Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus; The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend, etc.  
Jan. 18. 1687. Guil. Needham, R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc. Cant. à Sacr. Domest.   

Note, (L.) Signifies The First Letter. (A.) The Letter to a Friend or Answer. (R.) The Reply or Second Catholic Letter.   

THE Reflecter's Defence OF HIS LETTER to a FRIEND, AGAINST The Furious Assaults of Mr I. S. In his Second Catholic Letter.  
IN Four DIALOGVES.  
LONDON: Printed for William Rogers, at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. MDCLXXXVIII.   

A DIALOGUE BETWEEN I. S. a Roman-Catholick, AND C. a Catholic CHRISTIAN.  C. 
WHatever Honour it may be to me, it was, I am sure, a very wonderful Condescension in you, Sir, to stoop so low, with all your Glory of Self-Evidence, Absolute Certainly and Infallibility, as to address a Catholic Better to one, unto whom you allow no more at best, than honest Ignorance, and hardly so much, when you are a little our of humour, as common Sense, or to understand English. How civilly, you have therein Treated me, how justly you have Accused, or how fully Confuted me, is not a thing that deserves the notice of many. The things we talk of, are too weighty to rely on either mine or your Wit, Breeding, Reputation, or Skill: I am not therefore careful either to Vindicate or Recriminate, or yet to learn of your Right Catholic Letter, how to answer it as it deserves. I shall only, with your good leave, lay the matter open in a plain Dialogue, and leave it to every moderate Judgement (in your own words) to see by the very Methods we take, which side desires and sincerely endeavours that Truth may appear. There is only one little Mistake of yours running almost quite through your obliging Letter, which it concerns me here to give notice of, because it reflects on the Honour of a Person, whose Books I confess myself unworthy to carry after him. Know then, Sir, beseech you, that you honour me too much in calling me Dr. St.'s Defender, and my Letter a Defence of his. I never had the happiness either by Face to be known by him, or in Word or Writing to converse with him, Neither had I his Letter by me, or knew much more of it, when I writ mine, than what I read in yours, which I thought not myself obliged to account all Oracle. The Reputation therefore of that Great Man is no way concerned in my Failings (as you would fain have it); but whatever they are, I alone am to answer for them. This I now tell you, because of your (I will not say after you, affected) Inadvertence, who might have seen in the Title-page of my Letter, that I intended only to Reflect on some Passages 〈◊〉 you first; and also in the beginning of it, what they were; all regard to the Conference itself, being laid aside. And this I take to be Answer enough to a great part of your Catholic Epistle.  I. S. 
Your Answer affords no work for a Replier, but the most ungrateful one in the world, to be perpetually telling men of their Faults, without the least hopes of doing them good, or contributing to their amendment. R. Pref.  C. 
Whether then your Charity in judging us incorrigible, or your Wisdom in writing so long a Letter to no purpose, or your Delight in troubling the World with Impertinences, be the greatest, I will not now inquire; but rather by a sincere promise of Amendment, endeavour to put you in better hopes and a more charitable opinion.  I. S. 
Be pleased to leave off your affected Insincerities, otherwise I must be forced to expose them yet farther. R. pag. 80.  C. 
Be pleased first to exercise more your Charity in discovering them to myself, or I shall a little suspect your Justice in exposing them to others.  I. S. 
Your constant use is, to pick out a few words scattered here and there, which you thought you might most commodiously pervert. Ib.  C. 
If I picked up nothing but what you had scattered, and answered all I picked up, I did all that I undertook to do. You must not persuade me, that I may not answer some periods of a Discourse, without binding myself thereby to answer the whole; though you would make the World believe that all my answering is only perverting.  I. S. 
I have now traced you punctually step by step; wherefore I have reason to expect the same exact measure from you. Ib.  C. 
How reasonable a task this is, I will not dispute; though I know not why your being at more pains than needed, (as you certainly were, if the Answer afforded no more work for a Replier) must bind me to be so too. But seeing you have made this my task, I'll endeavour to obey you; only excuse me, when you step into the Dirt, if I follow you not, lest I come to need more Holy-water than (by your Letter I guess) you can well spare. However, the way is tedious, and, as you have made it, rugged enough; 'tis time to set forth.  I. S. 
Perhaps it has scarce been seen hitherto, that all our Polemical Contests were reduced within so narrow a compass. R. Pref.  C. 
I like not [Perhaps,] I had rather you had said, Absolutely, or Certainly: Then should I have hoped, seeing they narrow so fast, they would soon have come to nothings. Some of you told us many years ago, when the chief Question was, Which is the only true Church? That this was the shortest Compendium of our Controversies. If you have now found a shorter than the shortest, why stand we thus at a distance? Let's throw away our Weapons and embrace.  I. S. 
My first Letter insisted chief on two short Discourses, whereof the one undertook to show the Nullity of the Rule of Faith claimed by Dr. St. and his Protestants: the other, the Absolute Certainty of the Catholic Rule. R. Ib.  C. 
I hope it will be thought but an honest Ignorance, if I be not able to distinguish Dr. St.'s Protestants from the Catholic Christians of the Church of England, whose Rule of Faith is the Holy Scripture. Remember now what your two Discourses undertook to show; and when that is shown indeed, (and I wish you be not in too good earnest to show it) wonderful things (as you speak) will follow, and you will be sure of many Converts; yea, I dare say, even of Dr. St. and all his Protestants. In the mean time, what a neat way of reducing Controversies to a narrower compass is this, whereby the Disputants have not left them any common Rule, whereby it may be determined who is in the right?  I. S. 
The whole Controversy was, in short, about the Certainty or Uncertainty of Christian Faith. Ib.  C. 
These words would make one think you are Narrowing our Contests into a wider compass yet; as if the Dispute had been betwixt Believers and Infidels: and than which Party you would have the Infidel, denying the Certainty of Christian Faith, would not be hard to find. It's a little oddly expressed, but I am willing to make the best on't, and to think that you mean no more than what you said but now, that it was about the Nullity of our Rule, and the Absolute Certainty of yours.  I. S. 
Both of those Discourses were supposed by us to be Conclusive. Ib.  C. 
I doubt it not, but you thought them Absolute Demonstrations; yet I was bold to tell my Friend in a Letter, I thought you were mistaken.  I. S. 
