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
have neither told me what you mean by intrinsical Mediums only you seem to hint that they are Reasons why a thing is to be believed and so are extrinsical Mediums to neither have you said a word that I know of to shew how all Truth is built upon them I. S. You see also that whereas you apprehended they would overthrow our Church's Testimony or Authority such Mediums in case we produce them are the best means to establish it and give it force upon our selves and others Ib. C. This also I see just as much as I did before You suppose I apprehended why you know best for I am half confident you never apprehended I did so that the intrinfical Reasons of your Church's Authority when produced would overthrow it To whose roving Fancy owe we this pure and fine Invention Sir That which I apprehended was this That seeing all Truths depend on intrinfical grounds as you say and cannot be held Truths till those intrinsical grounds of them be produced Therefore they are not to be held Truths for the Authority of your Church because that Authority whatever it be and on what intrinsical grounds soever establish'd is no intrinsical ground of those Truths to be believed And have you yet said one word to contradict this Not a syllable but talk at random of another thing I. S. You also see how it comes that the Church can oblige to belief not by a dry commanding our Faith as you apprehend but by having its humane Authority solidly grounded upon Reason it self becomes a Motive able to beget assent Ib. C. Now Sir I thank you you have set me right just as I was before What I saw you have made me see and what I saw not I see not yet Such is the illuminating vertue of your compassionate Instructions I ask not you whether this great pains to tell me what I knew and had told you so was the business of a man well awake Yet lest you should say I was not attentive I will repeat to you the Lesson you have taught me Your Church's Authority is Humane Authority it has force to prove the Truths which depend upon it it has this force amongst those that admit it and it concludes against such as own its Veracity it deserves no Assent farther than Reason gives it to deserve nor is it greater than that of an Old Woman till better Reason be produced for it Hence I conclude Seeing we admit not your Church's Authority neither own its Veracity it proves nothing to us nor concludes any thing against us Seeing Articles of Faith depend not on Humane Authority your Church's Authority can have no effect on humane Nature to oblige to a belief of them Seeing all its Credit depends on its intrinsical Reasons produced till they be produced we are not bound to give any credit to it When these Reasons shall be produced its Testimony has but the nature of an external Motive not of an intrinsical Ground And therefore either your Position overthrows your Church's Authority or it your Position chuse you which I. S. What is the Second thing you fear I will not grant C. If your Position be true it will follow That the common People must be allow'd their Judgment of Discretion for how without the free use of that they shall discern the intrinsical grounds of Truth when produced and so with Reason hold it I fear you cannot easily demonstrate Will you grant us this I. S. You gave your self the Character of a Scrupulous man and I see by this you have a mind to maintain it R. p. 7. C. And if you will grant it you will gain the Character of a man much more liberal than your Neighbours If you grant it 't is I doubt but in mockery because you so often laugh at us for desiring it I. S. You know that those who write and print can have no design their Books should not be read and you know those that read will and must judge of what they do read R. p. 7. C. Yet if their Books contain nothing else but unsensed Characters which is the thing you say of the Scripture and he that reads or interprets gives the sense I see not to what end they would have their Books read and therefore neither why they write them nor indeed how any one can judge of them unless they would have them judg only of the fineness of the Characters Pray Sir let me ask you Can you think God writes to less purpose than men are wont to do If he have caused a Book to be written and that to all was it not his Will that his Book should also be read of all to whom it was written or did he not intend they should judge of what they read therein and examine Doctrines by it Do you now grant us this Judgment of Discretion as exercised about Divine Truths revealed in the Scripture If you do I thank you for it If not to what purpose is your talk of reading mens Books or their writing them that we may judge I. S. Indeed I think it no great sign of a Judgment of Discretion to pretend to discern the Truth of Faith by Lights that do not shew it to be true Ib. C. Nor I neither I. S. You conclude that I have set us all on even ground Yes for I set Absolute Certainty on the one side and Vncertainty on the other and this in your Language is even ground R. p. 8. C. What I conclude is thus proved The Church of Rome is to be believed only when she produceth the intrinsical grounds of Truth and just so far is the Church of England or any other Church to be believed and so all are of equal Authority to oblige in points of Faith. This in my Language is even ground for the one stands no higher in Authority than the other Now say what you please of your Certainty and Vncertainty to gain the higher ground again I. S. Suppose we could not prove that Protestants are not certain are they therefore certain L. p. 4. C. You imagine it should seem that all the certainty of our Faith is this that Papists cannot prove it to be uncertain A. p. 6. I. S. The meaning of my words is clearly this That the certainty of the Protestant Faith must depend on their own proofs for it not on any man's being able or not able to prove the contrary R. p. 8. C. You meant so you say and the thing is true I. S. To avoid proving you put upon me the direct contrary to what I affirm'd viz. That the certainty of Protestant Faith does depend upon our not proving they have none C. I put no such thing upon you nor needed I do it to avoid proving which I had never undertaken but only to reflect on some parts of your Letter who had undertaken to prove the Nullity of our Rule Allow me then to give my own meaning as you take the liberty to give yours
