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
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
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
true I. S. The truth is a Grammar Rule is not a Rule till it be understood Ib. C. Then no School-boy can misunderstand his Rule and every School boy makes his Grammar by learning it I. S. He that understands not what 't is for Nominative Cases and Verbs to agree has no Rule to make them agree Ib. C. Not in his understanding but surely in his Grammar he hath or he goes to School in vain to learn it I. S. You will make the Letter of Scripture first understood to be the Rule of understanding it Ib. C. We make the Letter of Scripture having plain Sence and intelligible the Rule of our Vnderstanding it and being understood the Rule of our Belief But when you say a Rule is no Rule 'till it be understood do not you make Tradition first understood the Rule of Vnderstanding it If not by what other Rule do you understand it I. S. You Question on Must a Way be a wrong Way because some that take it will not keep it Riddle my Riddle again R. p. 26. C. More Riddles still Well let 's have ' em I. S. Pray who are or can be those some who take it and will not keep it Ib. C. The very same who as you have told me at one time follow it and at another leave it I. S. As long as they take it they keep it I think Ib. C. And when they leave it they keep it not I am sure I. S. He who has no will to keep it may when he pleases go out of it but then he does no longer take it and is none of the some of whom the Question speaks Ib. C. So may he that has no care to keep it go out of it when he considers it not Yet are they both the same of whom the Question was if it was not impertinent who first took it and after went out of it and then kept it not You ask Who can do this You answer Whoever will may do it I. S. He that takes the Way shall certainly arrive at his Journey 's end let him will what he pleases and the way must needs be a wrong way if he do not Ib. C. Yea Thô he will go out of it And is the way a wrong way when he goes out of it Doth a man's taking or leaving a Way make it right or wrong This I imagine is it you would have The way is Right that you take and Wrong that you leave and so we need not ask for the Right way but which Way you go and that to be sure is right I. S. You imagine we are talking of one who only takes the Way at first and after leaves it Ib. C. If you talk of one that takes it and cannot leave it you talk of no body that I know and so may talk on for me I. S. The Argument proceeds of such as make the way their choice and persist to follow no other to their lives end Ib. C. It proceeds of those whom you suppose to err in Faith and if it be true which you suppose thô they may pretend to chuse the Scripture for their Rule they do not indeed follow it In short till it be proved that God hath left such a Way or Rule as no man can possibly err out of it mistake it or abuse it and that it is not enough that he hath left us such a Way or Rule as men may understand and observe if they be not wanting to themselves it will not follow that the Scripture's Letter as we own it is not the Way thô not only Presbyterians and Socinians but the greater number of Mankind should own it and yet differ about Fundamental Points contained in it A. p. 15 16. I. S. As many as leave the Catholick Church leave the Way left by God and you like a right pleasant man would have it prov'd that the thing cannot possibly be done which we see is done by Millions and would have us who say they all do err and mistake to prove they cannot R. p. 27. C. I say nothing now of the Catholick Church but asle if it be not as pleasant in you to suppose me to bid you prove it because I say till it be proved which I grant it can never be your Argument's naught I. S. Will it not follow that the Way by which a man that goes in it comes to Error is not the Way to Truth R. p. 28. C. If the Way lead him into Error it is not the Way to Truth I. S. Since Presbyterians and Socinians both Interpret Scripture by their own Judgments and one side knows not the Doctrine of Christ it follows unavoidably that the Way of Private Interpretation is no sure Way to know it R. Ib. C. Scripture we affirm to be the Rule you will prove Scripture's Letter Interpretable c. is not the Rule and at last conclude Private Interpretation is not the Rule What 's all this to us You have thus Hackney'd out a pair of Metaphors Way and Rule to course it on all four which no Metaphor can do so long after your nimble Fancy till you have quite jaded them and then you would turn them up to us for Riddles No Sir take them as you have used them and let them rest at Private Interpretation for Scripture has no longer any room for them