Your whole Letter seems to have no other design, but to bring the Dispute into a Wrangle. Ib.  C. 
And you, I thank you, took care it should not lose its design, if that was it; and have returned me nothing else but a Wrongle for a Reply. But let's fall to our Business.  I. S. 
I grieve and wonder there should be so little value for Souls among your Party, as to send men to the Tribunal of God, without furnishing them with Assurance that they can justify their Accounts themselves. R. p. 2.  C. 
Speak you this in good earnest, as considering how you shall justify your Accounts yourself at that Tribunal? What better course our Party takes to furnish men with such Assurance, than yours doth, I told you, A. p. 3. whereof you are not pleased to take any notice, though you were so punctual in tracing me step by step. Now I must needs continue my wonder, seeing no man can be assured that he can justify his Accounts, unless he know that he hath the Grace of God, and seeing you, being a Roman Catholic, believe the Council of Trent, saying, No man can know that he hath obtained the Grace of God, how you can be so unreasonably exacting, as to require that of our Party, which yourself believe no man can do.  I. S. 
If you speak, as I did, of an Account of Faith, I hope you will not persuade us, a man cannot know why he believes, without knowing whether he be in a state of Grace. R. p. 3.  C. 
And I hope you will not endeavour to persuade us, that a man's bare knowing why he believes, will enable him to justify his Account, even of his Faith itself. We know why we believe the Christian Faith; think you we are therefore able to justify our Account of Faith? Then our Dispute is ended. Suppose another may know why he believes the Pope to be Antichrist, (as I am sure he may, whether it be true or false, and his Reasons good or bad) I hope you will not grant he can thereby justify his Account of Faith.  I. S. 
The bare Assurance of the Truth which a man believes is a Justification of his believing it. Ib.  C. 
You spoke of an Account that will pass, as it is in itself, (L. p. 5.) but this Account of Faith will not pass, as it is in itself without Grace. Such a bare Assurance will only be such a Justification of a man's believing, as will add to his condemnation, for holding the Truth in unrighteousness, and knowing his Master's will without doing it.  I. S. 
If you speak of an Account of our whole lives,— you turn things against the plain scope of my Discourse, against my plain words, and (I much fear) against your own knowledge. Ib.  C. 
Your scope in this part of your Discourse was evidently this, to make our Party appear careless of men's Souls.  I. S. 
The only Question was of the Certainty of Protestant Faith;— An Account why you Protestants believe— was the only Account that belongs to that Question. Ib.  C. 
That Question, and the shifting off the Proof to another, you wave in the beginning of your third Section (L. p. 4.) saying. Of this Proposal there will be occasion to say more by and by. At present consider (say you) how you deal with Souls who rely on you: And all through the Section your business is to charge us with carelessness of men's Souls. I suppose you mean, especially in our not giving them Assurance of their Faith. This being the Fault you charge our Party with, you thus proceed to aggravate it: Must not every body one day bring in his own Account? etc. And will not the happiness or misery of their Souls depend on that Account? Can you suffer them to run that terrible hazard, without making them able to justify their Accounts themselves, and furnishing them with Assurance that they can? etc. These are your plain words; and if I mistook them, it was no wilful mistake, but occasioned merely hence, that I thought you had discoursed with more show of Reason, than indeed you did. For no better Reason could be given, why we must fail in Duty, if we furnish not men with Assurance that they can account for their Faith, than this, because it is our Duty to furnish them with Assurance that they can justify their Accounts (as you set it) in the plural, of which the Account of Faith is one. However, because I saw you are one that love to walk in the dark, so that he who traces you most diligently, may possibly miss you; and when you are hit, have a trick of crying out, You mistake, it is not I. I aimed again, and hit right. My Fault then, if it was one, was no sooner spied than amended; and if it may be forgiven, I am content that you and your Council of Trent shall be good friends as long as you can agree on't.  I. S. 
I had alleged further, that till Protestants produce the Grounds which prove their Faith to be true, it cannot with Reason be held Truth. You put my Discourse first in my words, only leaving out those which did not please you. R. p. 4.  C. 
Your words are these: Truth is therefore Truth, because 'tis built on intrinfical grounds which prove it to be such; and not on private men's abilities, or their saying this or that: wherefore till those grounds be produced, it cannot be with Reason held Truth. I left out indeed the words [therefore] and [which prove it to be such] not because I disliked them, but because I thought them superfluous, as being implied in the rest. Well, now you have them, what will they avail you, or hurt me? All I desire of you is, that you will stick as close to your own words, as you would tie me to do; which I suspect you will hardly do, because you begin to vary more than I did already, especially in leaving out the word [intrinfical.]  I. S. 
Then you disguise it in your own, and laugh at it for being too plain. Ib.  C. 
These are my words: You might as well have said more plainly, What any thing is, that it is, whatever be the reason why it is so, or whosoever saith it is or it is not; yet can no man with reason believe it, till he have a reason to believe it. This I still take to be all that you meant by Truth's being built on intrinsical Grounds, etc. And you seem to confess it by your saying nothing to the contrary; for you are not he that useth not to tell all the World when he is wronged. 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 Catholic 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 Scripture 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 strait forward only to a conclusion, which naturally follows from your own Premises? If Truth depend on intrinsical grounds, and not on men's 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 Catholic Priests are at liberty to tell the Vulgar what Faith they please, as your Ministers may interpret Scripture as seems best to their judgement 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 yourself a very hard task. Prove than 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 Catholics 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 nowhere 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 Catholics. 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 prise 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 shown 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 'tis mere Authority; but because intrinsical Mediums justify 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 proved 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 Catholic Church would be no greater than that of an Old Woman, were there no more reason to be given for believing the former, than there is for believing the later. Ib.  C. 
I hear all this; have you any more to add for my Instruction? I would not lose a drop of your Compassion, it is so rare a thing.  I. S. 
By this time I hope you see, that all Truths are built upon intrinsical Mediums. Ib.  C. 
Not one jot more, I assure you, than I did before: for you have neither told me what you mean by intrinsical Mediums, only you seem to hint that they are Reasons why a thing is to be believed, and so are extrinsical Mediums to; neither have you said a word that I know of, to show how all Truth is built upon them.  I. S. 
You see also, that whereas you apprehended they would overthrow our Church's Testimony or Authority, such Mediums (in case we produce them) are the best means to establish it, and give it force upon ourselves and others. Ib.  C. 
