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
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
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 do it seems as to observe the Way but as long as they trot on any how all 's well enough I. S. Of the same batch is your not understanding and not keeping a Way As if they who interpret by their private Judgments did not keep the way of interpreting by private Judgments R. p. 29. C. As if the way or Rule to be interpreted and the way of interpreting were all one Or as if by keeping his own way of interpreting a man may not mif-interpret or wis-understand or go out of the right way I. S. Yet that very mis-understanding is their understanding it to be the Way and so they even in your opinion mis-understand not the Way however they mis-understand by it Ib. C. Here 's a Riddle indeed Might not all this confusion and blundring have been avoided might I have set your Proposition right at first But so you had lost your advantage of traveling in the dark lest your Errors should be too easily discovered They understand Scripture to be the Way yet cannot their misunderstanding of Scripture be their understanding it to be so unless mis-understanding and right understanding be all one And so in my opinion understanding Scripture to be the Way they may yet mis-understand it but not mis-understand by it I told you It follows no more that Scripture is not the Way because men that own it differ about matters contained in it than it follows that because we see men mis-interpret and break good Laws daily therefore those Laws are unintelligible or cannot be kept and must be thought insufficient to shew what the Lawgiver expects from them R. p. 16. I. S. What breaking and keeping Laws is brought in for you best know that bring them in R. p. 29. C. I brought them in to shew that a Rule may be intelligible and sufficient though some men mis-interpret or break it I. S. Our Discourse is only about knowing the Doctrine of Faith and not at all about living up to it and so hath nothing to do with those who know but will not keep the Laws Ib. C. Yet if the Rule of living be no less a true Rule for being mis-interpreted why must the Rule of Faith be for that no true Rule I. S. You end your Discourse very suitably to the rest with an instance directly against your self You see that Laws left to private interpretation are by all mankind judg'd insufficient and publick Interpreters therefore set up every-where and from the parity with them which are insufficient you conclude the Letter of Scripture is not insufficient Ib. C. The Laws are of themselves a sufficient Rule though liable to a mis-interpretation and so is Scripture What need there is of publick Interpreters of either who they are to be or how qualified is not now the Question nor shall you now engage me in it I. S. Any body but your self would have made another use of this Instance As God can write much plainer than men when he thinks fit and has more care of their salvation than they of their temporal concerns another man would have concluded that God did not intend their salvation should depend on the privately interpretable Letter of the Divine Law which he left less plain than men made the Letter of humane Lows Ib. C. Another man possibly with your self at his Elbow to prompt him might both suppose and conclude as misely and piously too as you do He might suppose first that humane Laws are plainer than the divine Laws which will not be granted him and thence infer that those being of temperal concernment only and these of eternal and God being more careful of our salvation than men of our temporal concerns and able to speak plainer than they 't is reasonable to think that God would give Laws less plain than theirs lest they should be too easily understood and men directed to salvation too plainly For my part I am too dull to learn this way of concluding and must be content with this of my own Because God loves us and hath the greatest care of our salvation and can speak plain he hath left us a plain and certain Rule And because I am sure and all Christians agree that God hath left us his Laws in Writing and no where else that I can find but in Scripture he hath written them so plainly that we may understand them and would have us take them for the certain Rule of Life I. S. We are now free to pass on to our Fourth Proposition Therefore Scripture's Letter interpretable by private Judgments is not the Way left by God to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught or surely to arrive at right Faith. Ib. C. This when it was proposed only to be proved you call'd your Conclusion and would not allow me to speak to it Now 't is your conclusion if there be any for of the Five Propositions whereof your Discourse as you say consisted this Fourth it should seem is now the last you call it only a Proposition and therefore I hope I have liberty to speak to it If then by Scripture's Letter you mean unsens'd Characters I confess it cannot be the Rule or Way to know Yet if you can allow as much to Scripture as you would have us allow to your Letter that it contains good sence in words significant and intelligible we deny your Proposition I. S. I wish some body would tell me for you whether you take Scripture's Letter in this period for unsenc'd or senc'd characters for truly I cannot tell my self R. p. 31. C. If you understand not English I cannot help it any body else might see I take it for senc'd characters I. S. By the terms you put intelligible and significant one would guess you mean unsenc'd characters For intelligible imports what may be understood but is not yet and significant what may be perceived by the sign whether it be or no. Ib. C. You have a mind I see we should know how excellent a Critick you are You have now taught me what I confess I knew not before that when a thing is understood it is no longer intelligible that is cannot be understood and that that is not significant which doth signifie but that is significant which may be signified whether it be perceived to be so or no. If it signifie we must not call it significant or signifying but if it be signified though it signifie nothing to us we must call it significant Who ever heard such stuff as this before from a Critick But I should remember you are of a Communion wherein such Language may be as proper as that other you mention p. 1.2 Worship in an Vnknown Tongue is no otherwise intelligible than as That which may be understood but is not yet And Transubstantiation hath left no sign to signifie but makes the thing signified to be the thing signifying too whether that which may be perceived by it be so or no. I. S. The sence of
