must needs be good enough for sure you will not have it said your Church can be guilty of so unheard-of a Negligence as to forget to morrow her yesterdays Faith. I. S. Were our Rule granted fallible by what more certain way could we be directed to arrive at Christ's sense Ib. C. Take the plain Scripture for your Rule I. S. However your counsel suits better with your conveniences than these crabbed Demonstrations R. p. 65. C. Yours are indeed crabbed enough and plain Demonstrations would suit better with Infallibility But why will you labour to no purpose All the World knows that a single Instance in one Error is enough to answer all the Arguments can be brought for her Infallibility seeing it must needs be false to say she cannot err who in any one thing doth err A.p. 25. I. S. If the Premises be right and the Inference good the conclusion must be necessarily true Ib. C. I grant it I. S. First then you are to answer our Argument and next to see the Authority that qualifies your Instance for an Argument be above Moral certainty Ib. C. Your Arguments are not hard to answer yet if I could not answer an Argument brought by some cunning Sophisters to prove that Men can know as certainly as God though some Scholar might laugh at me no Christian would do so If an Instance lie before me so certain as there is no just cause to doubt of it which is Moral certainty it is enough to satisfie me an Argument which contradicts it it is false though I may not be able to discern the Fallacy and will always be enough for one that values the truth more than the credit of a Logician I. S. 'T is the right of the Respondent to deny any thing that is not driven up to Evidence R. p. 66. C. 'T is our Right then to deny an Argument to be good so long as we have a clear instance against it I. S. You seem so kind as not to undertake to prove that an Erring Church adheres to Tradition if it be true Apostolical Tradition and that it adhere to it wholly and solely Ib. C. 'T is no kindness Sir but absolute necessity I cannot undertake to prove what I know can never be proved I. S. Do not you mean by Tradition such an one as is built upon living Voice and Practice Ib. C. I mean a Tradition coming down unvariably from the Apostles build it on what you please or can for me I thought you had meant by it living Voice and Practice and therefore know not well what you mean by its being built on them I. S. Then you quit your own Rule by requiring men should adhere to the other wholly and solely and admit that a Church adhering to such a Rule is not an erring Church Ib. C. This is wonderful indeed The later I admit and have promised that when you shew us such a Church we will be of her Communion and yet not grant her Infallible A. p. 26. But how do I quit our own Rule or require men to adhere to such Tradition wholly and solely Is it in saying they do not err that adhere to it on supposition they be sure they have it What a pleasant Invention was this When you are sure of such a Tradition besides Scripture tell us of it and we will embrace it willingly as you were told before A. p. 20. It seems very odd to me in the mean time that men should call us Hereticks and yet prove their own Infallibility by an Argument which if it prove any thing to purpose must prove that no man who hath been taught the Faith can err from it and still withal confess that whole Churches may err A. p. 26. I. S. How do you shew our Argument must prove this absurd Position R. p. 67. C. I say not it must simply but if it prove any thing to purpose For if it prove not this some may forget or alter their yesterday's Faith. I. S. Our Tenet is that though not one single man can err while he adheres to our Rule yet even some particular Churches may leave off adhering to it and so err in Faith. R. p. 67. C. How came you then to charge me so suriously with falfifying Was not your Argument brought to prove that Traditionary Christians could not innovate in Faith When could they not innovate Whilst they hold to Tradition say you And was not this it I said you undertook to make out elsewhere And do not you now confess 't was the same Surely you do when you say they might err by leaving it Yet then your Argument must prove this absurd Position as you call it or it proves nothing to purpose Christ and his Apostles taught one and the same Doctrine Alterations 't is certain have been made in this Doctrine and therefore without dispute some have believed and taught otherwise than men were at first taught c. A. p. 26 27. I. S. Some particular Churches may err in Faith. Ib. C. You are then to shew what special Priviledge the Church of Rome hath above all other Churches that she cannot err You say they of that Church believe the same to day they did yesterday and so upwards We bid you prove it You tell us if they follow this Rule they could never err in Faith. But did they follow this Rule You say they did And if we will not believe it there 's an end on 't A. p. 27. I. S. This is built on some few of your wilful Falsifications R. p. 68. C. If men will believe you there 's an end on 't again I. S. Where did we ever bring these words if they follow'd this Rule for a proof that they hold the same c. Ib. C. You brought those words as an Introduction to your Proof which amounts to no more than your or