This also I see just as much as I did before. You suppose I apprehended (why, you know best, for I am half confident you never apprehended I did so) that the intrinfical Reasons of your Church's Authority, when produced, would overthrow it. To whose roving Fancy own we this pure and fine Invention. Sir? That which I apprehended, was this, That seeing all Truths depend on intrinfical grounds, as you say, and cannot be held Truths, till those intrinsical grounds of them be produced: Therefore they are not to be held Truths for the Authority of your Church, because that Authority (whatever it be, and on what intrinsical grounds soever established) is no intrinsical ground of those Truths to be believed. And have you yet said one word to contradict this? Not a syllable, but talk at random of another thing.  I. S. 
You also see, how it comes, that the Church can oblige to belief, not by a dry commanding our Faith, as you apprehend; but by having its humane Authority solidly grounded upon Reason, itself becomes a Motive able to beget assent. Ib.  C. 
Now, Sir, I thank you, you have set me right, just as I was before. What I saw, you have made me see; and what I saw not, I see not yet. Such is the illuminating virtue of your compassionate Instructions. I ask not you, whether this great pains to tell me what I knew, and had told you so, was the business of a man well awake. Yet lest you should say, I was not attentive, I will repeat to you the Lesson you have taught me. Your Church's Authority is Humane Authority, it has force to prove the Truths which depend upon it; it has this force amongst those that admit it, and it concludes against such as own its Veracity; it deserves no Assent farther than Reason gives it to deserve, nor is it greater than that of an Old Woman, till better Reason be produced for it. Hence I conclude, Seeing we admit not your Church's Authority, neither own its Veracity, it proves nothing to us, nor concludes any thing against us. Seeing Articles of Faith depend not on Humane Authority, your Church's Authority can have no effect on humane Nature to oblige to a belief of them. Seeing all its Credit depends on its intrinsical Reasons produced, till they be produced, we are not bound to give any credit to it. When these Reasons shall be produced, its Testimony has but the nature of an external Motive, not of an intrinsical Ground. And therefore either your Position overthrows your Church's Authority, or it your Position, choose you which.  I. S. 
What is the Second thing you fear I will not grant?  C. 
If your Position be true, it will follow, That the common People must be allowed their Judgement of Discretion: for how, without the free use of that, they shall discern the intrinsical grounds of Truth when produced, and so with Reason hold it, I fear you cannot easily demonstrate. Will you grant us this?  I. S. 
You gave yourself the Character of a Scrupulous man; and I see by this, you have a mind to maintain it. R. p. 7.  C. 
And if you will grant it, you will gain the Character of a man much more liberal than your Neighbours. If you grant it, 'tis I doubt, but in mockery, because you so often laugh at us for desiring it.  I. S. 
You know that those who writ and print, can have no design their Books should not be read; and you know those that read, will and must judge of what they do read. R. p. 7.  C. 
Yet if their Books contain nothing else but unsensed Characters (which is the thing you say of the Scripture) and he that reads or interprets gives the sense, I see not to what end they would have their Books read, and therefore neither why they writ them: nor indeed how any one can judge of them, unless they would have them judge only of the fineness of the Characters. Pray, Sir, let me ask you, Can you think God writes to less purpose than men are wont to do? If he have caused a Book to be written, and that to all, was it not his Will that his Book should also be read of all to whom it was written? or did he not intent they should judge of what they read therein, and examine Doctrines by it? Do you now grant us this Judgement of Discretion as exercised about Divine Truths revealed in the Scripture? If you do, I thank you for it: If not, to what purpose is your talk of reading men's Books, or their writing them that we may judge?  I. S. 
Indeed I think it no great sign of a Judgement of Discretion, to pretend to discern the Truth of Faith by Lights that do not show it to be true. Ib.  C. 
Nor I neither.  I. S. 
You conclude, that I have set us all on even ground. Yes, for I set Absolute Certainty on the one side, and Uncertainty on the other; and this, in your Language, is even ground. R. p. 8.  C. 
What I conclude, is thus proved: The Church of Rome is to be believed only when she produceth the intrinsical grounds of Truth, and just so far is the Church of England; or any other Church to be believed, and so all are of equal Authority to oblige in points of Faith. This in my Language is even ground: for the one stands no higher in Authority than the other. Now say what you please of your Certainty and Uncertainty to gain the higher ground again.  I. S. 
Suppose we could not prove that Protestants are not certain, are they therefore certain? L. p. 4.  C. 
You imagine (it should seem) that all the certainty of our Faith is this, that Papists cannot prove it to be uncertain. A. p. 6.  I. S. 
The meaning of my words is clearly this, That the certainty of the Protestant Faith must depend on their own proofs for it, not on any man's being able or not able to prove the contrary. R. p. 8.  C. 
You meant so, you say, and the thing is true.  I. S. 
To avoid proving, you put upon me the direct contrary to what I affirmed, viz. That the certainty of Protestant Faith does depend upon our not proving they have none.  C. 
I put no such thing upon you, nor needed I do it to avoid proving; which I had never undertaken, but only to reflect on some parts of your Letter, who had undertaken to prove the Nullity of our Rule. Allow me then to give my own meaning, as you take the liberty to give yours. My meaning was this (clearly enough to him that would not wrangle): You imagine we have no certainty at all, and that we think ourselves 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 'tis my turn to ask, Do I say true or no? If true, why say you I wrong you? If not, you grant we have some other certainty, though you undertook to show 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 confessed 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, etc. 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 persuade us you see it not. Ib.  C. 
Nor you neither, if you may be believed against yourself; 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 easy 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 Uncertainty, 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 show which Doctor's Authority weighs most, and whether your proof weigh any thing at all. You have undertaken to show 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. 'Tis easy 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 men's saying this or that, than 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 seemed to grant, etc. For the Tenet of Faith's 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 yourself 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 Faith's 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 ourselves, 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 'tis 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, 'tis 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. 'Twas you undertook to show 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 proved by me; but the Nullity of it, the point to be proved by you. And you might have remembered, 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 show 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 show, that you have any means, unless you take ours, to ground any Article solidly on the Word of God. You are to show 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, 'tis unseasonable to require of us to show 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 jest 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, contained 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. affirmed is nothing to me, till I know in what sense he affirmed 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 persuade 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 affirmed not.  I. S. 