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
true I. S. The truth is a Grammar Rule is not a Rule till it be understood Ib. C. Then no School-boy can misunderstand his Rule and every School boy makes his Grammar by learning it I. S. He that understands not what 't is for Nominative Cases and Verbs to agree has no Rule to make them agree Ib. C. Not in his understanding but surely in his Grammar he hath or he goes to School in vain to learn it I. S. You will make the Letter of Scripture first understood to be the Rule of understanding it Ib. C. We make the Letter of Scripture having plain Sence and intelligible the Rule of our Vnderstanding it and being understood the Rule of our Belief But when you say a Rule is no Rule 'till it be understood do not you make Tradition first understood the Rule of Vnderstanding it If not by what other Rule do you understand it I. S. You Question on Must a Way be a wrong Way because some that take it will not keep it Riddle my Riddle again R. p. 26. C. More Riddles still Well let 's have ' em I. S. Pray who are or can be those some who take it and will not keep it Ib. C. The very same who as you have told me at one time follow it and at another leave it I. S. As long as they take it they keep it I think Ib. C. And when they leave it they keep it not I am sure I. S. He who has no will to keep it may when he pleases go out of it but then he does no longer take it and is none of the some of whom the Question speaks Ib. C. So may he that has no care to keep it go out of it when he considers it not Yet are they both the same of whom the Question was if it was not impertinent who first took it and after went out of it and then kept it not You ask Who can do this You answer Whoever will may do it I. S. He that takes the Way shall certainly arrive at his Journey 's end let him will what he pleases and the way must needs be a wrong way if he do not Ib. C. Yea Thô he will go out of it And is the way a wrong way when he goes out of it Doth a man's taking or leaving a Way make it right or wrong This I imagine is it you would have The way is Right that you take and Wrong that you leave and so we need not ask for the Right way but which Way you go and that to be sure is right I. S. You imagine we are talking of one who only takes the Way at first and after leaves it Ib. C. If you talk of one that takes it and cannot leave it you talk of no body that I know and so may talk on for me I. S. The Argument proceeds of such as make the way their choice and persist to follow no other to their lives end Ib. C. It proceeds of those whom you suppose to err in Faith and if it be true which you suppose thô they may pretend to chuse the Scripture for their Rule they do not indeed follow it In short till it be proved that God hath left such a Way or Rule as no man can possibly err out of it mistake it or abuse it and that it is not enough that he hath left us such a Way or Rule as men may understand and observe if they be not wanting to themselves it will not follow that the Scripture's Letter as we own it is not the Way thô not only Presbyterians and Socinians but the greater number of Mankind should own it and yet differ about Fundamental Points contained in it A. p. 15 16. I. S. As many as leave the Catholick Church leave the Way left by God and you like a right pleasant man would have it prov'd that the thing cannot possibly be done which we see is done by Millions and would have us who say they all do err and mistake to prove they cannot R. p. 27. C. I say nothing now of the Catholick Church but asle if it be not as pleasant in you to suppose me to bid you prove it because I say till it be proved which I grant it can never be your Argument's naught I. S. Will it not follow that the Way by which a man that goes in it comes to Error is not the Way to Truth R. p. 28. C. If the Way lead him into Error it is not the Way to Truth I. S. Since Presbyterians and Socinians both Interpret Scripture by their own Judgments and one side knows not the Doctrine of Christ it follows unavoidably that the Way of Private Interpretation is no sure Way to know it R. Ib. C. Scripture we affirm to be the Rule you will prove Scripture's Letter Interpretable c. is not the Rule and at last conclude Private Interpretation is not the Rule What 's all this to us You have thus Hackney'd out a pair of Metaphors Way and Rule to course it on all four which no Metaphor can do so long after your nimble Fancy till you have quite jaded them and then you would turn them up to us for Riddles No Sir take them as you have used them and let them rest at Private Interpretation for Scripture has no longer any room for them so used I. S. What do you talk of erring or mistaking the Way 'T is true these erring men mistake the true Way but they mistake not the Way which you call the true Way Ib. C. If they err as you suppose they mistake what we call the true Way the Scripture I. S. They 〈◊〉 by their Private Judgment and so take not mistake use not abuse it Ib. C. Private-Interpretation you must mean by It. for that is it which you would make us call the true Way though it be not Scripture is the true Way and their private interpretation is their abuse of it I. S. Sure you mean they mistake the Doctrine of Christ and so by mistaking the Way you wisely understand mistaking the Eud. Ib. C. The Doctrine of Christ in the Scripture is the Way to a right Faith and by mistaking that Way they err in Faith. I. S. To what purpose do you tell us that men may understand and observe as if observing concern'd our question of knowing if they be not wanting to themselves Ib. C. A rare kind of knowledge it is that comes without observing Should we not observe what you say we should answer you as you defire without knowing your craft It is sure to some purpose to tell of understanding a Rule and observing or keeping so I meant a way I. S. They who take a right way not only may but must and cannot possibly fail of coming whither it leads Men have no more to do with a way but to travel in it and so cannot be wanting to themselves in that respect if they do Ib. C. Men have not so much
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