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend c. Jan. 18. 1687. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc Cant. à Sacr. Domest Note L. Signifies The First Letter A. The Letter to a Friend or Answer R. The Reply or Second Catholick Letter THE Reflecter's Defence OF HIS LETTER to a FRIEND AGAINST The Furious Assaults of Mr I. S. In his Second Catholic Letter IN Four DIALOGVES LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street MDCLXXXVIII A DIALOGUE BETWEEN I. S. a Roman-Catholick AND C. a Catholick CHRISTIAN C. WHatever Honour it may be to me it was I am sure a very wonderful Condescension in you Sir to stoop so low with all your Glory of Self-Evidence Absolute Certainly and Infallibility as to address a Catholick Better to one unto whom you allow no more at best than honest Ignorance and hardly so much when you are a little our of humor as common Sence or to understand English How civilly you have therein Treated me how justly you have Accused or how fully Confuted me is not a thing that deserves the notice of many The things we talk of are too weighty to rely on either mine or your Wit Breeding Reputation or Skill I am not therefore careful either to Vindicate or Recriminate or yet to learn of your Right Catholick Letter how to answer it as it deserves I shall only with your good leave lay the matter open in a plain Dialogue and leave it to every moderate Judgment in your own words to see by the very Methods we take which side desires and sincerely endeavours that Truth may appear There is only one little Mistake of yours running almost quite through your obliging Letter which it concerns me here to give notice of because it reflects on the Honour of a Person whose Books I confess my self unworthy to carry after him Know then Sir beseech you that you honour me too much in calling me Dr. St.'s Defender and my Letter a Defence of his I never had the happiness either by Face to be known by him or in Word or Writing to converse with him Neither had I his Letter by me or knew much more of it when I writ mine than what I read in yours which I thought not my self obliged to account all Oracle The Reputation therefore of that Great Man is no way concerned in my Failings as you would fain have it but whatever they are I alone am to answer for them This I now tell you because of your I will not say after you affected Inadvertence who might have seen in the Title-page of my Letter that I intended only to Reflect on some Passages 〈◊〉 you first and also in the beginning of it what they were all regard to the Conference it self being laid aside And this I take to be Answer enough to a great part of your Catholick Epistle I. S. Your Answer affords no work for a Replier but the most ungrateful one in the world to be perpetually telling men of their Faults without the least hopes of doing them good or contributing to their amendment R. Pref. C. Whether then your Charity in judging us incorrigible or your Wisdom in writing so long a Letter to no purpose or your Delight in troubling the World with Impertinences be the greatest I will not now inquire but rather by a sincere promise of Amendment endeavour to put you in better hopes and a more charitable opinion I. S. Be pleased to leave off your affected Insincerities otherwise I must be forced to expose them yet farther R. pag. 80. C. Be pleased first to exercise more your Charity in discovering them to my self or I shall a little suspect your Justice in exposing them to others I. S. Your constant use is to pick out a few words scattered here and there which you thought you might most commodiously pervert Ib. C. If I pick'd up nothing but what you had scatter'd and answer'd all I pick'd up I did all that I undertook to do You must not perswade me that I may not answer some periods of a Discourse without binding my self thereby to answer the whole though you would make the World believe that all my answering is only perverting I. S. I have now traced you punctually step by step wherefore I have reason to expect the same exact measure from you Ib. C. How reasonable a task this is I will not dispute though I know not why your being at more pains than needed as you certainly were if the Answer afforded no more work for a Replier must bind me to be so too But seeing you have made this my task I 'll endeavour to obey you only excuse me when you step into the Dirt if I follow you not lest I come to need more Holy-water than by your Letter I guess you can well spare However the way is tedious and as you have made it rugged enough 't is time to set forth I. S. Perhaps it has scarce been seen hitherto that all our Polemical Contests were reduced within so narrow a compass R. Pref. C. I like not Perhaps I had rather you had said Absolutely or Certainly Then should I have hoped seeing they narrow so fast they would soon have come to nothings Some of you told us many years ago when the chief Question was Which is the only true Church That this was the shortest Compendium of our Controversies If you have now found a shorter than the shortest why stand we thus at a distance Let 's throw away our Weapons and embrace I. S. My first Letter insisted chiefly on two short Discourses whereof the one undertook to shew the Nullity of the Rule of Faith claim'd by Dr. St. and his