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
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 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
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
put it the Absolute Certainty of the Catholick Rule You will grant to be your part if you think it need any proof as I question whether you do or no for L. p. 12. you say It is vain to talk against one Infallibility unless we will set up another I. S. It has been demonstrated to you Faith Vindic. p. 37 38. that Infallibility and Certainty are the same R. p. 39. C. I have not seen your Demonstrations yet nor can I hope that I ever shall because I am sure there are degrees of Certainty and there can be none of Infallibility If you think otherwise to what purpose talk you of Absolute Certainty and will not consent to have the word left out If Certainty be no less than Infallibility Absolute Certainty can be no more therefore you might have spared the word I. S. Nature tells us that all Discourse supposes something Certain Ib. C. What thon I. S. How is it possible then to Discourse against Infallibility or any thing else without setting up and proceeding upon something that is Certain or Infallibly true Ib. C. A Certainty we grant Infallibility we deny The former's enough to ground a rational Discourse upon even against Infallibility I. S. If you will needs declare against Infallible Certainty be but so candid as to say still you are Fallibly Certain and see how your Readers will smile at your Folly. Pray speak to this Point Ib. C. To be still telling men what they know already might make them smile indeed but should we tell them whilst we are denying Infallibility that we are infallible it would make them laugh outright I. S. Are you not deserters of Humane Nature supposing there is no Infallibility that is true Certainty to be found amongst men R p. 40. C. True Certainty there is and that 's enough for Human Nature I. S. Are you not heirayers of Christion Faith whilst you leave it all capable to be a lye nay maintain the full sence of that wicked Position All Christian Faith is passible to be false in Discourses directly framed for that for purpose Ib. C. Have the Authors of those Discourses no Names Or are you too modest to name them All we say is That Men are capable of being deceived We affirm ourselves as certain as men can be that no part of the Christian Faith can be a lye or is possible to be false I. S. Are you not Blasphemers of God's Providence in declaring that he hath left less certain grounds for Faith and for the salvation of Mankind for which the World was created and God himself died than he hath for other things of trifling importance C. Do we declare all this when we say The Infallible God hath by Men inspired with his Infallible Spirit left us his Word plainly written which is a sufficient means to secure us from being dangerously deceived in any thing necessary to our Salvation if we diligently attend unto it and use the proper helps of understanding it A. p. 17 18. I. S. Will it expiate from those Crimes to talk cantingly Sayings fit to take the good Women that are much pleas'd with Godly talk in a Sermon but frivalous in our Controversie Ib. C. Nay Sayings that shew his wickedness that focuseth us for denying the certainty of the Christian Faith against his own knowledge and esteems the talking of what God hath done to secure us from Error frivolous Talk in a controversie about the Certainty of our Faith and which show we have sufficient certainty I. S. I suppose you mean a certainty that is neither fallible nor infallible Ib. C. An undoubted certainty so as we cannot doubt that we are thô 't is not impossible but we may be deceiv'd I. S. You tell men that after all their pains they can never be satisfied but their Faith may be false that is they can never be satisfied that it is true R. p. 41. C. Not satisfied Yes fully Which they can never be if they must stay till they be infallible I. S. When the certainty of your Grounds fail you your last Refuge is that the same Infallible God that hath given the means has assured his blessing to them that diligently use them Ib. C. I confess 't is God's blessing we most trust to And if you can hope for certainty by the use of any means without it 't is more than we can do I. S. This begs the Question For if the Rule you follow be not the means ordain'd by God to arrive at Faith you have neither the right means nor can you be assured of any blessing by using them Ib. C. The present Question is of Infallibility without which say you we want means of securing us from being deceived and are discouraged from taking due pains to compass the good we desire No say I for thô there be no Infallibility among men yet if we use the means we may be secured by the promise of a blessing from the infallible God. How doth this beg the Question If our Certainty be not enough where shall we find this Infallibility of your's In Tradition sure if any where for after we have been sent from place to place to seek it we have missed it every where else A. p. 18. I. S. Pray Sir who sent you We with whom you are discoursing never directed you to any other but to that of Tradition Ib. C. Roman Catholicks they were who sent us And who you are I know not whether One or Many or what your We signifies I. S. What an everlasting Trifler are you to confess you have