I would be glad to know how yourself take it, who to be sure take it right. Ib.  C. 
I never used it, and therefore am not concerned 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 than that a man can get here, he may be deceived. R. p. 17.  C. 
'Tis possible he may, but there is no cause to imagine he is; 'tis honester dealing to persuade 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. 
'Tis spoken so like yourself, 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 ourselves held, etc. Ib.  C. 
Good still. You will not give me leave to laugh, and I cannot get leave of myself 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 contained; and we we the more confirmed in our Faith by the testimony and consent of the Primitive Church in the Creeds especially. Will this proof satisfy? 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 said 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 contained 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 contained in Scripture be all they taught. I have showed 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 contained 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 discovered 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 contained in Scripture? If no more, show 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 contained 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 contained 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 show also how we prove every Article of our Faith by Scripture.  I. S. 
Common words, which every Heretic may and does use. Ib.  C. 
But no common work, which every Heretic may or can do. Yet when we offer to do it, you tell us 'tis 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 'tis 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 Cloth 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 show what you undertook to show, 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 show 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 show 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 Understanding 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 informed 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, that is, cannot choose but know. Ib.  C. 
I confess I took them for terms equivalent, as they are often used, and therefore I granted all as true, though I could not but smile at the Argument, which, as I understood it, proved only the same by the same, that is, nothing at all. But now you have discovered my Error, you have spoiled my Compliment too, as you call it, for what through Error was granted to your advantage, I must now deny, I mean the consequence, and my reason is, (in the words you have taught me) because you cannot draw Beer out of a Jar of Oil. More is in the conclusion than in the Premises.  I. S. 
I make account the Way to know the Faith of Christ, is not a right Way, if those who take it can fail to know their Faith, and therefore not the Way left by God. Ib.  C. 
I cannot yet pass your account, for you have said yourself, (L. p. 15.) that they who both take and follow the Way may leave it again. You spoke of Tradition the only Way, as you will have it left by God. Hence, by your own confession, I think it may be inferred, that the Way may be right, and yet they that take it mistake in the Faith.  I. S. 
You barely say We may know, with which it consists, We may not know; and so you make us a Way, in which they who travel may be always out of the Way. Ib.  C. 
This seems a 〈◊〉 too childish. I say not that's the Way in which they that travel may be always out of the way, but out of which they may wander, and then they travel not in it, but are out of it.  I. S. 
Scripture's Letter, Interpretable by Private Judgements, is not that Way. L. p. 30.  C. 
Whom do you here dispute against? If against us, why do you not in terms contradict our Doctrine? A. p. 12.  I. S. 
Two very pleasant Questions. R. p. 22.  C. 
I hope than we shall have two as pleasant Answers.  I. S. 
Your own, and my Title-page tells you, I am disputing against the D. of P's. Ib.  C. 
They do so. I had reason therefore to fear you had forgot yourself because you did not contradict his Tenet.  I. S. 
To ask, why I do not use Terms to your mind, is to ask, why the Defendant does not go to the Plaintiff to draw his Answer. Ib.  C. 
An Answer pleasant enough. But pray say, if an Opponent ought not to prove the contradictory Proposition to that which the Answerer defends?  I. S. 
I have happened to propose first what I intended to prove, before I go about to prove it, which I thought was the clearest way, and you will needs speak to my conclusion before you speak to the premises. R. p. 23.  C. 
And I have happened to say, that what you have proposed to be proved, is not the Proposition to be proved; and you quarrel with me for speaking to your conclusion before your premises, whilst there are yet neither premises nor conclusion.  I. S. 
I shall mind only the Proof here, and reserve the Inference till I come to the place where I make it. Ib.  C. 
If you will needs prove what we deny not, as we cannot help it, so can we not be concerned in it. But take your own way, I must not hinder your course, whose business you have made it only to trace you.  I. S. 
We experience Presbyterians 〈◊〉 Socinians both take that way, yet differ in such high Fundamentals, as the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ. L. p. 30.  C. 
The force of your Argument seems this. If any men can be found, who wrist or misinterpret Scripture, then can it not be the way to know what Christ and his Apostles taught. And must a Rule be therefore no good Rule, because some who use it, misunderstand or abuse it? A. p. 15.  I. S. 
What may you mean by this? Ib.  C. 
I say the misunderstanding or abusing of any Rule, does not change the Rule itself into a bad or wrong Rule, if it was a good and right Rule before, or prove that it was not so.  I. S. 
I take my Ruler and draw a Line by it; does the crookedness or straightness of this Line depend upon my understanding? Ib.  C. 
To what end this talk of a Ruler and a Line can come in here I know not; a scrupulous man would be apt to fear you were now in good earnest about to show the Nullity of our Rule by a Mathematical Demonstration, seeing you have got your Ruler in your hand. We shall see I hope anon what 'twill come to. Now to your Question. Tho' the crookedness or straightness of the Line depend not only on your Understanding, yet partly it may. He that understands not the use of his Ruler may draw wrong by it. It is no news to see a Boy Rule a whole Page with a strait Ruler, and yet make never a Line strait. Many things else may also cause the crookedness of the Line. Your drawing hand may shake, your holding hand may slip, you may have had eyes, or be careless, drowsy, or drunk. However, let the Line prove as it will, the Rule is strait whether you understand how to draw by it or no, which is that I affirmed.  I. S. 
If you make the Letter of Scripture your Rule, and so Private interpreting the Using of it, and the Sense the Line drawn; unriddle to us, if you can, how the Sense drawn from the Letter can any more fail to be true, than the Line drawn by the Rule to be strait; and which way that Sense can be misunderstood, and how the Rule can be a good Rule, if it be used, and the Sense to which it is a Rule be misunderstood? R. p. 25.  C. 
Had you suffered me to speak to your Proposition. I had possibly prevented all this your speaking to no purpose. But you are in haste to suppose I say what I do not say, and then will tie me to unriddle all that you say. 'Tis, if you would know, the Letter with the Sense that is our Rule; our learning it, and comparing Doctrines with it, is our using it; our Belief and Practice are the Lines drawn from or by it. And now set your Fancy a working again for a new Riddle if you please.  I. S. 
A Grammar Rule, let it be never so ill understood, will make good construction in case it be used; so the Scripture-Rule, if it be, as you put it, used, must needs produce right sense. Ib.  C. 