Protestants the other the Absolute Certainty of the Catholic Rule R. Ib. C. I hope it will be thought but an honest Ignorance if I be not able to distinguish Dr. St.'s Protestants from the Catholick Christians of the Church of England whose Rule of Faith is the Holy Scripture Remember now what your two Discourses undertook to shew and when that is shown indeed and I wish you be not in too good earnest to shew it wonderful things as you speak will follow and you will be sure of many Converts yea I dare say even of Dr. St. and all his Protestants In the mean time what a neat way of reducing Controversies to a narrower compass is this whereby the Disputants have not left them any common Rule whereby it may be determined who is in the right I. S. The whole Controversie was in short about the Certainty or Vncertainty of Christian Faith. Ib. C. These words would make one think you are Narrowing our Contests into a wider compass yet as if the Dispute had been betwixt Believers and Infidels and then which Party you would have the Infidel denying the Certainty of Christian Faith would not be hard to find It 's a little
the chanel Yet it seems the Church had the kindness to hold up the empty Cabinet in her hand whilst she secured the Jewel in her bosom I. S. St. Peter's Ship the Church that caught so many Fishes at first the Body of Primitive Christians hath stored up Provision enough for the succession of Faith to the Worlds end and there we may find it to our hands We need not therefore fish for our Faith in the chanel of Tyber as your great Wit tells us Ib. C. I would not though for two pence not have ventur'd that little Conceit of mine seeing it is return'd home again with so rare a discovery It would not be mannerly to enquire when Ships catch Fishes when they sail or when they sink nor how Fishes catch themselves or how the Body of Christians which are the Church are caught by the Church which is that Body or how those Christians are now the Provision of Faith stored up to the World's end 'T is plain you mean the Church of Rome hath the whole Doctrine of Faith stored up in her breast for all Ages and we are fools for seeking it in the unsensed character of Scripture where 't is not Yet have you Sir a worthy opinion of the Scripture I would have said St. Peter and his Partners with their Net the Word of God caught Men instead of Fishes as Christ had promised and with the same Net convey'd to us by Tradition in Scripture the Ministers of Christ do still fish with good success Consider if this Allegorizing of yours would not suit better also with one of your Sermons than with your Controversie I. S. All this is but prelude Now comes Mr. G.'s Argument the first Proposition whereof is this All Traditionary Christians believe the same to day which they did yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour There is no denying this Proposition but by affirming that Traditionary Christians are not Traditionary Christians L. p. 8. C. But suppose these Traditionary Christians be so call'd from their adhering to a Tradition which reacheth not so high as our B. Saviour's time but only pertends to it c. A. p. 20. I. S. Whether we only pretend to it or no will be seen when the Fourth Proposition comes to be examined R. p. 26. The Second Proposition is this If they follow this Rule they cannot err in Faith. This is palpably self evident Whence follows the Third and therefore they are infallible R. p. 47. C. But unless the Rule of Tradition which they follow be longer than it is yet proved to be they may follow it and err all along by following it A. p. 21. I. S. No doubt of it R. p. 47. C. Then prove it to be of sufficient length I. S. As if we had never proved our Tradition reaches to our Saviour's days Ib. C. I know not when Suppose you had that 's not all for let it be never so long yet if you follow it not you may err and therefore are not infallible except you shew you cannot chuse but follow it A. p. 21. I. S. The Fourth Proposition brought to prove that this Tradition we lay claim to does indeed reach to Christ and his Apostles is this They could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it R. p. 48. C. You undertake to make this out more clearly L. p. 18. and therefore I would hear what you say there for our better Information A. p. 21. I. S. This is a most evident and a most unconscionable Falsification clear your Credit when you can I charge it upon you as a voluntary insincerity R. p. 48 49. C. Good words I pray Sir. What is it I have done I. S. You have directly falfified that whole Discourse by pretending here that the words you cite were to make out that Fourth Proposition clearly whereas the truth of that Proposition was made out by me L. p. 9. C. I saw it Sir and spake to it too as I shall shew anon What are those words of yours I cite Recite them I pray and I 'll recite my Answers to them I. S. Did Christ teach any Error L. p. 18. C. He did not A. p. 21. I. S. When a Father believ'd what Christ taught him and the Son what the Father believ'd did not the Son too believe what Christ taught Ib. C. No doubt of it but he did Ib. I. S. Run it on to the last Son that shall be born in the World must not every one believe what Christ taught if every one believ'd what his Father believ'd Ib. C. It is certain he must Ib. I. S. And will you then go about to perswade us that there actually is a company of men in the World who adher'd to this method all Sons believing always as their Fathers did whereof the first believ'd as Christ taught and who notwithstanding err'd in matters of Faith C. No you may be sure on 't These then are your words I cited I. S. This Discourse was level'd at a quite different business viz. That a Church could not adhere to Tradition and err in Faith at the same time C. 