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
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
will still be found in his two Letters do what we can Ib. C. There let it stand When you dispute with him agree on what terms you can but 't is not fair in a discourse with me who have nothing to do with the Conference or his Letters to make me say what you please and then bid me prove it I. S. Now we are thus far onward 't is pity to break for a single word Ib. C. The certainty then that we have of the holy Scripture which we acknowledge to be our Rule of Faith we manifest after the same manner as you do yours A. p 8. I. S. As we do our Rule or Scripture I know not which you mean. R. p. 14. C. Your certainty of the Scripture I mean. I. S. Do not you remember that Absolute certainty of Scripture is not the point to be proved though I told you so in the very page you cite Ib. C. I remember you told us so And I remember too that you told us p. 22. That to prove it in our way we would find it a hard task Therefore I thought fit to tell you only that our way of proof is the very same with yours and so no harder a task for us than you 'T was you undertook to shew the Nullity of our Rule of Faith which is Scripture I knew by that that the certainty of Scripture is not the point to be prov'd by me but the Nullity of it the point to be proved by you And you might have remember'd that I had said in the same place p. 8. That you yielded our certainty of Scripture and yet you again like a man well awake ask me if I do not remember what I have told you I do remember I. S. But pray how do you prove that which is the point Ib. C. That which is the point is to be proved by you who undertook in your Discourse to prove it I only told you again that it being granted us that Scripture is God's Word we think that we sufficiently prove the certainty of every Article of our Faith when we shew it to be solidly grounded on that Word A. p. 9. I. S. We are not so far yet it will be time to talk of this or that Article when this or that Article comes in question R.p. 15. C. I went not about to prove this or that Article but only told you how we thought they might be proved If it be neither the certainty of Scripture which is our Rule nor of the Articles which are our Faith what is it I pray you would have us prove when it comes to our turn to prove I. S. At present you are to shew that you have any means unless you take ours to ground any Article solidly on the Word of God. You are to shew your interpretation of it is absolutely certain and that God's Word means as you teach it does R.p. 15. C. The question at present is about the certainty of our Rule the Scripture which you undertook to prove null When you have proved it null it will be vain and idle to dispute about the means of understanding it and now that you have but undertaken it only 't is unseasonable to require of us to shew the certain means of understanding it before you have made good your undertaking I hope it may therefore now suffice to tell you That we both have and use all the means which God hath lest us for that purpose and they are the very same again that the men of your Church use not omitting Tradition which I suppose is it you call yours so far as it can be of any use to us Our Articles as I told you A.p. 9. are yours too contain'd in those very Creeds which you receive and all proved by your own Writers yea and Councils too to be solidly grounded on Scripture no otherwise than we prove them to be What more do you desire Two things more you would have us prove First That we are absolutely certain of all this And secondly Not only of this but of all that more which our Saviour taught his Apostles But we are not obliged to prove either of these Ap. 9. I. S. Dr. St. did affirm that you are absolutely certain of all this and of all this I demand proof Ib. C. What Dr. St. affirm'd is nothing to me till I know in what sence he affirm'd it which I am to learn when it concerns me of himself and not of you I therefore abstain from the word absolutely because you take it to be the same with infallibly Whatever proof therefore you may demand of him for it you ought not to demand any of me I. S. All mankind made absolutely certain and infallible all one before I was born And yet you would perswade us I break the Laws of Disputation by understanding that word us every body does R. p. 16. C. How every body understood words before you were born I pretend not to know nor say I you break the Laws of Disputation by so understanding the word but by imposing on me a proof of what I affirm'd not I. S. I would be glad to know how your self take it who to be sure take it right Ib. C. I never used it and therefore am not concern'd to tell you how I take it But if any Protestant affirm himself absolutely certain I must think how improperly soever he may speak that he means not he is infallible but as certain as a man can or needs to be and without all just cause of doubting I. S. With all then that a man can get here he may be deceived R. p. 17. C. 'T is possible he may but there is no cause to imagine he is 't is honester dealing to perswade men to rest satisfied with that measure of certainty their condition admits than to tempt them as you know who did to think they shall be as Gods infallible I. S. The second part of your charge is purely your own Invention and as pleasant an Invention as ever roving Fancy suggested R. p. 17. C. 'T is spoken so like your self Sir that I cannot be angry I. S. You faucy I would have you say you are certain of those points which you deny to be in Scripture and think them to be added by the Council of Trent and which therefore you believe not And these points you understand by the were of which I demanded proof Ridiculous Folly to pretend we expected Protestants should prove to us such points as they denied and our selves held c. Ib. C. Good still You will not give me leave to laugh and I cannot get leave of my self to be angry Pray tell me once again What is it you expect we should prove I. S. Your absolute certainty of the more which you believe besides this that Scripture is Scripture Ib. C. That Scripture is Scripture is as self-evident as that a Rule is a Rule That it is the Word of God may be proved and it
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 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
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