now the care of their Faith made them hold their Principles now you say they are less careful of their Faith than of their Principles Thus have we Circle after Circle Why would they hold their Rule or Principle Because they were render of their Faith. Why were they so tender of their Faith Because they were more tender of their Rule or Principle I ask not how men may be properly called Tenacious to relinquish but pick the best sense I can out of your pure non-sense I. S. Tradition is the Authority of the whole Ecclesia docens which could never permit it self to be thought to have attested a lye hitherto Ib. C. If Tradition be the Authority of the Church then as you said of that Authority it is of no more credit than a story told by an old woman till better reasons be given for it nor hath it this effect upon Humane Nature by its own proper Power to prove Truth But why may not the whole Ecclesia docens supposing it the Church of Rome attest to a lye I. S. It could never permit it self were there nothing but its own interest to be thought to do it Ib. C. You say well not to be thought to do it for that would spoil all Thô I know not how it can be hinder'd but some will think so It might be its Interest to advance it self and for that to pretend a false Tradition and to forge evidences to fasten a lye on former Ages I. S. None could be competent Judges what was fit to be a Rule of Faith but they who were so concern'd both in Duty and Interest Tradition should not be set aside Ib. C. Then if Interest prevail'd above Duty a false Tradition might be pretended and the World must receive it on their credit because they alone are to be accounted competent Judges I. S. There must be some great time betwixt their discarding Tradition and espousing a New Rule during which time we must imagine the whole Church except perhaps some few that discover'd it first would be made up of Seekers some hovering one way some another in which case they would as yet have no Faith and consequently there could be no Church R. p. 57 58. C. No Sir a pretence to Tradition as the only Rule might still be kept afoot and yet changes made in Points of Faith whil'st they who publickly oppos'd or privately disown'd them adhering only to the true Apostolical Tradition were the true Church I. S. If they could innovate in Faith they must pretend to Tradition still when they had evidently deserted it that is They must profess to hold the Testerday's Faith when all the World must see and every one 's own heart must tell him the contrary Which is the highest impossibility Ib. C. They might pretend to Tradition when evidently to others they had deserted it in many things and some of them not impossibly when their own hearts told them so I. S. 'T is impossible any Temptations should move all men to fall into this one sin of altering the Faith. Ib. C. How impossible I know not but I think it neither ever did or shall come to pass I. S. Summing up my Discourse Sect. 45. 't is manifest you have no way to answer our Argument but by supposing there was a time in which there were no considerable Body of Men in the World either good Christians honest Men or valuing their credit but only a company of Brutish Godless Lying Russians without the least degree of Grace or Shame in them R. p. 60. C. It is then unanswerable by me for I cannot suppose this Thô I am not convinced that Men cannot innovate in Faith till it be shewn not only that they have memory enough to remember Testerday's teaching but that they made a right use of their Memory to that purpose and farther that they had so little wickedness as not only not wittingly to damn themselves and their posterity but as not to neglect any care that should be taken for their salvation and many things more not yet shewn For what if all Sons did not understand aright all that Fathers had taught them I. S. If all did not most of the intelligent Pasters would and could easily instruct them it being both so obligatory and so easie Ib. C. Obligatory indeed yet not so easie so to instruct them as to convince them as you I doubt not find it in those whom you suppose in error Suppose again some Sons were so negligent as to take no care either to remember or teach what they had been taught by their Fathers I. S. Then the diligent would reprehend them and see things amended and those careless Persons especially if Pastors reduced to their Duty there being Orders on foot in the World to oblige them to it R. p. 61. C. How came it to pass then that all Hereticks were not long ago suppressed I. S. 'T is an unheard of Negligence not to know or remember Yesterday's Faith. R. p. 61. C. But 't is a very possible thing either not to heed what is taught to day and so to be ignorant of it to morrow or not to remember to morrow every thing that is taught to day or being taught to day to think of it no more to morrow nor many days after and to forget something of it at last But what if some through Ambition Vain-glory and Popularity set abroach New Doctrines and taught them for Apostolical Tradition I. S. Good men would set themselves to oppose them make known their Pretences and lay open their Novelties Ib. C. I doubt it not but not always so effectually as the Errors should not have many followers What if others to save themselves from Persecution conceal'd part and corrupted more of the Doctrine of Christ by their own Traditions I. S. Others would oppose their unchristian proceedings reveal what they had conceal'd restore what they had corrupted and manifest that Doctrine they subintroduced had not descended by the chanel of the Christian Church's Tradition Ib. C. Yet here 's Tradition pretended against Tradition and many it may be carried away with the Pretence and a great number as you have said attesting the attestation is to be thought sufficient and then a greater number can add nothing to it Let others then oppose and manifest what they can all possibly will not be convinced What if others through a blind zeal ignorant devotion superstitious rigour and vain credulity added many things to the Doctrine of Christ which by degrees grew into more general esteem till at last they were own'd and imposed as necessary to be believ'd and practiced I. S. If they belong'd to Faith they could not come in while the Rule of Tradition was adher'd to as has been prov'd and granted R. p. 62. C. True not whilst Apostolical Tradition wholly and solely was adher'd to by All whether they belong'd to Faith or no. I. S. Perhaps some Points involv'd in the main Body of Faith
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