to utter it I. S. The Difference constituting your Protestant Rule as distinguish'd from that of most abominable Hereticks can only be as my own Judgment or others of my side thus or thus interpret the Letter of Scripture and wriggle which way you will there it will and must end at last L. p. 26. C. Who can expect loss but that where men pretend to Infallibility they should also pretend to know what is our Rule better than we our selves poor fallible creatures do A. p. 28. I. S. We take it as ill of you that you will have us believe you before our own evident Reason R. p. 74. C. I believe you I. S. You assure us plain Scripture is your Rule that is as appears by your Discourse as you are such a kind of Protestant Ib. C. As I am a Protestant and a Member of the Church of England I. S. Plain in what Points R.p. 75. C. In all Points necessary to Salvation I. S. To whom Ib. C. To all that are capable of understanding plain words and sense I. S. By what kind of light Ib. C. By the same whereby other Books are plain as far as concerns the Literal sense of the words and sentences I. S. Experience tells us That Scripture is not plain even in the highest Points of Faith since many follow it and yet go astray Ib. C. They go astray not by following it but by endeavouring to make it follow them I. S. If it be so plain all your useful helps are needless Ib. C. How plain do you mean Thô a Child's Lesson be plain yet needs he useful helps to learn it I. S. Scripture conceiv'd by you to be plain can never be made out by you to be absolutely certain Ib. C. It is enough for us to be morally certain of plain Scripture I. S. Socinians proceed upon Scripture plain to them as their Rule and yet err Ib. C. 'T is plain they err by not adhering to plain Scripture but to their own natural Reason wherewith they use all their Art to make the Scripture agree contrary to the most plain and obvious sense of the words The Interpretation of Scripture by any Sect of People Romanists or others is extrinsecal to the Rule and no constitutive difference of it as you imagine A. p. 28. I. S. Still Scripture as interpretable by your selves is your particular Rule and not extrinsecal to it Ib. C. Scripture as interpretable is not extrinsecal to our Rule but is indeed our Rule yet is the interpretation of it extrinsecal to it which is that I said I. S. 'T is your own Interpretation we said was your Rule Ib. C. We say 't is not and according to you it cannot be who say that Scripture as interpretable is our Rule I hope the interpretation of a thing and the thing interpretable are not one I. S. Is not the Sense of Scripture your Faith R. 76. C. It is materially that which we believe I. S. Is not that essentially your particular Rule of Faith that gives you your particular Faith Ib. C. What 's all this Cloud of Words for We have no particular Rule or Faith objectively taken but that which was ordain'd of God for the common Rule and Faith of all Christians I. S. Must I mind you again that it is the very essence as I may say or nature of Interpretation to give you the sense of the words of Scripture which in our case is your Faith. Ib. C. You may say as you please so you speak to be understood But that 's not always your design else would you speak a little plainer How often must I mind you That the Scripture alone is our Rule by understanding whereof we learn what to believe The Interpretation of it the essence whereof you talk of is our searching for and discovering of the sense and so our Learning to understand it and not our Rule I. S. Venture boldly to declare what is your particular Rule C. Our Rule in General is the Word of God in particular if you will needs have it so and in contradistinction to your Rule of Scripture and Tradition or Tradition only 't is the same Word written or the Scripture only And as differenced from both Romanists and other Hereticks and Sectaries it is the same Scripture still plainly delivering a sense own'd and declared by the Primitive Church of Christ in the Three Creeds Four first General Councils and Harmony of the Fathers A. p. 28. I. S. Since Differences use to be Essential whether are these words own'd and declared c. at all essential or not Ib. C. To our Rule I suppose you mean. I say they are not and so you have lost a sine Discourse p. 77 78. I. S. If not since if you be orthodox you ought to have a Rule essentially distinct from that of Hereticks and Sectaries what is this Essential different Rule of your's R. p. 76. C. I know no such thing as that the Orthodox and Hereticks ought to have several Rules essentially as you say distinct These may differ each from other in their Faith and yet not in the Rule thô in the interpreting of it they do Thus have I endeavour'd notwithstanding the many Squibs you have thrown in the way to scare or vex me to trace you step by step where-ever I could discern the least colour of Reason And yet I confess is the far greater part of your long Letter unanswer'd and must be so for me For should I follow your frisking and playsome Fancy over hedges and through puddles as she would lead me I should too well deserve the Character of an everlasting Trifler for running after Butterflies which you have so friendly bestow'd on Sir Your Servant FINIS