been running after Butterfties all this while Ib. C. Is your Infallibility but a Butterfly Then it is fitter for you to keep and play with than for me to run after I. S. The certainty of Scripture is from Tradition L. p. 7. C. We have the Books of Scripture from Tradition c. Ap. 19. I. S. Therefore Tradition causes certainty Ib. C. Tradition we own a ground of sufficient certainty of this matter of Fact But this Tradition is not that of the Church of Rome only but a more universal Tradition of all Christians Ib. I. S. Then Tradition makes Faith as certain as Scripture Ib. C. Conveying the Book to us it conveys the Faith contained in the Book and witnessing to the Book as written by men divinely inspired it gives as good credit to the Faith therein contain'd as humane Testimony can do yet this certainty comes not up to Infallibility Ib. I. S. Yes it does for the certainty here spoken of was absolute certainty and I proved it was the same with Infallibility R. p. 42. C. It does so I know in your Account But I now say humane Testimony is not enough to ground an infallible certainty upon I. S. You say Tradition for Scripture was more universal suppose it so was not Tradition for Doctrine large enough to cause absolute certainty Ib. C. More universal I meant and said than that of the Church of
Rome only yet not enough to cause absolute that is with you infallible certainty I. S. Are not Ten-Millions of Attesters as able to cause absolute certainty as Twenty Ib. C. Caeteris paribus the more Attesters the more certainty yet how many soever they are but men and fallible I. S. When the number comes to that pitch that it is seen to be impossible they should all be deceived in the thing they unanimously attest or conspire to deceive us their Testimony has its full effect upon us and begets in us that firm and unalterable assent we call absolute certainty and the addition of Myriads more adds nothing to the substance of that Assent since 't is wrought without it R. p. 43. C. This is as good assurance of a matter of Fact as any man can desire but what 's all this to Infallibility Here 's some certain pitch of number which is it I wish you could shew us unto which when Attesters every man of them fallible are come one unite short may spoil all it may be seen infallibly or we may be deceived that 't is impossible no less will serve they should be deceived or deceive Thus add fallible to fallible they become infallible and infallibly honest too And then we may firmly assent it should have been infallibly and the addition of Myriads more will adde nothing to the substance of that assent since it is wrought without it Now what this substance of assent is but assent who knows Of the firmness of assent I am sure there are degrees Do not these words seem then to intimate that though Myriads of Attesters cannot add to assent barely consider'd as such for so it was before yet possibly they may add to the degrees of firmness If so then seeing that assent was before infallible do not you seem to admit degrees of Infallibility I. S. But the main is you quite mistake the nature of a long successive Testimony Ib. C. My comfort is I have a wise and compassionate Instructer to set me right I. S. Let Ten Thousand men witness what two or three who were the original Attesters of a thing said at first and Twenty Thousand more witness in the next Age what those Ten Thousand told them and so forwards yet taking them precisely as Witnesses they amount to no more in order to prove the truth of that thing than the credit of those two or three first Witnesses goes R. p. 43. C. All this I knew before Where 's my mistake all this while I. S. The Tradition for the several Books of Scripture is not in any degree comparable either in regard of the largeness or the firmness of the Testimony to the Tradition for Doctrine Ib. C. I grant not this yet let 's suppose it in part at present I see first that your charging me with mistaking the nature of a successive Testimony arose from a mistake of your own I said we have a larger Testimony for Scripture than that of the Church of Rome you fancy me to speak of a larger Testimony for Scripture than for Doctrine And so all you have said since is to no purpose Again though the Testimony were larger for Doctrine than for Scripture yet is it not so firm because not so competent an Attester of Doctrine as of a Book It is sufficient indeed for the Book the Doctrine whereof depends on the credit of the first Attesters and being sufficiently attested by them leaves no credit for any other Doctrine not agreeing with it by how many soever at this day attested Still yours is but humane Testimony and that 's not infallible I. S. Is not your Tradition for Scripture humane too R p. 44. C. It is I. S. If that may be erroneous may not all Christian Faith be a company of lying Stories Ib. C. We have no reason to think or doubt it is and therefore ought not to say it may be I told you before that neither Papists nor Protestants content themselves with Tradition for the truth of their Faith but produce abundance of other Arguments for it A. p 19. But you had no end to trace me there I. S. Seeing certainty of Scripture is proved by Tradition what should hinder me from 〈◊〉 that unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same chanel it must bring them down infallibly too R. p. 45. C. If no special difficulty be found