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend c. Jan. 18. 1687. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc Cant. à Sacr. Domest Note L. Signifies The First Letter A. The Letter to a Friend or Answer R. The Reply or Second Catholick Letter THE Reflecter's Defence OF HIS LETTER to a FRIEND AGAINST The Furious Assaults of Mr I. S. In his Second Catholic Letter IN Four DIALOGVES LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street MDCLXXXVIII A DIALOGUE BETWEEN I. S. a Roman-Catholick AND C. a Catholick CHRISTIAN C. WHatever Honour it may be to me it was I am sure a very wonderful Condescension in you Sir to stoop so low with all your Glory of Self-Evidence Absolute Certainly and Infallibility as to address a Catholick Better to one unto whom you allow no more at best than honest Ignorance and hardly so much when you are a little our of humor as common Sence or to understand English How civilly you have therein Treated me how justly you have Accused or how fully Confuted me is not a thing that deserves the notice of many The things we talk of are too weighty to rely on either mine or your Wit Breeding Reputation or Skill I am not therefore careful either to Vindicate or Recriminate or yet to learn of your Right Catholick Letter how to answer it as it deserves I shall only with your good leave lay the matter open in a plain Dialogue and leave it to every moderate Judgment in your own words to see by the very Methods we take which side desires and sincerely endeavours that Truth may appear There is only one little Mistake of yours running almost quite through your obliging Letter which it concerns me here to give notice of because it reflects on the Honour of a Person whose Books I confess my self unworthy to carry after him Know then Sir beseech you that you honour me too much in calling me Dr. St.'s Defender and my Letter a Defence of his I never had the happiness either by Face to be known by him or in Word or Writing to converse with him Neither had I his Letter by me or knew much more of it when I writ mine than what I read in yours which I thought not my self obliged to account all Oracle The Reputation therefore of that Great Man is no way concerned in my Failings as you would fain have it but whatever they are I alone am to answer for them This I now tell you because of your I will not say after you affected Inadvertence who might have seen in the Title-page of my Letter that I intended only to Reflect on some Passages 〈◊〉 you first and also in the beginning of it what they were all regard to the Conference it self being laid aside And this I take to be Answer enough to a great part of your Catholick Epistle I. S. Your Answer affords no work for a Replier but the most ungrateful one in the world to be perpetually telling men of their Faults without the least hopes of doing them good or contributing to their amendment R. Pref. C. Whether then your Charity in judging us incorrigible or your Wisdom in writing so long a Letter to no purpose or your Delight in troubling the World with Impertinences be the greatest I will not now inquire but rather by a sincere promise of Amendment endeavour to put you in better hopes and a more charitable opinion I. S. Be pleased to leave off your affected Insincerities otherwise I must be forced to expose them yet farther R. pag. 80. C. Be pleased first to exercise more your Charity in discovering them to my self or I shall a little suspect your Justice in exposing them to others I. S. Your constant use is to pick out a few words scattered here and there which you thought you might most commodiously pervert Ib. C. If I pick'd up nothing but what you had scatter'd and answer'd all I pick'd up I did all that I undertook to do You must not perswade me that I may not answer some periods of a Discourse without binding my self thereby to answer the whole though you would make the World believe that all my answering is only perverting I. S. I have now traced you punctually step by step wherefore I have reason to expect the same exact measure from you Ib. C. How reasonable a task this is I will not dispute though I know not why your being at more pains than needed as you certainly were if the Answer afforded no more work for a Replier must bind me to be so too But seeing you have made this my task I 'll endeavour to obey you only excuse me when you step into the Dirt if I follow you not lest I come to need more Holy-water than by your Letter I guess you can well spare However the way is tedious and as you have made it rugged enough 't is time to set forth I. S. Perhaps it has scarce been seen hitherto that all our Polemical Contests were reduced within so narrow a compass R. Pref. C. I like not Perhaps I had rather you had said Absolutely or Certainly Then should I have hoped seeing they narrow so fast they would soon have come to nothings Some of you told us many years ago when the chief Question was Which is the only true Church That this was the shortest Compendium of our Controversies If you have now found a shorter than the shortest why stand we thus at a distance Let 's throw away our Weapons and embrace I. S. My first Letter insisted chiefly on two short Discourses whereof the one undertook to shew the Nullity of the Rule of Faith claim'd by Dr. St. and his Protestants the other the Absolute Certainty of the Catholic Rule R. Ib. C. I hope it will be thought but an honest Ignorance if I be not able to distinguish Dr. St.'s Protestants from the Catholick Christians of the Church of England whose Rule of Faith is the Holy Scripture Remember now what your two Discourses undertook to shew and when that is shown indeed and I wish you be not in too good earnest to shew it wonderful things as you speak will follow and you will be sure of many Converts yea I dare say even of Dr. St. and all his Protestants In the mean time what a neat way of reducing Controversies to a narrower compass is this whereby the Disputants have not left them any common Rule whereby it may be determined who is in the right I. S. The whole Controversie was in short about the Certainty or Vncertainty of Christian Faith. Ib. C. These words would make one think you are Narrowing our Contests into a wider compass yet as if the Dispute had been betwixt Believers and Infidels and then which Party you would have the Infidel denying the Certainty of Christian Faith would not be hard to find It 's a little