the characters of Scripture is the sence of God and the sence of God is that which we are to believe And so Scripture-characters senced signifie Faith it self in conjunction with those characters Ib. C. What means these words in conjunction with those characters I. S. A character senc'd signifies a character with the sence joyn'd to it Ib. C. A character senc'd or unsenc'd are expressions we were never used to but in reading such Writings as yours You may therefore interpret your own Language as you please for me whether we can understand you or no. For my part I can understand no more-by a senc'd character but a character the signification whereof is intelligible So Scripture-characters signifie Faith it self taken for the things to be believed as is usual I. S. Faith is the end to which we are looking for a way to carry us To tell us then that Scripture's Letter taken for senced Characters is this Way is to tell us the End is the Way to it self that the means to get Faith is to have it first that when we know it we know it and such fine things Ib. C. Faith materially taken revealed in Scripture is there revealed that we may knew and believe it To beget Faith in us is the end of Faith's being there reveal'd And so we say truly that Faith signified in written characters is the way or means to beget Faith in us or that the means to get Faith is to seek it in the Scripture that when we discern it there we know what we are to believe These are plain things which you by your fine Arts would make obscure Pray now keep your fine things for Bart'lemew Fair. I. S. You are not a man to be discouraged with ill success You are at your distinctions again Ib. C. Much I fear against your will who seem to delight in confusion If again by these words interpretable by private Judgments you mean any way interpretable as any private man may possibly wrest the words to make them comply with his own Sentiments or through ignorance laziness and neglect of helps and means fit to be used may mis-understand them you must have as wide a Conscience and as little Modesty as the impudent and wicked Author of PAX VOBIS who has the face to fasten such a meaning on the sixth of our 39 Articles c. But if you mean that Scripture as it may be understood by a private man of a competent Judgment using such helps as are proper is not the Way we again deny your assumption or if you will your Fourth Proposition A. p. 13 14. I. S. I will by your good leave say in short Good and Bad Judgments R. p. 32. C. As you please Sir. I. S. I take you then to say that Scripture's Letter as interpretable by bad Judgments is not the way but as interpretable by good Judgments is the way Ib. C. You mistake me then for I say it is not the Way as any way interpretable or as it may be wrested either by good or bad Judgments I. S. By this account three parts in four of Mankind at a modest computation have no Way for so many bad Judgments there are at least Ib. C. Not very modest to conclude so hastily that three parts in four cannot understand with all the helps God affords them the Scripture in their own Language I. S. While we are inquiring which is the Way which God hath left pray what have we to do with the Judgments of men Can they make or unmake it Ib. C. Why are you then so busie with that wherewith you have nothing to do Why whether we will or no and when we forbid you to do it will you when you talk of the Way which God hath left meddle with private Judgments Are not those the Judgments of men Were you not in a Dreams and fancy'd that we said what no body but your self said I. S. Your distinction unluckily has no relation at all to the Question R. p. 33. C. Most unluckily indeed to you it has so near a relation to your Proposition that it shews now you have made it your conclusion that you conclude nothing to the Question I. S. You say that bad Judgments may mis understand the Letter of Scripture and that it is not the way to such which I think is to say that because they may misunderstand it therefore it is not the Way Ib. C. Where said I it is not the Way to such Beware of unconscionable falsifying and then be at what pains you will to tell us that you have read Bayes his Play and learn'd of him to talk like a Player Pag. 34. I. S. The Question is Whether Scripture's Letter interpretable by Private Judgments be the Way left by God. R. p. 35. C. Is it so Answer then your own Question while we are enquiring after the Way left by God what have we to do with Private Judgments I. S. I maintain it is not and prove it because men who take that way err Ib. C. What you maintain in opposition to us pray see it be opposite to our Doctrine As to your proof it needs another proof yet viz. That men who take the right way may not err from it I. S. I thought it needed no proving that the Way lest by God is not the Way to Error Ib. C. But this doth that men who take it may not err from it I. S. The Proposition is of the Letter Interpretable that is not yet interpreted or which has not the sence put to it and so is yet unsensed Ib. C. Then your Proposition is of sensless Characters that they are not the Rule of Faith which being granted you you oppose no body and so are left to dispute with your self I. S. When you distinguish the Letter Interpretable into sensed and unsensed you make a distinction whereof one branch is not comprehended in the Notion to be divided Ib. C. 'T is your own distinction indeed Sir and was never mine You know I told you A. p. 13. that we are unacquainted with such infignificant things as unsens'd Characters in Scripture how then should I distinguish the Letter into sensed and unsensed I only asked you which branch of your own senseless distinction you meant You now tell me you meant unsenseable characters and that the Letter Interpretable can be no other If so for my part I think 't is nothing for I cannot see how unsensed Characters are Interpretable at all I. S. Your second Distinction is of Judgments into competent and incompetent which is Twin to the former Ib. C. Are all competent then or all incompetent or are they neither I. S. I vouch'd for proof Presbyterians and Socinians men of very competent judgments who fall under none of your ill qualifications Ib. C. Then may they understand the Scripture in Points of Faith or if they may not they are of incompetent judgments You suppose them to err and yet to fall under none