so used I. S. What do you talk of erring or mistaking the Way 'T is true these erring men mistake the true Way but they mistake not the Way which you call the true Way Ib. C. If they err as you suppose they mistake what we call the true Way the Scripture I. S. They 〈◊〉 by their Private Judgment and so take not mistake use not abuse it Ib. C. Private-Interpretation you must mean by It. for that is it which you would make us call the true Way though it be not Scripture is the true Way and their private interpretation is their abuse of it I. S. Sure you mean they mistake the Doctrine of Christ and so by mistaking the Way you wisely understand mistaking the Eud. Ib. C. The Doctrine of Christ in the Scripture is the Way to a right Faith and by mistaking that Way they err in Faith. I. S. To what purpose do you tell us that men may understand and observe as if observing concern'd our question of knowing if they be not wanting to themselves Ib. C. A rare kind of knowledge it is that comes without observing Should we not observe what you say we should answer you as you defire without knowing your craft It is sure to some purpose to tell of understanding a Rule and observing or keeping so I meant a way I. S. They who take a right way not only may but must and cannot possibly fail of coming whither it leads Men have no more to do with a way but to travel in it and so cannot be wanting to themselves in that respect if they do Ib. C. Men have not so much
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
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
Rome only yet not enough to cause absolute that is with you infallible certainty I. S. Are not Ten-Millions of Attesters as able to cause absolute certainty as Twenty Ib. C. Caeteris paribus the more Attesters the more certainty yet how many soever they are but men and fallible I. S. When the number comes to that pitch that it is seen to be impossible they should all be deceived in the thing they unanimously attest or conspire to deceive us their Testimony has its full effect upon us and begets in us that firm and unalterable assent we call absolute certainty and the addition of Myriads more adds nothing to the substance of that Assent since 't is wrought without it R. p. 43. C. This is as good assurance of a matter of Fact as any man can desire but what 's all this to Infallibility Here 's some certain pitch of number which is it I wish you could shew us unto which when Attesters every man of them fallible are come one unite short may spoil all it may be seen infallibly or we may be deceived that 't is impossible no less will serve they should be deceived or deceive Thus add fallible to fallible they become infallible and infallibly honest too And then we may firmly assent it should have been infallibly and the addition of Myriads more will adde nothing to the substance of that assent since it is wrought without it Now what this substance of assent is but assent who knows Of the firmness of assent I am sure there are degrees Do not these words seem then to intimate that though Myriads of Attesters cannot add to assent barely consider'd as such for so it was before yet possibly they may add to the degrees of firmness If so then seeing that assent was before infallible do not you seem to admit degrees of Infallibility I. S. But the main is you quite mistake the nature of a long successive Testimony Ib. C. My comfort is I have a wise and compassionate Instructer to set me right I. S. Let Ten Thousand men witness what two or three who were the original Attesters of a thing said at first and Twenty Thousand more witness in the next Age what those Ten Thousand told them and so forwards yet taking them precisely as Witnesses they amount to no more in order to prove the truth of that thing than the credit of those two or three first Witnesses goes R. p. 43. C. All this I knew before Where 's my mistake all this while I. S. The Tradition for the several Books of Scripture is not in any degree comparable either in regard of the largeness or the firmness of the Testimony to the Tradition for Doctrine Ib. C. I grant not this yet let 's suppose it in part at present I see first that your charging me with mistaking the nature of a successive Testimony arose from a mistake of your own I said we have a larger Testimony for Scripture than that of the Church of Rome you fancy me to speak of a larger Testimony for Scripture than for Doctrine And so all you have said since is to no purpose Again though the Testimony were larger for Doctrine than for Scripture yet is it not so firm because not so competent an Attester of Doctrine as of a Book It is sufficient indeed for the Book the Doctrine whereof depends on the credit of the first Attesters and being sufficiently attested by