'T is true and I saw it that this was it you there made out but I do not yet see how it is a quite different business from that which I said you undertook to make out more clearly It was not proving I meant by making out more clearly but illustrating or explaining nor was it the whole which according to you consists of a Proposition and its proof but the Proposition only I said you undertook there to illustrate and therefore I would not proceed to the proof which you would seem to make out p. 9. till I had consider'd how you explain'd the Proposition p. 18. which after I had done I came to examine your proof as you call it both as it is p. 9. and as you again talk of it p. 32. This you saw A. p. 23. Where then lies the Falsification The Proposition is They could not innovate in Faith. Who are they that cannot Traditionary Christians And who are these They that hold the same to day which they did yesterday c. What cannot these do They cannot innovate or err in Faith. So say I you explain it p. 18. And do you not so though it was upon another occasion Do you not shew that if they hold to Tradition or be Traditionary Christians they cannot whilst they are so and when they are not so they are none of the they in the Proposition innovate or err in Faith Overcharging often occasions recoiling and if your Conscience feel it not so much the worse And now after all this noise one little thing is yet to be proved viz. That these Traditionary Christians adhere undecliningly to an unquestionable Tradition descending really and unvariably from Christ and his Apostles and could not possibly do otherwise that is that they neither did nor could err
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
have neither told me what you mean by intrinsical Mediums only you seem to hint that they are Reasons why a thing is to be believed and so are extrinsical Mediums to neither have you said a word that I know of to shew how all Truth is built upon them I. S. You see also that whereas you apprehended they would overthrow our Church's Testimony or Authority such Mediums in case we produce them are the best means to establish it and give it force upon our selves and others Ib. C. This also I see just as much as I did before You suppose I apprehended why you know best for I am half confident you never apprehended I did so that the intrinfical Reasons of your Church's Authority when produced would overthrow it To whose roving Fancy owe we this pure and fine Invention Sir That which I apprehended was this That seeing all Truths depend on intrinfical grounds as you say and cannot be held Truths till those intrinsical grounds of them be produced Therefore they are not to be held Truths for the Authority of your Church because that Authority whatever it be and on what intrinsical grounds soever establish'd is no intrinsical ground of those Truths to be believed And have you yet said one word to contradict this Not a syllable but talk at random of another thing I. S. You also see how it comes that the Church can oblige to belief not by a dry commanding our Faith as you apprehend but by having its humane Authority solidly grounded upon Reason it self becomes a Motive able to beget assent Ib. C. Now Sir I thank you you have set me right just as I was before What I saw you have made me see and what I saw not I see not yet Such is the illuminating vertue of your compassionate Instructions I ask not you whether this great pains to tell me what I knew and had told you so was the business of a man well awake Yet lest you should say I was not attentive I will repeat to you the Lesson you have taught me Your Church's Authority is Humane Authority it has force to prove the Truths which depend upon it it has this force amongst those that admit it and it concludes against such as own its Veracity it deserves no Assent farther than Reason gives it to deserve nor is it greater than that of an Old Woman till better Reason be produced for it Hence I conclude Seeing we admit not your Church's Authority neither own its Veracity it proves nothing to us nor concludes any thing against us Seeing Articles of Faith depend not on Humane Authority your Church's Authority can have no effect on humane Nature to oblige to a belief of them Seeing all its Credit depends on its intrinsical Reasons produced till they be produced we are not bound to give any credit to it When these Reasons shall be produced its Testimony has but the nature of an external Motive not of an intrinsical Ground And therefore either your Position overthrows your Church's Authority or it your Position chuse you which I. S. What is the Second thing you fear I will not grant C. If your Position be true it will follow That the common People must be allow'd their Judgment of Discretion for how without the free use of that