Where did I put it barely, Used, or where said I, it would produce right Sense? Here's no falsifying! Did you indeed, Sir, never make false Latin by misunderstanding your Rule? or did your Master then tell you, that a Grammar Rule, let it be never so ill understood, would make good construction, in case it be used, and therefore the Rule by misunderstanding whereof you made bad construction was no good Rule? Or was it you that made false Latin, whilst the Rule being used by you made true?  I. S. 
The truth is, a Grammar Rule is not a Rule till it be understood. Ib.  C. 
Then no Schoolboy can misunderstand his Rule; and every School boy makes his Grammar by learning it.  I. S. 
He that understands not what 'tis, 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 Sense and intelligible the Rule of our Understanding 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 Understanding 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! Tho' 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, though they may pretend to choose 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, though 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 Catholic Church, leave the Way left by God; and you, like a right pleasant man, would have it proved, 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 Catholic 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 Judgements, and one side knows not the Doctrine of Christ, it follows avoidable, 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, etc. is not the Rule, and at last conclude, Private Interpretation is not the Rule. What's all this to us? You have thus Hackneyed out a pair of Metaphors (Way and Rule) to coarse 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? 'Tis 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 Judgement, 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 concerned 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 desire, 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 troth 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 Judgements, did not keep the way of interpreting by private Judgements. 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 misunderstanding 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 travelling 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 misunderstanding 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 misinterpret and break good Laws daily, therefore those Laws are unintelligible, or cannot be kept, and must be thought insufficient to show 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 show, that a Rule may be intelligible and sufficient, though some men misinterpret 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 misinterpreted, 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 yourself. You see that Laws left to private interpretation are by all mankind judged insufficient, and public Interpreters therefore set up ; 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 misinterpretation, and so is Scripture. What need there is of public 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 yourself 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 intent 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 yourself 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, 'tis 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 Judgements, 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 called your Conclusion, and would not allow me to speak to it. Now 'tis 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 unsensed 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 sense 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 unsenced or fenced characters; for truly I cannot tell myself. R. p. 31.  C. 
If you understand not English, I cannot help it; any body else might see I take it for fenced characters.  I. S. 
By the terms you put [intelligible] and [significant] one would guests you mean unsenced 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 Critic 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 signify, but that is significant which may be signified, whether it be perceived to be so or no. If it signify, we must not call it significant, or signifying; but if it be signified, though it signify nothing to us, we must call it significant. Who ever heard such stuff as this before from a Critic?  
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 Unknown Tongue is no otherwise intelligible, than as, That which may be understood, but is not yet. And Transubstantiation hath left no sign to signify, 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 sense of the characters of Scripture, is the sense of God; and the sense of God is that which we are to believe. And so Scripture-characters senced signify Faith itself in conjunction with those characters. Ib.  C. 
What means these words [in conjunction with those characters?]  I. S. 
A character fenced signifies a character with the sense joined to it. Ib.  C. 
A character fenced or unsenced, 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 moreby a fenced character, but a character the signification whereof is intelligible. So Scripture-characters signify Faith itself, 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 sensed Characters, is this Way, is to tell us the End is the Way to itself; 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 revealed. 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 Judgements] 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, etc. But if you mean, that Scripture as it may be understood by a private man of a competent Judgement, 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 Judgements, R. p. 32.  C. 
As you please, Sir.  I. S. 
I take you then to say, that Scripture's Letter, as interpretable by bad Judgements, is not the way; but as interpretable by good Judgements, 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 Judgements.  I. S. 
By this account three parts in four of Mankind at a modest computation, have no Way: for so many bad Judgements 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 enquiring which is the Way which God hath left, pray what have we to do with the Judgements of men? Can they make or unmake it? Ib.  C. 
Why are you then so busy with that, wherewith you have nothing to do? Why, whether we will or no, and when we forbidden you to do it, will you, when you talk of the Way which God hath left, meddle with private Judgements? Are not those the Judgements of men? Were you not in a Dreams and fancied that we said what no body but yourself 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 shows, now you have made it your conclusion, that you conclude nothing to the Question.  I. S. 
You say, that bad Judgements may misunderstand 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 Bays his Play, and learned of him to talk like a Player. Pag. 34.  I. S. 
The Question is, Whether Scripture's Letter interpretable by Private Judgements 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 Judgements?  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 sense put to it, and so is yet unsensed. Ib.  C. 
Then your Proposition is of senseless Characters, that they are not the Rule of Faith, which being granted you, you oppose no body, and so are left to dispute with yourself.  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. 
'Tis 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 unsensed 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 'tis nothing, for I cannot see how unsensed Characters are Interpretable at all.  I. S. 
Your second Distinction is of Judgements 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 vouched for proof Presbyterians and Socinians, men of very competent judgements, 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 judgements. 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 wrist Scripture to comply with their own Sentiments, such as I told you (A. p. 15.) you might find enough of nearer home? This humour, I now tell you, I take to be the source 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 itself, though 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 Uncertainty of our Faith, much less hath it shown 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 proclaimed his Discourse unanswerable any acknowledgement that it was answered.  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 sense your Proposition (after which two more than followed, though 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 sense 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 sensed, (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 concerned to understand it.  I. S. 
Yes, and as much concerned not to misunderstand it. Ib.  C. 
'Tis 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 Public 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 Public 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. 
'Twas 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 Public 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 proved 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 Public 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 called the Means, as the Use of the Means.  I. S. 
Your Protestants are much beholding to your Argument, which shows, that Scripture Interpreted, as they Interpret it, by Private Judgements, is no Way to them. Ib.  C. 
My telling you what Protestants hold, will show no such thing as you imagine; but let you alone to show 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 show, (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, Using the Rule, and so coming to the right Faith by using it. R. p. 38.  C. 
Put in those words then, when you please, though I think them not very needful, seeing Misunderstanding and Abusing seem to me sufficiently to imply an Using of it.  I. S. 
Your Argument has all the Faults of your Answer, in short.  C. 
Be it so, and farewell 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 Catholic Church, (or as you put it, the Absolute Certainty of the Catholic Rule) You will grant to be your part, if you think it need any proof, as I question whether you do or no, for (L. p. 12.) you say, It is vain to talk against one Infallibility, unless we will set up another.  I. S. 