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
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
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
hath been granted What we believe more I told you we prove from plain places of Scripture wherein it is contain'd and we we the more confirm'd in our Faith by the testimony and consent of the Primitive Church in the Creeds especially Will this proof satisfie Then we have sufficiently proved all the more we believe and could you thus prove all the more you believe your whole Faith should be ours too If it suffice not I would sain know why your Trent Council called the Nicene Creed That Principle wherein all that profess the Faith of Christ necessarily agree and the from and only foundation against which the gater of Hell shall not prevail What I pray was the First Question at the Conference I. S. Whether Protestants are absolutely certain that they hold now the same Tenets in Faith and all that our Saviour taught his Apostles L. p. 6. C. What we believe is 〈◊〉 in Scripture and what is contain'd in Scripture is that which Christ and his Apostles taught We hold them the same Tenets in Faith which Christ and his Apostles taught Is this enough I. S. Prove that you hold the same and all they taught C. If the same that is contain'd in Scripture be all they taught I have shew'd you how we prove we believe all If that same be not all then in bidding us prove we are certain of all you bid us prove we are certain of more than is contain'd in Scripture that is what you hold and what we believe not but deny I. S. You fancy I would have you say you are certain of all those points which you deny to be in Scripture and think them to be added by the Council of Trent C. I had said A. p. 11. we have certainty of all that is taught us in Scripture and we know of no more that Christ and his Apostles taught That Papists say there is more and that we are bound to believe it And hence I fancy that before you can oblige us to say we are certain of or to believe all this more it is your part to prove it Ridiculous Folly say you Why That a man should not be obliged to believe a thing till it be discover'd to him Sir I know very well you expect not we should prove to you such points as we deny and you hold But do not you think because we cannot prove them we ought therefore to confess we are not certain that we believe all that Christ and his Apostles taught Do you hold no more but what is contain'd in Scripture If no more shew us all your Trentine Faith there and we will believe it too But if more either you hold more than Christ and his Apostles taught or all they taught is not contain'd in Scripture If the former be true you will confess we are not bound to believe that more if the later you bid us prove what we deny and you hold and say we are certain of all this that is more than is contain'd in Scripture and what we believe not I. S. You talk indeed of Proof and that which you say of it is That you prove when you prove R. p. 19. C. I have told you how we prove the Scripture to be the Word of God. I. S. Which if one should put you to it you cannot R. Ib. C. Which when we would do you say it needs not nor ought you to allow it L. p. 22. We shew also how we prove every Article of our Faith by Scripture I. S. Common words which every Heretick may and does use Ib. C. But no common work which every Heretick may or can do Yet when we offer to do it you tell us 't is not time to do it yet I. S. You decline Dr. St.'s absolute certainty nor know of any way to prove more than a sufficient certainty R. p. 20. C. Dr. St.'s absolute certainty I guess to be no more than sufficient certainty and if so I decline it not when 't is my turn to prove What 's sufficient is certainly enough and your absolute certainty or infallibility I decline because it is too much I. S. This sufficient certainty of yours may be no certainty Ib. C. That 's absolutely impossible for no certainty is neither certainty nor sufficient I. S. There goes no more to make a thing sufficient than to make a man content with it Ib. C. Just so much more as will enable him to obtain the end for which he hath it I. S. A yard of Cloath will make a sufficient Garment for him who is content to go half naked Ib. C. Yes if he have a mind to catch cold and die I. S. A Table without Meat is a sufficient Meal for him that is contented to fast Ib. C. How a naked Table can be a Meal I know not however it is not always a sufficient Meal for a Fasting Papist though a Table without Wine may seem enough for a Feasting one You told me your absolute certainty and infallibility would come into play again ere long Now you play indeed and to tell you truly I am quite weary on 't The Second Dialogue I. S. I Will let you see in a short Discourse how far your Rule of Faith is from being absolutely certain L. p. 30. C. Far enough if you shew what you undertook to shew the Nullity of it I. S. My first Proposition is this God has left us some way to know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught R. p. 2. C. Your Proposition is granted what now infer you from it I. S. Therefore this way must be such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the end it was intended for that is know surely what Christ and his Apostles taught L. p. 30. C. If God have left us a way to know then by that way we may know I. S. You must needs be wording on 't your own way to shew that either you did not understand it or that you had a mind to inform us how neatly and dexterously you can change and pervert words as well as answer R. p. 21. C. Where have I changed or perverted your words I. S. Is shall know and may know all one R. p. 22. C. They are not the same word indeed and I now confess I did put may for shall not in your saying but my own And if I had done it wittingly to shew either my Ignorance or my Art little reason could you have to be angry with so courteous an Adversary who was willing to sacrifice the credit of his Vnderstanding or Sincerity as according to you I must have been to your service But to say truth I was not so kind neither over observed I the change I had made till you inform'd me I beg your pardon for this error and have more cause to thank you for minding me of it than it may be you thought of giving me Let it therefore be shall what mean you by it more than may I. S. Shall
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