them leaves no credit for any other Doctrine not agreeing with it by how many soever at this day attested Still yours is but humane Testimony and that 's not infallible I. S. Is not your Tradition for Scripture humane too R p. 44. C. It is I. S. If that may be erroneous may not all Christian Faith be a company of lying Stories Ib. C. We have no reason to think or doubt it is and therefore ought not to say it may be I told you before that neither Papists nor Protestants content themselves with Tradition for the truth of their Faith but produce abundance of other Arguments for it A. p 19. But you had no end to trace me there I. S. Seeing certainty of Scripture is proved by Tradition what should hinder me from 〈◊〉 that unless some special difficulty be found in other things that light into the same chanel it must bring them down infallibly too R. p. 45. C. If no special difficulty be found in them you may infer it may bring them down as certainly These other things are I suppose things unwritten in that holy Book I. S. So your gift of interpretation expounds these words of mine but I do assure you Sir you are mightily mistaken Ib. C. All things written in the Book are convey'd down in it what then can those other things be but things unwritten in it I. S. I never yet told you that all Faith was not contain'd in Scripture explicitly or implicitly Ib. C. Well if all be either explicitly or implicitly in the Book then by Tradition all is brought down in the Book still implicitly at least And then once more whan can those other things be but things not written in Scripture I. S. The whole Body of Christ's Doctrine nay the self-same Doctrine of Faith that is contain'd in Scripture comes down by Tradition or the Church's Testimony Ib. C. I had told you all this but still you talk'd of other things How I beseech you other things and yet the same What mean you by nay the same A man would think by this you made the Doctrine of Scripture either but a part or not so much as a part of the whole Doctrine of Faith. I. S. But with this difference as to the manner among others that the Church that testifies it having the sense of it in her breast can explain her meaning so as to put it out of all question to Learners Doubters and Inquirers which the Scripture cannot Ib. C. Here 's a difference indeed The Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture but it cannot discover it self there to Learners c. The same is in the Church's breast and there alone it may be learn'd The Church testifies of the Scripture that it is the Word of God but 't is Jesuitically with an Aequivocation or Mental Reservation for it is not indeed the Word of God but a dead Letter till the sense be put to it and that 's in her breast We have now found the Scrinium pectoris but what 's in the Box who knows or when it will all come forth However the whole sense of Scripture is safely lock'd up there and by the Key of Oral Tradition it may be open'd as there is occasion Now to me it seems all one whether these call them same or other things be contain'd or not contain'd be explicitly or implicitly in Scripture they are there if they be there at all to no purpose whilst the sense is in her breast Not a rush matter if such a Book had sunk in
you would have us prove our conclusion without beginning with our Premises Ib. C. No but that you would be content with a conclusion easier to be prov'd and enough for you when proved and that you would prove it by better Premises better known than the conclusion I. S. All our Faith may be Error if the Testimony of the Church our Rule may be erroneous and if it cannot nothing we hold of Faith can be so Ib. C. Then either the Faith of Christ may be Error or yours is not the Faith of Christ May the Faith of Christ be all Error if the Church of Rome can err in her Testimony then doth it depend on the Infallibility of your Church for its truth not on Christ's Veracity I. S. Your meaning is we should only prove she embraces no Error now but what provision would this make for her not falling perhaps into Error to morrow Ib. C. Against the possibility of her falling into Error hereafter I know of no provision can be made but to be sure she does not err at present is the best security she can have and to you must needs be good enough for sure you will not have it said your Church can be guilty of so unheard-of a Negligence as to forget to morrow her yesterdays Faith. I. S. Were our Rule granted fallible by what more certain way could we be directed to arrive at Christ's sense Ib. C. Take the plain Scripture for your Rule I. S. However your counsel suits better with your conveniences than these crabbed Demonstrations R. p. 65. C. Yours are indeed crabbed enough and plain Demonstrations would suit better with Infallibility