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
your Church's saying she did follow it And what say you more I pray Yes say you she could not innovate Why could she not If she could she must either forget or through malice alter it Why not so or some other way alter the Faith You say you need not prove that men had always Memories c. What 's all this but to say your Church has men of good Memories and little Malice And so if we believe you still there 's an end on 't The Fourth Dialogue I. S. YOU Protestants give us only a general Latitudinarian Rule common to all the Heresies in the World. L. p. 25. C. Scripture is our Rule and it is and ought to be the common Rule to All even to Hereticks though they miserably abuse it and though I could tell you too of Hereticks that trusted more to your Rule than to ours A p. 27. I. S. Pray Sir use my words I said a common Rule to them and you R. p. 71. C. Your words were no more but common to all the Heresies in the World. Indeed for Heresies I said Hereticks because though Scripture ought to be a Rule to Heretioks whereby they may correct their Errors yet sounds it ill to say as you do that it is a Rule to all the Heresies or Errors in the World. But let it be as you will have it common to Hereticks and Vs I begin to hope by this that you count Vs no Hereticks I. S. Can that be truly a Rule which they direct themselves by and yet warp into Error Ib. C. It may be truly a Rule yea and the only true Rule of Faith though they who pretend to direct themselves by it err And they warp into Error whilst pretending to be directed by it they direct themselves too much and are not directed by it alone I. S. The Socinians will say the same of you Ib. C. I can easily believe they may But truth depends not on this or that man's saying this or that I. S. How then shall this Quarrel be decided Ib. C. If no way now yet by Him who gave the Rule and will at last judge us according to it In the mean time the Church has done what it could to decide it and hath given it for us I. S. How can an indifferent man seeking for Faith by your Rule be satisfied they abuse it more than you Ib. C. By impartially considering the Rule and comparing the Doctrines with it I. S. 'T is manifest you disagree in the sense of Scripture R. p. 70. C. Suppose we do I. S. What 's the Way to arrive at the sense of it Ib. C. Humble and diligent attendance to it in the use of all good helps we can I. S. Certainly the interpreting it Ib. C. Interpreting is the searching for and conjecturing at the sonse of it by those helps I. S. Interpretation is Giving or Assigning to Words their sense R. p. 71. C. Words had their signification given them in their first invention and admit of alterations by use and custom No Interpreter gives the Words their sense but searcheth to find it out and declareth what he finds I. S. Do not you accept that sense of Scripture which your private Judgment conceives to be truly the meaning and they in like manner as they apprehend it ought to be interpreted Ib. C. What they do I know not We having consider'd well of all things which we know of to be consider'd must needs accept of the meaning which we judge to be true And truly whatever a man may be said to accept I think no man can believe what himself judgeth not to be true I. S. Is it not some clearer Light in you must justifie you for judging them to be miserable Abusers of Scripture Ib. C. We usurp not to our selves a Pretorian power of judging others and therefore need nothing to justifie us for doing what we do not That we say is this that Hereticks whoever are so going about to support their Errors by the Scripture do abuse it All the Judgment we challenge touching Hereticks in particular is no more but a Judgment of Discretion to discern for our selves by the best means we can use whose Doctrine is true whose false that we may know which to chuse and which to avoid This we must do by the best Light that God hath given us and by the same Light whereby we think our own Doctrine true we must needs think theirs false and as long as we do so shun it Which of us judgeth truly we leave to the Judgment of God. I. S. Your own Interpretation of it is beyond all Evasion that which differences you from them and so 't is your peculiar or specifick Rule of Faith. R. p. 72. C. It differences us from them but not our Rule of Faith from theirs if theirs be Scripture neither is it our Rule of Faith at all but our Act about it I. S. Do they who abuse it do it out of Wilfulness Ib. C. I prefume not to know I. S. Do they use their endeavoar to understand it Ib. C. Neither know I that I. S. The fault consists in pitching upon that for their Rule which is indeed no Rule at all R. p. 73. C. That follows not a thousand things may occasion a misinterpretation of the true Rule by some thô neither you nor I can certainly say this or that was it I. S. Your Rule miraculously makes Light and Darkness consistent Christ and Belial very good friends L p. 25. C. God give you repentance of this Blasphemy A. p. 28. I. S. Your Rule equally patronizing true Faith and Heresie I had reason to affirm that it inferred those blasphemous Propositions Ib. C. If you will thus add Blasphemy to Blasphemy I cannot help it Doth the Scripture indeed patronize Truth and Heresie or can it do both This alone you know is our Rule I. S. This being my Charge it was manifestly your Duty to shew it does not and that only true Faith can be grounded on Scripture privately interpreted Ib. C. You charge desperately and it concerns you to make good your charge or to retreat betimes Scripture is the Word of God on which no Error can be grounded howsoever it be interpreted If men will make their own Interpretation the ground Error enough may indeed be built on that but none on Scripture This is as your self say the Generical Rule we give And this you say again is common to all Heresies that is patroniteth true Faith and Heresie reconcileth Christ and Belial I wish you may well discharge your self of all this It concerns you not a little I. S. I only mention the Blasphemy while I am charging you with it R. p. 74. C. That shuffling will not serve your turn when you are charged with blasphemous words first to acknowledge them to be blasphemous next to say you were charging us with the blasphemy who never utter'd any thing like it neither gave you the least occasion
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
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
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