in them you may infer it may bring them down as certainly These other things are I suppose things unwritten in that holy Book I. S. So your gift of interpretation expounds these words of mine but I do assure you Sir you are mightily mistaken Ib. C. All things written in the Book are convey'd down in it what then can those other things be but things unwritten in it I. S. I never yet told you that all Faith was not contain'd in Scripture explicitly or implicitly Ib. C. Well if all be either explicitly or implicitly in the Book then by Tradition all is brought down in the Book still implicitly at least And then once more whan can those other things be but things not written in Scripture I. S. The whole Body of Christ's Doctrine nay the self-same Doctrine of Faith that is contain'd in Scripture comes down by Tradition or the Church's Testimony Ib. C. I had told you all this but still you talk'd of other things How I beseech you other things and yet the same What mean you by nay the same A man would think by this you made the Doctrine of Scripture either but a part or not so much as a part of the whole Doctrine of Faith. I. S. But with this difference as to the manner among others that the Church that testifies it having the sense of it in her breast can explain her meaning so as to put it out of all question to Learners Doubters and Inquirers which the Scripture cannot Ib. C. Here 's a difference indeed The Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture but it cannot discover it self there to Learners c. The same is in the Church's breast and there alone it may be learn'd The Church testifies of the Scripture that it is the Word of God but 't is Jesuitically with an Aequivocation or Mental Reservation for it is not indeed the Word of God but a dead Letter till the sense be put to it and that 's in her breast We have now found the Scrinium pectoris but what 's in the Box who knows or when it will all come forth However the whole sense of Scripture is safely lock'd up there and by the Key of Oral Tradition it may be open'd as there is occasion Now to me it seems all one whether these call them same or other things be contain'd or not contain'd be explicitly or implicitly in Scripture they are there if they be there at all to no purpose whilst the sense is in her breast Not a rush matter if such a Book had sunk in
from the Faith first taught for this is but supposed hitherto A. p. 22. I. S. Was it not proved in the Fourth Proposition and by me p. 9 R. p. 51. C. At your rate it may be And from this self-evident Supposition you necessarily conclude thus Suppose Traditionary Christians neither did nor could err it is certain they neither did nor could err Make what more you can of it A. p. 22. I. S. You falsifie our words who ever said a Supposition is self-evident R. p. 52. C. Who ever said you did May I not use an Irony without the guilt of falsifying I. S. You falsifie again in affirming that from this self-evident Supposition I necessarily conclude c. Ib. C. Just as before in saying you necessarily conclude from a self-evident Supposition I say all you conclude amounts to no more And make you what more you can of it I. S. Our entire Discourse runs thus if we must needs put it into form for you Those who adhere to Tradition all along from the beginning neither did nor could err in Faith. R. p. 53. C. No not if it was true Apostolical Tradition and they adhered wholly and solely to it doing so they did not could not err I. S. The Roman Catholick Church does now and did from time to time adhere to Tradition Ib. C. To Apostolical Tradition wholly and only I deny that I. S. They could not innovate in Faith unless they did forget what they held the day before or out of malice alter it Ib. C. You hope then we can have no advantage by pleading either of these in barr to the Infallibility of Tradition A. 22. I. S. You do not I suppose desire we should prove that Men had always memories or that Christians were never so malicious as to damn themselves and their posterity wittingly and yet it can stick no where else L p. 32. C. Were there no danger of Mens forgetting what had been taught 't is hard to say why the Pen-men of the Scripture should have been at the needless pains to write it A. p. 23. I. S. Your Discourse is this 'T is hard to say That Christians should have remembred their Testerday's Faith had not the Scripture been written R. p. 54. C. As thô to remember it from Night to Morning were enough I say 't is hard to say why the Scripture was written if men might in no Age forget what had been taught I. S. The Reasons why Scripture was written you might have read in St. Paul 2 Tim. 3.16 17. Where there is no such thing as to make men remember their Yesterday's Faith nor that Scripture is of necessity at all but only that it is profitable for many uses there enumerated Ib. C. I know how unwilling some of you are that Scripture should be thought necessary at all and also how much ashamed they are to say it is unnecessary altogether Let it be as you say only Profitable for Doctrine Reproof Correction Instruction For my part if men once taught the Faith can never forget it If Oral Tradition can do all this without Scripture and Scripture nothing of all this without Tradition I think it is wholly useless and unprofitable and therefore see no reason it should be written And yet if mens memories be so very