But why will you labour to no purpose All the World knows that a single Instance in one Error is enough to answer all the Arguments can be brought for her Infallibility seeing it must needs be false to say she cannot err who in any one thing doth err A.p. 25. I. S. If the Premises be right and the Inference good the conclusion must be necessarily true Ib. C. I grant it I. S. First then you are to answer our Argument and next to see the Authority that qualifies your Instance for an Argument be above Moral certainty Ib. C. Your Arguments are not hard to answer yet if I could not answer an Argument brought by some cunning Sophisters to prove that Men can know as certainly as God though some Scholar might laugh at me no Christian would do so If an Instance lie before me so certain as there is no just cause to doubt of it which is Moral certainty it is enough to satisfie me an Argument which contradicts it it is false though I may not be able to discern the Fallacy and will always be enough for one that values the truth more than the credit of a Logician I. S. 'T is the right of the Respondent to deny any thing that is not driven up to Evidence R. p. 66. C. 'T is our Right then to deny an Argument to be good so long as we have a clear instance against it I. S. You seem so kind as not to undertake to prove that an Erring Church adheres to Tradition if it be true Apostolical Tradition and that it adhere to it wholly and solely Ib. C. 'T is no kindness Sir but absolute necessity I cannot undertake to prove what I know can never be proved I. S. Do not you mean by Tradition such an one as is built upon living Voice and Practice Ib. C. I mean a Tradition coming down unvariably from the Apostles build it on what you please or can for me I thought you had meant by it living Voice and Practice and therefore know not well what you mean by its being built on them I. S. Then you quit your own Rule by requiring men should adhere to the other wholly and solely and admit that a Church adhering to such a Rule is not an erring Church Ib. C. This is wonderful indeed The later I admit and have promised that when you shew us such a Church we will be of her Communion and yet not grant her Infallible A. p. 26. But how do I quit our own Rule or require men to adhere to such Tradition wholly and solely Is it in saying they do not err that adhere to it on supposition they be sure they have it What a pleasant Invention was this When you are sure of such a Tradition besides Scripture tell us of it and we will embrace it willingly as you were told before A. p. 20. It seems very odd to me in the mean time that men should call us Hereticks and yet prove their own Infallibility by an Argument which if it prove any thing to purpose must prove that no man who hath been taught the Faith can err from it and still withal confess that whole Churches may err A. p. 26. I. S. How do you shew our Argument must prove this absurd Position R. p. 67. C. I say not it must simply but if it prove any thing to purpose For if it prove not this some may forget or alter their yesterday's Faith. I. S. Our Tenet is that though not one single man can err while he adheres to our Rule yet even some particular Churches may leave off adhering to it and so err in Faith. R. p. 67. C. How came you then to charge me so suriously with falfifying Was not your Argument brought to prove that Traditionary Christians could not innovate in Faith When could they not innovate Whilst they hold to Tradition say you And was not this it I said you undertook to make out elsewhere And do not you now confess 't was the same Surely you do when you say they might err by leaving it Yet then your Argument must prove this absurd Position as you call it or it proves nothing to purpose Christ and his Apostles taught one and the same Doctrine Alterations 't is certain have been made in this Doctrine and therefore without dispute some have believed and taught otherwise than men were at first taught c. A. p. 26 27. I. S. Some particular Churches may err in Faith. Ib. C. You are then to shew what special Priviledge the Church of Rome hath above all other Churches that she cannot err You say they of that Church believe the same to day they did yesterday and so upwards We bid you prove it You tell us if they follow this Rule they could never err in Faith. But did they follow this Rule You say they did And if we will not believe it there 's an end on 't A. p. 27. I. S. This is built on some few of your wilful Falsifications R. p. 68. C. If men will believe you there 's an end on 't again I. S. Where did we ever bring these words if they follow'd this Rule for a proof that they hold the same c. Ib. C. You brought those words as an Introduction to your Proof which amounts to no more than your or