the characters of Scripture is the sence of God and the sence of God is that which we are to believe And so Scripture-characters senced signifie Faith it self in conjunction with those characters Ib. C. What means these words in conjunction with those characters I. S. A character senc'd signifies a character with the sence joyn'd to it Ib. C. A character senc'd or unsenc'd are expressions we were never used to but in reading such Writings as yours You may therefore interpret your own Language as you please for me whether we can understand you or no. For my part I can understand no more-by a senc'd character but a character the signification whereof is intelligible So Scripture-characters signifie Faith it self taken for the things to be believed as is usual I. S. Faith is the end to which we are looking for a way to carry us To tell us then that Scripture's Letter taken for senced Characters is this Way is to tell us the End is the Way to it self that the means to get Faith is to have it first that when we know it we know it and such fine things Ib. C. Faith materially taken revealed in Scripture is there revealed that we may knew and believe it To beget Faith in us is the end of Faith's being there reveal'd And so we say truly that Faith signified in written characters is the way or means to beget Faith in us or that the means to get Faith is to seek it in the Scripture that when we discern it there we know what we are to believe These are plain things which you by your fine Arts would make obscure Pray now keep your fine things for Bart'lemew Fair. I. S. You are not a man to be discouraged with ill success You are at your distinctions again Ib. C. Much I fear against your will who seem to delight in confusion If again by these words interpretable by private Judgments you mean any way interpretable as any private man may possibly wrest the words to make them comply with his own Sentiments or through ignorance laziness and neglect of helps and means fit to be used may mis-understand them you must have as wide a Conscience and as little Modesty as the impudent and wicked Author of PAX VOBIS who has the face to fasten such a meaning on the sixth of our 39 Articles c. But if you mean that Scripture as it may be understood by a private man of a competent Judgment using such helps as are proper is not the Way we again deny your assumption or if you will your Fourth Proposition A. p. 13 14. I. S. I will by your good leave say in short Good and Bad Judgments R. p. 32. C. As you please Sir. I. S. I take you then to say that Scripture's Letter as interpretable by bad Judgments is not the way but as interpretable by good Judgments is the way Ib. C. You mistake me then for I say it is not the Way as any way interpretable or as it may be wrested either by good or bad Judgments I. S. By this account three parts in four of Mankind at a modest computation have no Way for so many bad Judgments there are at least Ib. C. Not very modest to conclude so hastily that three parts in four cannot understand with all the helps God affords them the Scripture in their own Language I. S. While we are inquiring which is the Way which God hath left pray what have we to do with the Judgments of men Can they make or unmake it Ib. C. Why are you then so busie with that wherewith you have nothing to do Why whether we will or no and when we forbid you to do it will you when you talk of the Way which God hath left meddle with private Judgments Are not those the Judgments of men Were you not in a Dreams and fancy'd that we said what no body but your self said I. S. Your distinction unluckily has no relation at all to the Question R. p. 33. C. Most unluckily indeed to you it has so near a relation to your Proposition that it shews now you have made it your conclusion that you conclude nothing to the Question I. S. You say that bad Judgments may mis understand the Letter of Scripture and that it is not the way to such which I think is to say that because they may misunderstand it therefore it is not the Way Ib. C. Where said I it is not the Way to such Beware of unconscionable falsifying and then be at what pains you will to tell us that you have read Bayes his Play and learn'd of him to talk like a Player Pag. 34. I. S. The Question is Whether Scripture's Letter interpretable by Private Judgments be the Way left by God. R. p. 35. C. Is it so Answer then your own Question while we are enquiring after the Way left by God what have we to do with Private Judgments I. S. I maintain it is not and prove it because men who take that way err Ib. C. What you maintain in opposition to us pray see it be opposite to our Doctrine As to your proof it needs another proof yet viz. That men who take the right way may not err from it I. S. I thought it needed no proving that the Way lest by God is not the Way to Error Ib. C. But this doth that men who take it may not err from it I. S. The Proposition is of the Letter Interpretable that is not yet interpreted or which has not the sence put to it and so is yet unsensed Ib. C. Then your Proposition is of sensless Characters that they are not the Rule of Faith which being granted you you oppose no body and so are left to dispute with your self I. S. When you distinguish the Letter Interpretable into sensed and unsensed you make a distinction whereof one branch is not comprehended in the Notion to be divided Ib. C. 'T is your own distinction indeed Sir and was never mine You know I told you A. p. 13. that we are unacquainted with such infignificant things as unsens'd Characters in Scripture how then should I distinguish the Letter into sensed and unsensed I only asked you which branch of your own senseless distinction you meant You now tell me you meant unsenseable characters and that the Letter Interpretable can be no other If so for my part I think 't is nothing for I cannot see how unsensed Characters are Interpretable at all I. S. Your second Distinction is of Judgments into competent and incompetent which is Twin to the former Ib. C. Are all competent then or all incompetent or are they neither I. S. I vouch'd for proof Presbyterians and Socinians men of very competent judgments who fall under none of your ill qualifications Ib. C. Then may they understand the Scripture in Points of Faith or if they may not they are of incompetent judgments You suppose them to err and yet to fall under none
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
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
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
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
of my ill qualifications of Ignorance Laziness or Negligence But how can you prove they do not However there is yet behind an ill qualification mentioned there by me that you take no notice of Why then may they not be of those who wrest Scripture to comply with their own Sentiments such as I told you A. p. 15. you might find enow of nearer home This humour I now tell you I take to be the sourse of the most pernicious Misinterpretations as I fear it may be amongst Socinians and also some others who affecting a Supremacy labour so long to find it in Scripture till at last they think they have found it in every Verse that speaks well of St. Peter in like manner as they will needs prove Tradition it self thô the foundation of all certainty by Scripture our derided Rule I. S. I foretold I should have nothing but an unconcerning return for an answer C. Either my Answer is a concerning return to your Discourse or your Discourse is not concerning the Vncertainty of our Faith much less hath it shewn the Nullity of our Rule which you say it undertook to do And truly I might have foretold as easily as you that it was in vain to expect from him who had proclaim'd his Discourse unanswerable any acknowledgment that it was answer'd I. S. You conclude with an Argument against my Conclusion R. p. 36. C. No Argument by your favour Sir nor did I conclude my Answer with it as you well know I was but telling in what sence your Proposition after which two more then follow'd thô but one of them now appear must be taken if you would prove any thing against us To this purpose I laid before you several Suppositions of ours which you must by your proof overthrow if you proved any thing to purpose This is it you now call a concluding with an Argument against your conclusion And laugh at your own conceit I. S. You suppose then C. Yes we suppose 1. That the Scripture is God's Word A. p. 14. I. S. So do I too provided you mean the true sence of it Ib. C. We mean no other 2. That it was written to be understood I. S. Undoubtedly but not by every one barely by means of the Letter Books without Masters will make but few Grammarians or Mathematicians Ib. C. And such Masters we want not 3. That it is written for the Instruction of Private Men. I. S. Yes but not the only or sufficient means of their instruction barely by the Letter Ib. C. Not supposing that Letter an unsensed Character nor taking it as sens'd as we always do is it so our Rule or Means as to exclude all other Means for the understanding it 4. That Private Men are concern'd to understand it I. S. Yes and as much concern'd not to misunderstand it Ib. C. 'T is true 5. That they have Means left them of God for the understanding of it so far as it is of necessary concernment to them I. S. Yes and that absolutely certain Means the Publick Interpretation of the Church or Tradition C. Means so sufficient as they need not fear but by the blessing of God on their pious endeavours to understand it among which is the Publick Interpretation of the Church and written Tradition in the Creeds and First Councils 6. That using these Means as they ought they may understand it and thus it is to them the way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught as necessary to their salvation I. S. Never mince it with May they shall and certainly shall understand it who use the Means R. p. 37. C. Not unless they use them as they ought so indeed they certainly shall I. S. 'T was ill forgot when your hand was in at supposing not to suppose in among the rest that Private Interpretation is the Means left by God for understanding Scripture Ib. C. I left that for you Sir to suppose lest having no Doctrine of ours to oppose you should for want of a supposition of your own have nothing at all to do I. S. If Publick Interpretation be those Means as it needs must since I have proved that Private is not the Scripture plainly is no way to those who only rely on the Private Means to understand it Ib. C. You have prov'd you say that Private Interpretation is not the Means of understanding Scripture whilst the thing you undertook to prove was the Nullity of our Rule the Scripture itself You suppose elsewhere Private Interpretation to be our Rule and now you would have me to suppose it is the Means of Understanding our Rule and will needs say you have proved it is not and thence Infer that Publick Interpretation is the Means pray Sir for Logick's sake tell me if this be a good consequence without the help of another supposition that there is no other means which is yet unproved Yet grant you this Scripture still Remains the Way or Rule even to those who rely only on Private Interpretation this only follows from your Premises that they use not the right Means of Understanding it To tell you now my thoughts Interpretation is not so properly call'd the Means as the Vse of the Means I. S. Your Protestants are much beholding to your Argument which shews that Scripture Interpreted as they Interpret it by Private Judgments is no Way to them Ib. C. My telling you what Protestants hold will shew no such thing as you imagine but let you alone to shew your Art in turning it into an Argument and then they will soon see how much they are obliged to somebody I. S. Had you been confident of your performance against my Argument you would never have thought of changing it as you do page 17. R. p. 18. C. I must not contend with you in confidence of our own Performances yet am I still so confident that your Argument has proved nothing to the purpose that I dare tell you again that if you will prove what you undertook to shew whereby I think you meant proving you must thus frame your Argument God hath left us some Way or Rule which no man can possibly misunderstand or abuse The Scripture-Letter is not such a Way or Rule as no man can possibly misunderstand or abuse Therefore The Scripture-Letter is not the Way or Rule which God hath left us I. S. No body else would have left out the Principal Consideration Vsing the Rule and so coming to the right Faith by using it R. p. 38. C. Put in those words then when you please thô I think them not very needful seeing Misunderstanding and Abusing seem to me sufficiently to imply an Vsing of it I. S. Your Argument has all the Faults of your Answer in short C. Be it so and farewel to it for if it may not be serviceable to you it is I am sure of no use at all to me The Third Dialogue C. TO prove the Infallibility of the Catholick Church or as you
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
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