It has been demonstrated to you, (Faith Vindic. p. 37, 38.) that Infallibility and Certainty are the same. R. p. 39  C. 
I have not seen your Demonstrations yet, nor can I hope that I ever shall; because I am sure there are degrees of Certainty, and there can be none of Infallibility. If you think otherwise, to what purpose talk you of Absolute Certainty, and will not consent to have the word left out. If Certainty be no less than Infallibility, Absolute Certainty can be no more, therefore you might have spared the word.  I. S. 
Nature tells us, that all Discourse supposes something Certain. Ib.  C. 
What thou?  I. S. 
How is it possible then to Discourse against Infallibility, or any thing else, without setting up and proceeding upon something that is Certain, or Infallibly true? Ib.  C. 
A Certainty we grant, Infallibility we deny. The former's enough to ground a rational Discourse upon, even against Infallibility.  I. S. 
If you will needs declare against Infallible Certainty; be but so candid, as to say still you are Fallibly Certain, and see how your Readers will smile at your Folly. Pray speak to this Point. Ib.  C. 
To be still telling men, what they know already, might make them smile indeed; but should we tell them, whilst we are denying Infallibility, that we are infallible, it would make them laugh outright.  I. S. 
Are you not deserters of Humane Nature, supposing there is no Infallibility, that is, true Certainty to be found amongst men? R p. 40.  C. 
True Certainty there is, and that's enough for Human Nature.  I. S. 
Are you not heirayers of Christion Faith, whilst you leave it all capable to be a lie; nay, maintain the full sense of that wicked Position, [All Christian Faith is passable to be false] in Discourses directly framed for that for purpose? Ib.  C. 
Have the Authors of those Discourses no Names? Or are you too modest to name them? All we say, is, That Men are capable of being deceived. We affirm ourselves as certain as men can be, that no part of the Christian Faith can be a lie, or is possible to be false.  I. S. 
Are you not Blasphemers of God's Providence, in declaring that he hath left less certain grounds for Faith, and for the salvation of Mankind, for which the World was created, and God himself died, than he hath for other things of trifling importance?  C. 
Do we declare all this, when we say, The Infallible God hath by Men inspired with his Infallible Spirit, left us his Word plainly written, which is a sufficient means to secure us from being dangerously deceived in any thing necessary to our Salvation, if we diligently attend unto it, and use the proper helps of understanding it? A. p. 17, 18.  I. S. 
Will it expiate from those Crimes, to talk cantingly?— Say fit to take the good Women that are much pleased with Godly talk in a Sermon, but frivalous in our Controversy! Ib.  C. 
Nay, Say, that show his wickedness, that focuseth us for denying the certainty of the Christian Faith, against his own knowledge; and esteems the talking of what God hath done to secure us from Error, frivolous Talk in a controversy about the Certainty of our Faith; and which show we have sufficient certainty.  I. S. 
I suppose you mean a certainty that is neither fallible nor infallible. Ib.  C. 
An undoubted certainty, so as we cannot doubt that we are, though 'tis not impossible but we may be deceived.  I. S. 
You tell men, that after all their pains, they can never be satisfied, but their Faith may be false, that is, they can never be satisfied that it is true. R. p. 41.  C. 
Not satisfied? Yes, fully. Which they can never be, if they must stay till they be infallible.  I. S. 
When the certainty of your Grounds fail you, your last Refuge is, that the same Infallible God, that hath given the means, has assured his blessing to them that diligently use them. Ib.  C. 
I confess, 'tis God's blessing we most trust to. And if you can hope for certainty by the use of any means without it, 'tis more than we can do.  I. S. 
This begs the Question: For if the Rule you follow be not the means ordained by God to arrive at Faith, you have neither the right means, nor can you be assured of any blessing by using them. Ib.  C. 
The present Question is of Infallibility, without which, say you, we want means of securing us from being deceived, and are discouraged from taking due pains to compass the good we desire. No, say I, for though there be no Infallibility among men, yet if we use the means, we may be secured by the promise of a blessing from the infallible God. How doth this beg the Question? If our Certainty be not enough, where shall we find this Infallibility of yours? In Tradition sure, if any where; for after we have been sent from place to place to seek it, we have miss it every where else. A. p. 18.  I. S. 
Pray, Sir, who sent you? We with whom you are discoursing, never directed you to any other, but to that of Tradition. Ib.  C. 
Roman Catholics they were who sent us. And who you are, I know not, whether One or Many, or what your We signifies.  I. S. 
What an everlasting Trifler are you, to confess you have been running after Butterfties all this while? Ib.  C. 
Is your Infallibility but a Butterfly. Then it is fit for you to keep and play with, than for me to run after.  I. S. 
The certainty of Scripture is from Tradition. L. p. 7.  C. 
We have the Books of Scripture from Tradition, etc. Ap. 19  I. S. 
Therefore Tradition causes certainty. Ib.  C. 
Tradition we own a ground of sufficient certainty of this matter of Fact— But this Tradition is not that of the Church of Rome only, but a more universal Tradition of all Christians. Ib.  I. S. 
Then Tradition makes Faith as certain as Scripture. Ib.  C. 
Conveying the Book to us, it conveys the Faith contained in the Book; and witnessing to the Book, as written by men divinely inspired; it gives as good credit to the Faith therein contained, as humane Testimony can do, yet this certainty comes not up to Infallibility. Ib.  I. S. 
Yes, it does: for the certainty here spoken of, was absolute certainty; and I proved it was the same with Infallibility. R. p. 42.  C. 
It does so, I know in your Account. But I now say, humane Testimony is not enough to ground an infallible certainty upon.  I. S. 
You say, Tradition for Scripture was more universal; suppose it so, was not Tradition for Doctrine large enough to cause absolute certainty? Ib.  C. 
More universal, I meant and said, than that of the Church of 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 Myriad more, adds nothing to the substance of that Assent, since 'tis 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 show 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 'tis 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 Myriad more, will add 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 considered 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 Instructor 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 channel, 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 conveyed 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 contained 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, when can those other things be, but things not written in Scripture?  I. S. 
The whole Body of Christ's Doctrine, nay the selfsame Doctrine of Faith that is contained in Scripture, comes down by Tradition or the Church's Testimony. Ib.  C. 