My meaning was this clearly enough to him that would not wrangle You imagine we have no certainty at all and that we think our selves well enough as long as you cannot prove we have none I. S. Well but did I say true or no C. In that which you say you meant you say true I. S. Because I said then our not proving the contrary is no certainty to Protestants you will have me imagine it is their certainty nay all their certainty R. p. 9. C. Not that it is our certainty so as we are therefore certain yet all our certainty for you imagine we have no other And now 't is my turn to ask Do I say true or no If true why say you I wrong you If no you grant we have some other certainty though you undertook to shew we have none I. S. You know well enough that to prove Protestants have no Absolute certainty of their Faith is no hard task for a weak man. L. p. 6. C. I meddle not yet with the word Absolute But ask how know we this A. p. 6. I. S. You know any man may find it confess'd to his hand by Protestants L. Ib. C. Who I pray are those Protestants I. S. Dr. Tillotson in his Rule of Faith p. 117 118. Ib. C. Dr. Tillotson is but one Protestant yet I am content he should pass for many But his Confession that Protestants have no certainty I find not A. 6 7. I. S. No Absolute certainty if it please you R. p. 10. C. It pleases me not and I 'll tell you why anon I. S. If you do not understand English I cannot help it but any one that does may find it p. 118. Ib. C. He saith there that we are not infallibly certain c. but yet have such an Assurance as there is not any just cause of the least doubt Not a word find I of Absolute certainty I. S. You would perswade us you see it not Ib. C. Nor you neither if you may be believed against your self for you tell us We seem to grant we are thus absolutely certain or infallible by virtue of Tradition A. p. 7. If we seem to you to grant we are absolutely certain how can you see our Confession that we are not so I. S. As if it were so strange a thing for Protestants to contradict one another Ib. C. No very strange thing I confess no not for Papists even Popes and Councils Though it may seem strange to some that Pretenders to Infallibility should do so I. S. Dr. St. did say at the Conference They are absolutely certain And Dr. Tillotson did say we are not infallibly certain C. It may be so I see not the Contradiction yet I. S. If one of those Writers do not seem to grant that they are absolutely certain or infallible and the other confess they have no absolute certainty English is no intelligible Language in England R. p. 10 11. C. Well suppose we at present for your sake that these two Reverend Persons did contradict each other will this prove that Protestants have no certainty of their Faith Remember that you are speaking of such a Confession of Protestants as may make it no hard task for a weak man to prove that they have no absolute certainty of their Faith. Do you think the Confession of one single Protestant enough for this Allow us but this way of proof and see if it be not as easie for us as weak men as we are to prove the uncertainty of all your new Trentan Creed yea and of Tradition too Again if the Confession of one Doctor be proof enough for Protestant Vncertainty tell me with all your Learning why the Confession of one Doctor should not be as good a proof for Protestant Certainty Your Weights and Scales you so much talk of would do well here to shew which Doctor 's Authority weighs most and whether your proof weigh any thing at all You have undertaken to shew the Nullity of the Protestant Rule and thus you prove it one Protestant confessed they had no absolute certainty another said they had therefore Protestants have no certain Rule of Faith or no certainty of Faith. 'T is easie indeed for any weak man to prove at this rate that is so as becomes a very weak man indeed Once more I must mind you of your Position For if all Truths be proved by intrinsical grounds and depend not on private mens saying this or that then the uncertainty of Protestant Faith cannot be proved no not by I. S. himself from the saying of either Doctor especially if the one contradict what the other saith as you suppose but have not yet proved Are not infallibly certain and absolutely certain contradictory terms I. S. I proved formerly that absolutely certain and infallible are all one and it will come into play again are long R. p. 11. C. It 's well if your proof be not all Play When I see it I 'll tell you what I think of it I. S. However I only said They seem'd to grant c. For the Tenet of Faiths certainty I may speak what I think is hearty in them its absolute certainty is but seeming Ib. C. Speak what you think By all means Sir. How else should we know you are made a competent Judge of Hearts or your great charity in judging us Hypocrites saying what we think not or that when you charge men with a contradiction you mean only a seeming contrudiction whilst your self think they mean the same thing or lastly the strength of the weak man's proof proving that Protestants have no certainty because he thinks the Tenet of Faiths uncertainty is hearty in them I. S. It is plain that where Churches differ in Faith infallible Faith in one cannot stand with certain Faith in the other L. p. 8. C. Whence you may do well to take notice that when our Certainty is once proved no more is needful to confute your Infallibility A. p. 8. I. S. Absolute certainty I pray you again for Dr. St.'s sake R. p. 13. C. Certainty is enough Sir for that 's it in our Church which you say Infallibility in yours cannot stand with And you say true though you leave out Absolute I. S. It bodes ill that you would have the word absolutely left out it would make a jealous man suspect you had a design to palm a certainty upon us which will prove no certainty R. p. 13. C. Ill to you it may be in that you cannot so confidently hereafter call on us for a proof of what we hold not but fear not our design your Infallibility will secure you from so palpable a Cheat. I. S. I for my part cannot consent to leave out that word because it is not fair to alter a word of Dr. St.'s nor possible though it were fair For you and I cannot make him not to have said what he hath said and though we should agree to suppress that word amongst our selves it
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
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