faithful St. Peter seems to me to have been too forgetful of it when with so much earnestness he endeavour'd that men might be able after his decease to have these things always in remembrance 2 Pet. 1 15. and that by leaving them in writing A. p. 23. I. S. There is not so much as one word in the whole Chapter concerning the remembring or forgetting their Faith but of remembring his particular exhortations to good life R. p. 55. C. Neither said I there was it was enough for me to prove hence that men might forget what they had been taught and if an exhortation to good life why not an Article of Faith I. S. Notwithstanding all you have answer'd men had memory enough not to forget their yesterday's Faith. R. p. 56. C. Well at present suppose it Why might they not have Malice enough to alter or corrupt it I. S. Were Christians so malicious as to damn themselves and their posterity wittingly C. May they not be as careless of preserving the Faith as of maintaining Holiness in themselves and their posterity when they know that Sin is as damnable as Error A. p. 23. I. S. Be Judge your self Do not many of your Congregation sin often and yet few or none of them desert their Faith once Ib. C. I grant men may often sin yet be neither Apostates not Hereticks I. S. The Reasons why the Parallel holds not are these Ib. C. The Word of an Infallible Instructer shall pass with me for a thousand Reasons Tell me only what these Reasons prove it will suffice If it be this that men may sin often and yet not desert their Faith 't is already granted Is it any thing else you would prove by them I. S. My Reasons thwart the universal alteration of Faith while Christians proceeded on the former Rule of Tradition R. p. 59. C. 'T is granted also that Christians adhering to Apostolical Tradition there could be no universal alteration of Faith. I. S. They clearly evince an universal change in the Rule of Faith over the whole Body of Believers is absolutely impracticable R. p. 57. C. Whatever your Reasons evince we grant such an universal change will never be because Christ will always have a Church of true Believers But why might not a considerable part of the Whole Body alter the Faith first taught I. S. The change must be professed and open otherwise it alters not the case and posterity will believe still on according as things appear outwardly R p. 56. C. Men may change the Faith and at first privately teach it to a few not professing at all that they change it but that they retrieve it after a change had been made in it and they who are taught it may believe it and spread it and it may at last be openly profess'd without professing a change from what it was at first which is not the wont of Hereticks I. S. Not unless it be said they went conscienciously upon some other ground than Tradition R. p. 57. C. And why might they not do so I. S. 'T is impossible they should take up another ground Ib. C. Your reason I pray I. S. Because if they could not innovate in Faith they could not innovate in that upon which they held all their Faith. Ib. C. Very good You were proving they cannot innovate in Faith because they adhere to Tradition now you prove they must adhere to Tradition because they cannot innovate in Faith. I. S. Men are more tenacious of their Principles than they are to relinquish all they have receiv'd upon those Principles Ib. C. That which they hold upon the Principle of Tradition is all their Faith and you said but
not yet so explicitly or universally known might on emergent occasions be singled out defin'd and more especially recommended than formerly without any detriment to the Faith receiv'd but rather to the advantage and farther explication of it Ib. C. I understand you thus All Points of Faith are no more explicitly convey'd to us by Tradition than by Scripture but some of them implicitly only 'T is something else which hath all in its breast and by degrees vents it in parcels as there is occcasion to define and recommend and then thô men might before be saved without the knowledge of it it becomes as necessary an Article of Faith as any of the rest This is the great Mystery had all been given out at first the Box being empty would have been in some danger to have been laid aside and disregarded Well but after all this If somebody should start up and say this or that Article thus defined is no part of the old Apostolical Tradition but a meer innovation who must decide the matter Who but the Church All Truth is lodg'd in her breast But which is this Church That which holds to Tradition the Church of Rome Which is the true Tradition That which the Church viz. of Rome holds What now if Error any of the former Ways brought forth grew multipli'd spread obtain'd most power and drove out all that held the naked truth from all those Countreys where it came I. S. Do any Histories tell you This Error spread over the Whole Church without your supposing the Question that such or such a Tenet is an Error which you pretend such which is above the skill of Historians to decide and is only to be determin'd by examining first who have who have not a certain Rule of Faith Ib. C. Over the Whole Church is too much Histories tell us of the spreading of Error such as both You and We account so over divers Countreys What need is there of supposing the Question that such or such a Tenet is an Error betwixt us who are agreed about it as I