I had told you all this, but still you talked 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 contained in Scripture, but it cannot discover itself there to Learners, etc. The same is in the Church's breast, and there alone it may be learned. The Church testifies of the Scripture, that it is the Word of God, but 'tis 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 locked up there, and by the Key of Oral Tradition it may be opened as there is occasion. Now to me it seems all one, whether these (call them same or other things) be contained or not contained, 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 the channel. 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 World's end, and there we may find it to our hands. We need not therefore fish for our Faith in the channel of Tiber, as your great Wit tells us. Ib.  C. 
I would not though for two pence, not have ventured that little Conceit of mine, seeing it is returned home again with so rare a discovery. It would not be mannerly to inquire, 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? 'Tis 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 'tis 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 conveyed to us by Tradition in Scripture, the Ministers of Christ do still fish with good success. Consider if this Allegorising of yours, would not suit better also with one of your Sermons, than with your Controversy.  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 called from their adhering to a Tradition which reacheth not so high as our B. Saviour's time, but only pertends to it, etc. 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 show you cannot choose 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 spoke to it too, as I shall show 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 believed what Christ taught him, and the Son what the Father believed, 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 believed what his Father believed? Ib.  C. 
It is certain he must. Ib.  I. S. 
And will you then go about to persuade us that there actually is a company of men in the World, who adhered to this method, all Sons believing always as their Fathers did, whereof the first believed as Christ taught, and who notwithstanding erred in matters of Faith?  C. 
No, you may be sure on't. These than are your words I cited.  I. S. 
This Discourse was levelled at a quite different business, viz. That a Church could not adhere to Tradition, and err in Faith at the same time.  C. 
'Tis 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 considered how you explained 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, etc. 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 show, 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 from the Faith first taught, for this is but supposed hitherto. A. p. 22.  I. S. 
Was it not proved in the Fourth Proposition, and by me? p. 9? R. p. 51.  C. 
At your rate it may be. And from this self-evident Supposition, you necessarily conclude thus— Suppose Traditionary Christians neither did nor could err, it is certain, they neither did nor could err. Make what more you can of it. A. p. 22.  I. S. 
You falsify our words, who ever said a Supposition is self-evident? R. p. 52.  C. 
Who ever said you did? May I not use an Irony, without the guilt of falsifying?  I. S. 
You falsify again, in affirming that from this self-evident Supposition, I necessarily conclude, etc. Ib.  C. 
Just as before, in saying you necessarily conclude from a self-evident Supposition. I say, all you conclude, amounts to no more. And make you what more you can of it.  I. S. 
Our entire Discourse runs thus, if we must needs put it into form for you: Those who adhere to Tradition all along from the beginning, neither did nor could err in Faith. R. p. 53.  C. 
No, not if it was true Apostolical Tradition, and they adhered wholly and solely to it, doing so they did not, could not err.  I. S. 
The Roman Catholic Church does now, and did from time to time adhere to Tradition. Ib.  C. 
To Apostolical Tradition wholly and only? I deny that.  I. S. 
They could not innovate in Faith, unless they did forget what they held the day before, or out of malice alter it. Ib.  C. 
You hope then we can have no advantage by pleading either of these, in bar to the Infallibility of Tradition. A. 22.  I. S. 
You do not, I suppose, desire we should prove, that Men had always memories, or that Christians were never so malicious, as to damn themselves and their posterity wittingly; and yet it can stick no where else. L p. 32.  C. 
Were there no danger of men's forgetting what had been taught, 'tis hard to say, why the Penmen of the Scripture should have been at the needless pains to write it. A. p. 23.  I. S. 
Your Discourse is this. 'Tis hard to say, That Christians should have remembered their Testerday's Faith, had not the Scripture been written. R. p. 54.  C. 
As though to remember it from Night to Morning were enough. I say, 'tis hard to say, why the Scripture was written, if men might in no Age forget what had been taught.  I. S. 
The Reasons why Scripture was written, you might have read in St. Paul, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. Where there is no such thing, as to make men remember their Yesterday Faith, nor that Scripture is of necessity at all, but only that it is profitable for many uses there enumerated. Ib.  C. 
I know how unwilling some of you are that Scripture should be thought necessary at all, and also how much ashamed they are to say it is unnecessary altogether. Let it be (as you say) only Profitable for Doctrine, Reproof, Correction, Instruction: For my part, if men once taught the Faith can never forget it; If Oral Tradition can do all this without Scripture, and Scripture nothing of all this without Tradition, I think it is wholly useless and unprofitable, and therefore see no reason it should be written. And yet if men's memories be so very faithful, St. Peter seems to me to have been too forgetful of it, when with so much earnestness he endeavoured, that men might be able after his decease to have these things always in remembrance, 2 Pet. 1, 15. and that by leaving them in writing. A. p. 23.  I. S. 
There is not so much as one word in the whole Chapter concerning the remembering or forgetting their Faith, but of remembering his particular exhortations to good life. R. p. 55.  C. 
Neither said I there was; it was enough for me to prove hence, that men might forget what they had been taught: and if an exhortation to good life, why not an Article of Faith?  I. S. 
Notwithstanding all you have answered, men had memory enough not to forget their yesterday Faith. R. p. 56.  C. 
Well, at present suppose it. Why might they not have Malice enough to alter or corrupt it?  I. S. 
Were Christians so malicious as to damn themselves and their posterity wittingly?  C. 
May they not be as careless of preserving the Faith, as of maintaining Holiness in themselves and their posterity, when they know that Sin is as damnable as Error? A. p. 23.  I. S. 
Be Judge yourself. Do not many of your Congregation sin often, and yet few or none of them desert their Faith once? Ib.  C. 
I grant men may often sin, yet be neither Apostates not Heretics.  I. S. 
The Reasons why the Parallel holds not are these. Ib.  C. 
The Word of an Infallible Instructor shall pass with me for a thousand Reasons. Tell me only what these Reasons prove, it will suffice. If it be this, that men may sin often, and yet not desert their Faith, 'tis already granted. Is it any thing else you would prove by them?  I. S. 
My Reasons thwart the universal alteration of Faith, while Christians proceeded on the former Rule of Tradition. R. p. 59  C. 
'Tis granted also, that Christians adhering to Apostolical Tradition, there could be no universal alteration of Faith.  I. S. 