they shall discern the intrinsical grounds of Truth when produced and so with Reason hold it I fear you cannot easily demonstrate Will you grant us this I. S. You gave your self the Character of a Scrupulous man and I see by this you have a mind to maintain it R. p. 7. C. And if you will grant it you will gain the Character of a man much more liberal than your Neighbours If you grant it 't is I doubt but in mockery because you so often laugh at us for desiring it I. S. You know that those who write and print can have no design their Books should not be read and you know those that read will and must judge of what they do read R. p. 7. C. Yet if their Books contain nothing else but unsensed Characters which is the thing you say of the Scripture and he that reads or interprets gives the sense I see not to what end they would have their Books read and therefore neither why they write them nor indeed how any one can judge of them unless they would have them judg only of the fineness of the Characters Pray Sir let me ask you Can you think God writes to less purpose than men are wont to do If he have caused a Book to be written and that to all was it not his Will that his Book should also be read of all to whom it was written or did he not intend they should judge of what they read therein and examine Doctrines by it Do you now grant us this Judgment of Discretion as exercised about Divine Truths revealed in the Scripture If you do I thank you for it If not to what purpose is your talk of reading mens Books or their writing them that we may judge I. S. Indeed I think it no great sign of a Judgment of Discretion to pretend to discern the Truth of Faith by Lights that do not shew it to be true Ib. C. Nor I neither I. S. You conclude that I have set us all on even ground Yes for I set Absolute Certainty on the one side and Vncertainty on the other and this in your Language is even ground R. p. 8. C. What I conclude is thus proved The Church of Rome is to be believed only when she produceth the intrinsical grounds of Truth and just so far is the Church of England or any other Church to be believed and so all are of equal Authority to oblige in points of Faith. This in my Language is even ground for the one stands no higher in Authority than the other Now say what you please of your Certainty and Vncertainty to gain the higher ground again I. S. Suppose we could not prove that Protestants are not certain are they therefore certain L. p. 4. C. You imagine it should seem that all the certainty of our Faith is this that Papists cannot prove it to be uncertain A. p. 6. I. S. The meaning of my words is clearly this That the certainty of the Protestant Faith must depend on their own proofs for it not on any man's being able or not able to prove the contrary R. p. 8. C. You meant so you say and the thing is true I. S. To avoid proving you put upon me the direct contrary to what I affirm'd viz. That the certainty of Protestant Faith does depend upon our not proving they have none C. I put no such thing upon you nor needed I do it to avoid proving which I had never undertaken but only to reflect on some parts of your Letter who had undertaken to prove the Nullity of our Rule Allow me then to give my own meaning as you take the liberty to give yours
My meaning was this clearly enough to him that would not wrangle You imagine we have no certainty at all and that we think our selves well enough as long as you cannot prove we have none I. S. Well but did I say true or no C. In that which you say you meant you say true I. S. Because I said then our not proving the contrary is no certainty to Protestants you will have me imagine it is their certainty nay all their certainty R. p. 9. C. Not that it is our certainty so as we are therefore certain yet all our certainty for you imagine we have no other And now 't is my turn to ask Do I say true or no If true why say you I wrong you If no you grant we have some other certainty though you undertook to shew we have none I. S. You know well enough that to prove Protestants have no Absolute certainty of their Faith is no hard task for a weak man. L. p. 6. C. I meddle not yet with the word Absolute But ask how know we this A. p. 6. I. S. You know any man may find it confess'd to his hand by Protestants L. Ib. C. Who I pray are those Protestants I. S. Dr. Tillotson in his Rule of Faith p. 117 118. Ib. C. Dr. Tillotson is but one Protestant yet I am content he should pass for many But his Confession that Protestants have no certainty I find not A. 6 7. I. S. No Absolute certainty if it please you R. p. 10. C. It pleases me not and I 'll tell you why anon I. S. If you do not understand English I cannot help it but any one that does may find it p. 118. Ib. C. He saith there that we are not infallibly certain c. but yet have such an Assurance as there is not any just cause of the least doubt Not a word find I of Absolute certainty I. S. You would perswade us you see it not Ib. C. Nor you neither if you may be believed against your self for you tell us We seem to grant we are thus absolutely certain or infallible by virtue of Tradition A. p. 7. If we seem to you to grant we are absolutely certain how can you see our Confession that we are not so I. S. As if it were so strange a thing for Protestants to