think we are in that of Arianism But as to what you add pray tell me If Tradition be the Rule of Faith who can be fitter to decide what Tenet is Error than Historians who should know best what belongs to former Ages But I forget 't is the Oral Tradition of the prefent Church is your Rule of Faith and Historians have to do only with things past and I agree with you that it exceeds their Skill to shew us that all those things which your present Church calls Errors were decided to be such in the first Ages However seeing what is Error is only to be decided by examining first who have who have not a certain Rule of Faith I beseech you be not so hasty as you use to be to call us Hereticks whil'st this Point is but yet under examination I. S. But what are all these rambling Questions to our Argument which insists on the impossibility of altering the Yesterday's Faith but either out of want of Memory or out of Malice R. p. 62 63. C. They ramble home to your Argument where you would not see them I. S. Apply them to this and they lose all their force Ibid. C. If Faith may be alter'd all or any of these Ways then if they all should imply forgetfulness or malice as you say most of them do in some degree men may through forgetfulness or malice innovate in Faith and if they imply neither men may innovate otherwise than through forgetfulness or malice Either way your Arguments spoil'd I. S. I long to see 't made out that an erring Church can still plead Tradition and adhere to it L. p. 18. C. That an erring Church adheres as I have formerly said to Tradition I know no man that will undertake to make out to save your longing But may not a Church that once adher'd to Tradition leave it I. S. That a Church may follow Tradition at one time and leave it at another is no news L. p. 15. C. If this be no News then though we should grant Tradition to be an infallible conveyance of the Truth yet would it not make even that Church which now adheres to it iufallible and therefore the Church of Rome though we should confess her at present to adhere to infallible Tradition could not prove her self thereby to be infallible That Church only is infallible which cannot err the Church that at one time follows Tradition may leave it at another and so doing errs Therefore if the Church of Rome will be infallible she must prove not only that she follows Tradition for so she proves only that she does not err but also that she cannot leave it for infallibility excludes all possibility of erring by leaving Tradition She must therefore seek out a new Medium to prove her self infallible A. p. 25. I. S. Do not you see this already proved to your hand R. p. 63. C. No truly and I despair of ever hearing him prove that a Church which now follows Tradition cannot leave it who has told me 't is no News but a common case for a Church that follows it to leave it I. S. Not to repeat the many Reasons produced for this point Sect. 45. R p. 63. C. You did not sure mean I saw it proved to my hand in those Reasons which you had not then produced And I see as little yet that they were produced for this point I granted you all that for which you told me you produced them when you mention'd them but that the Church of Rome cannot leave Tradition was not it you then told me you produced them for I. S. Innovation and Tradition being formally and diametrically opposite what proves she could not innovate proves also that she could not leave Tradition for this were to innovate R. p. 63. C. But where was it proved she could not innovate I. S. Our Argument you see has already proved it I wonder you should dissemble a thing so obvious and run forwards upon that affected inadvertence of yours 'T is the very thing our Argument chiesly aims at R. p. 63 64. C. Aiming and hitting are two things you say it aim'd at it but I have shewn you it miss'd it And farther I tell you that if ever you hit it you will wound your self Will you prove a Church that follows Tradition cannot leave it and yet say the contradictory to it is true I. S. You would perswade us rather to prove our Church free from Error R. p. 64. C. I think it good advice and for your encouragement have told you that I think we are obliged whenever you prove it to be of her Communion Will you not take my advice to make us your Converts I said also 't is the easier task for you if she be so and if she be not so you in vain attempt to prove her more than so infallible I. S. Your wise advice amounts to this that
you would have us prove our conclusion without beginning with our Premises Ib. C. No but that you would be content with a conclusion easier to be prov'd and enough for you when proved and that you would prove it by better Premises better known than the conclusion I. S. All our Faith may be Error if the Testimony of the Church our Rule may be erroneous and if it cannot nothing we hold of Faith can be so Ib. C. Then either the Faith of Christ may be Error or yours is not the Faith of Christ May the Faith of Christ be all Error if the Church of Rome can err in her Testimony then doth it depend on the Infallibility of your Church for its truth not on Christ's Veracity I. S. Your meaning is we should only prove she embraces no Error now but what provision would this make for her not falling perhaps into Error to morrow Ib. C. Against the possibility of her falling into Error hereafter I know of no provision can be