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
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
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
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
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
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
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