contradict one another Ib. C. No very strange thing I confess no not for Papists even Popes and Councils Though it may seem strange to some that Pretenders to Infallibility should do so I. S. Dr. St. did say at the Conference They are absolutely certain And Dr. Tillotson did say we are not infallibly certain C. It may be so I see not the Contradiction yet I. S. If one of those Writers do not seem to grant that they are absolutely certain or infallible and the other confess they have no absolute certainty English is no intelligible Language in England R. p. 10 11. C. Well suppose we at present for your sake that these two Reverend Persons did contradict each other will this prove that Protestants have no certainty of their Faith Remember that you are speaking of such a Confession of Protestants as may make it no hard task for a weak man to prove that they have no absolute certainty of their Faith. Do you think the Confession of one single Protestant enough for this Allow us but this way of proof and see if it be not as easie for us as weak men as we are to prove the uncertainty of all your new Trentan Creed yea and of Tradition too Again if the Confession of one Doctor be proof enough for Protestant Vncertainty tell me with all your Learning why the Confession of one Doctor should not be as good a proof for Protestant Certainty Your Weights and Scales you so much talk of would do well here to shew which Doctor 's Authority weighs most and whether your proof weigh any thing at all You have undertaken to shew the Nullity of the Protestant Rule and thus you prove it one Protestant confessed they had no absolute certainty another said they had therefore Protestants have no certain Rule of Faith or no certainty of Faith. 'T is easie indeed for any weak man to prove at this rate that is so as becomes a very weak man indeed Once more I must mind you of your Position For if all Truths be proved by intrinsical grounds and depend not on private mens saying this or that then the uncertainty of Protestant Faith cannot be proved no not by I. S. himself from the saying of either Doctor especially if the one contradict what the other saith as you suppose but have not yet proved Are not infallibly certain and absolutely certain contradictory terms I. S. I proved formerly that absolutely certain and infallible are all one and it will come into play again are long R. p. 11. C. It 's well if your proof be not all Play When I see it I 'll tell you what I think of it I. S. However I only said They seem'd to grant c. For the Tenet of Faiths certainty I may speak what I think is hearty in them its absolute certainty is but seeming Ib. C. Speak what you think By all means Sir. How else should we know you are made a competent Judge of Hearts or your great charity in judging us Hypocrites saying what we think not or that when you charge men with a contradiction you mean only a seeming contrudiction whilst your self think they mean the same thing or lastly the strength of the weak man's proof proving that Protestants have no certainty because he thinks the Tenet of Faiths uncertainty is hearty in them I. S. It is plain that where Churches differ in Faith infallible Faith in one cannot stand with certain Faith in the other L. p. 8. C. Whence you may do well to take notice that when our Certainty is once proved no more is needful to confute your Infallibility A. p. 8. I. S. Absolute certainty I pray you again for Dr. St.'s sake R. p. 13. C. Certainty is enough Sir for that 's it in our Church which you say Infallibility in yours cannot stand with And you say true though you leave out Absolute I. S. It bodes ill that you would have the word absolutely left out it would make a jealous man suspect you had a design to palm a certainty upon us which will prove no certainty R. p. 13. C. Ill to you it may be in that you cannot so confidently hereafter call on us for a proof of what we hold not but fear not our design your Infallibility will secure you from so palpable a Cheat. I. S. I for my part cannot consent to leave out that word because it is not fair to alter a word of Dr. St.'s nor possible though it were fair For you and I cannot make him not to have said what he hath said and though we should agree to suppress that word amongst our selves it
hath been granted What we believe more I told you we prove from plain places of Scripture wherein it is contain'd and we we the more confirm'd in our Faith by the testimony and consent of the Primitive Church in the Creeds especially Will this proof satisfie Then we have sufficiently proved all the more we believe and could you thus prove all the more you believe your whole Faith should be ours too If it suffice not I would sain know why your Trent Council called the Nicene Creed That Principle wherein all that profess the Faith of Christ necessarily agree and the from and only foundation against which the gater of Hell shall not prevail What I pray was the First Question at the Conference I. S. Whether Protestants are absolutely certain that they hold now the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught his Apostles L. p. 6. C. What we believe is 〈◊〉 in Scripture and what is contain'd in Scripture is that which Christ and his Apostles taught We hold them the same Tenets in Faith which Christ and his Apostles taught Is this enough I. S. Prove that you hold the same and all they taught C. If the same that is contain'd in Scripture be all they taught I have shew'd you how we prove we believe all If that same be not all then in bidding us prove we are certain of all you bid us prove we are certain of more than is contain'd in Scripture that is what you hold and what we believe not but deny I. S. You fancy I would have you say you are certain of all those points which you deny to be in Scripture and think them to be added by the Council of Trent C. I had said A. p. 11. we have certainty of all that is taught us in Scripture and we know of no more that Christ and his Apostles taught That Papists say there is more and that we are bound to believe it And hence I fancy that before you can oblige us to say we are certain of or to believe all this more it is your part to prove it Ridiculous Folly say you Why That a man should not be obliged to believe a thing till it be discover'd to him Sir I know very well you expect not we should prove to you such points as we deny and you hold But do not you think because we cannot prove them we ought therefore to confess we are not certain that we believe all that Christ and his Apostles taught Do you hold no more but what is contain'd in Scripture If no more shew us all your Trentine Faith there and we will believe it too But if more either you hold more than Christ and his Apostles taught or all they taught is not contain'd in Scripture If the former be true you will confess we are not bound to believe that more if the later you bid us prove what we deny and you hold and say we are certain of all this that is more than is contain'd in Scripture and what we believe not I. S. You talk indeed of Proof and that which you say of it is That you prove when you prove R. p. 19. C. I have told you how we prove the Scripture to be the Word of God. I. S. Which if one should put you to it you cannot R. Ib. C. Which when we would do you say it needs not nor ought you to allow it L. p. 22. We shew also how we prove every Article of our Faith by Scripture I. S. Common words which every Heretick may and does use Ib. C. But no common work which every Heretick may or can do Yet when we offer to do it you tell us 't is not time to do it yet I. S. You decline Dr. St.'s absolute certainty nor know of any way to prove more than a sufficient certainty R. p. 20. C. Dr. St.'s absolute certainty I guess to be no more than sufficient certainty and if so I decline it not when 't is my turn to prove What 's sufficient is certainly enough and your absolute certainty or infallibility I decline because it is too much I. S. This sufficient certainty of yours may be no certainty Ib. C. That 's absolutely impossible for no certainty is neither certainty nor sufficient I. S. There goes no more to make a thing sufficient than to make a man content with it Ib. C. Just so much more as will enable him to obtain the end for which he hath it I. S. A yard of Cloath will make a sufficient Garment for him who is content to go half naked Ib. C. Yes if he have a mind to catch cold and die I. S. A Table without Meat is a sufficient Meal for him that is contented to fast Ib. C. How a naked Table can be a Meal I know not however it is not always a sufficient Meal for a Fasting Papist though a Table without Wine may seem enough for a Feasting one You told me your absolute certainty and infallibility would come into play again ere long Now you play indeed and to tell you truly I am quite weary on 't The Second Dialogue I. S. I Will let you see in a short Discourse how far your Rule of Faith is from being absolutely certain L. p. 30. C. Far enough if you shew what you undertook to shew the Nullity of it I. S. My first Proposition is this God has left us some way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught R. p. 2. C. Your Proposition is granted what now infer you from it I. S. Therefore this way must be such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the end it was intended for that is know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught L. p. 30. C. If God have left us a way to know then by that way we may know I. S. You must needs be wording on 't your own way to shew that either you did not understand it or that you had a mind to inform us how neatly and dexterously you can change and pervert words as well as answer R. p. 21. C. Where have I changed or perverted your words I. S. Is shall know and may know all one R. p. 22. C. They are not the same word indeed and I now confess I did put may for shall not in your saying but my own And if I had done it wittingly to shew either my Ignorance or my Art little reason could you have to be angry with so courteous an Adversary who was willing to sacrifice the credit of his Vnderstanding or Sincerity as according to you I must have been to your service But to say truth I was not so kind neither over observed I the change I had made till you inform'd me I beg your pardon for this error and have more cause to thank you for minding me of it than it may be you thought of giving me Let it therefore be shall what mean you by it more than may I. S. Shall
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
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