made but to be sure she does not err at present is the best security she can have and to you must needs be good enough for sure you will not have it said your Church can be guilty of so unheard-of a Negligence as to forget to morrow her yesterdays Faith. I. S. Were our Rule granted fallible by what more certain way could we be directed to arrive at Christ's sense Ib. C. Take the plain Scripture for your Rule I. S. However your counsel suits better with your conveniences than these crabbed Demonstrations R. p. 65. C. Yours are indeed crabbed enough and plain Demonstrations would suit better with Infallibility But why will you labour to no purpose All the World knows that a single Instance in one Error is enough to answer all the Arguments can be brought for her Infallibility seeing it must needs be false to say she cannot err who in any one thing doth err A.p. 25. I. S. If the Premises be right and the Inference good the conclusion must be necessarily true Ib. C. I grant it I. S. First then you are to answer our Argument and next to see the Authority that qualifies your Instance for an Argument be above Moral certainty Ib. C. Your Arguments are not hard to answer yet if I could not answer an Argument brought by some cunning Sophisters to prove that Men can know as certainly as God though some Scholar might laugh at me no Christian would do so If an Instance lie before me so certain as there is no just cause to doubt of it which is Moral certainty it is enough to satisfie me an Argument which contradicts it it is false though I may not be able to discern the Fallacy and will always be enough for one that values the truth more than the credit of a Logician I. S. 'T is the right of the Respondent to deny any thing that is not driven up to Evidence R. p. 66. C. 'T is our Right then to deny an Argument to be good so long as we have a clear instance against it I. S. You seem so kind as not to undertake to prove that an Erring Church adheres to Tradition if it be true Apostolical Tradition and that it adhere to it wholly and solely Ib. C. 'T is no kindness Sir but absolute necessity I cannot undertake to prove what I know can never be proved I. S. Do not you mean by Tradition such an one as is built upon living Voice and Practice Ib. C. I mean a Tradition coming down unvariably from the Apostles build it on what you please or can for me I thought you had meant by it living Voice and Practice and therefore know not well what you mean by its being built on them I. S. Then you quit your own Rule by requiring men should adhere to the other wholly and solely and admit that a Church adhering to such a Rule is not an erring Church Ib. C. This is wonderful indeed The later I admit and have promised that when you shew us such a Church we will be of her Communion and yet not grant her Infallible A. p. 26. But how do I quit our own Rule or require men to adhere to such Tradition wholly and solely Is it in saying they do not err that adhere to it on supposition they be sure they have it What a pleasant Invention was this When you are sure of such a Tradition besides Scripture tell us of it and we will embrace it willingly as you were told before A. p. 20. It seems very odd to me in the mean time that men should call us Hereticks and yet prove their own Infallibility by an Argument which if it prove any thing to purpose must prove that no man who hath been taught the Faith can err from it and still withal confess that whole Churches may err A. p. 26. I. S. How do you shew our Argument must prove this absurd Position R. p. 67. C. I say not it must simply but if it prove any thing to purpose For if it prove not this some may forget or alter their yesterday's Faith. I. S. Our Tenet is that though not one single man can err while he adheres to our Rule yet even some particular Churches may leave off adhering to it and so err in Faith. R. p. 67. C. How came you then to charge me so suriously with falfifying Was not your Argument brought to prove that Traditionary Christians could not innovate in Faith When could they not innovate Whilst they hold to Tradition say you And was not this it I said you undertook to make out elsewhere And do not you now confess 't was the same Surely you do when you say they might err by leaving it Yet then your Argument must prove this absurd Position as you call it or it proves nothing to purpose Christ and his Apostles taught one and the same Doctrine Alterations 't is certain have been made in this Doctrine and therefore without dispute some have believed and taught otherwise than men were at first taught c. A. p. 26 27. I. S. Some particular Churches may err in Faith. Ib. C. You are then to shew what special Priviledge the Church of Rome hath above all other Churches that she cannot err You say they of that Church believe the same to day they did yesterday and so upwards We bid you prove it You tell us if they follow this Rule they could never err in Faith. But did they follow this Rule You say they did And if we will not believe it there 's an end on 't A. p. 27. I. S. This is built on some few of your wilful Falsifications R. p. 68. C. If men will believe you there 's an end on 't again I. S. Where did we ever bring these words if they follow'd this Rule for a proof that they hold the same c. Ib. C. You brought those words as an Introduction to your Proof which amounts to no more than your or