They clearly evince an universal change in the Rule of Faith over the whole Body of Believers is absolutely impracticable. R. p. 57  C. 
Whatever your Reason's evince, we grant such an universal change will never be, because Christ will always have a Church of true Believers. But why might not a considerable part of the Whole Body alter the Faith first taught?  I. S. 
The change must be professed and open, otherwise it altars not the case; and posterity will believe still on, according as things appear outwardly. R p. 56.  C. 
Men may change the Faith, and at first privately teach it to a few, not professing at all that they change it, but that they retrieve it, after a change had been made in it; and they who are taught it, may believe it and spread it, and it may at last be openly professed, without professing a change from what it was at first, which is not the wont of Heretics.  I. S. 
Not unless it be said they went conscientiously upon some other ground than Tradition. R. p. 57  C. 
And why might they not do so?  I. S. 
'Tis impossible they should take up another ground. Ib.  C. 
Your reason I pray.  I. S. 
Because if they could not innovate in Faith, they could not innovate in that upon which they held all their Faith. Ib.  C. 
Very good. You were proving they cannot innovate in Faith, because they adhere to Tradition; now you prove they must adhere to Tradition, because they cannot innovate in Faith.  I. S. 
Men are more tenacious of their Principles—, than they are to relinquish all they have received upon those Principles. Ib.  C. 
That which they hold upon the Principle of Tradition is all their Faith, and you said but now, the care of their Faith made them hold their Principles; now you say, they are less careful of their Faith, than of their Principles. Thus have we Circle after Circle. Why would they hold their Rule or Principle? Because they were render of their Faith. Why were they so tender of their Faith? Because they were more tender of their Rule or Principle. I ask not, how men may be properly called, Tenacious to relinquish: but pick the best sense I can out of your pure nonsense.  I. S. 
Tradition is the Authority of the whole Ecclesia docens—, which could never permit itself to be thought to have attested a lie hitherto. Ib.  C. 
If Tradition be the Authority of the Church, than (as you said of that Authority) it is of no more credit, than a story told by an old woman, till better reasons be given for it; nor hath it this effect upon Humane Nature by its own proper Power, to prove Truth. But why may not the whole Ecclesia docens (supposing it the Church of Rome) attest to a lie?  I. S. 
It could never permit itself (were there nothing but its own interest) to be thought to do it. Ib.  C. 
You say well, not to be thought to do it, for that would spoil all: Tho' I know not how it can be hindered, but some will think so, It might be its Interest to advance itself, and for that, to pretend a false Tradition, and to forge evidences to fasten a lie on former Ages.  I. S. 
None could be competent Judges, what was fit to be a Rule of Faith, but they who were so concerned both in Duty and Interest, Tradition should not be set aside. Ib.  C. 
Then if Interest prevailed above Duty, a false Tradition might be pretended, and the World must receive it on their credit, because they alone are to be accounted competent Judges.  I. S. 
There must be some great time betwixt their discarding Tradition, and espousing a New Rule; during which time we must imagine the whole Church (except perhaps some few that discovered it first) would be made up of Seekers, some hover one way, some another; in which case they would as yet have no Faith, and consequently there could be no Church. R. p. 57, 58.  C. 
No, Sir, a pretence to Tradition as the only Rule might still be kept afoot, and yet changes made in Points of Faith: whilst they who publicly opposed or privately disowned them, adhering only to the true Apostolical Tradition, were the true Church.  I. S. 
If they could innovate in Faith, they must pretend to Tradition still, when they had evidently deserted it, that is, They must profess to hold the Testerday's Faith, when all the World must see, and every one's own heart must tell him the contrary. Which is the highest impossibility. Ib.  C. 
They might pretend to Tradition, when evidently to others, they had deserted it in many things; and some of them, not impossibly, when their own hearts told them so.  I. S. 
'Tis impossible any Temptations should move all men, to fall into this one sin of altering the Faith. Ib.  C. 
How impossible I know not, but I think it neither ever did or shall come to pass.  I. S. 
Summing up my Discourse, (Sect. 45.) 'tis manifest, you have no way to answer our Argument, but by supposing there was a time, in which there were no considerable Body of Men in the World either good Christians, honest Men, or valuing their credit; but only a company of Brutish, Godless, Lying Russians, without the least degree of Grace or Shame in them. R. p. 60.  C. 
It is then unanswerable by me, for I cannot suppose this. Tho' I am not convinced that Men cannot innovate in Faith, till it be shown, not only that they have memory enough to remember Testerday's teaching; but that they made a right use of their Memory to that purpose; and farther, that they had so little wickedness, as not only not wittingly to damn themselves and their posterity, but as not to neglect any care that should be taken for their salvation; and many things more not yet shown. For, what if all Sons did not understand aright all that Fathers had taught them?  I. S. 
If all did not, most of the intelligent Pasters would, and could easily instruct them, it being both so obligatory and so easy. Ib.  C. 
Obligatory indeed, yet not so easy so to instruct them as to convince them; as you, I doubt not, find it in those whom you suppose in error. Suppose again, some Sons were so negligent as to take no care either to remember or teach what they had been taught by their Fathers?  I. S. 
Then the diligent would reprehend them, and see things amended; and those careless Persons, especially if Pastors, reduced to their Duty, there being Orders on foot in the World to oblige them to it. R. p. 61.  C. 
How came it to pass then, that all Heretics were not long ago suppressed?  I. S. 
'Tis an unheard of Negligence, not to know or remember Yesterday Faith. R. p. 61.  C. 
But 'tis a very possible thing, either not to heed what is taught to day, and so to be ignorant of it to morrow; or not to remember to morrow every thing that is taught to day; or being taught to day, to think of it no more to morrow, nor many days after, and to forget something of it at last. But what if some through Ambition, Vainglory, and Popularity, set abroach New Doctrines, and taught them for Apostolical Tradition?  I. S. 
Good men would set themselves to oppose them, make known their Pretences, and lay open their Novelties. Ib.  C. 
I doubt it not; but not always so effectually, as the Errors should not have many followers. What if others to save themselves from Persecution, concealed part, and corrupted more of the Doctrine of Christ by their own Traditions?  I. S. 
Others would oppose their unchristian proceed, reveal what they had concealed, restore what they had corrupted, and manifest that Doctrine they subintroduced had not descended by the channel of the Christian Church's Tradition. Ib.  C. 
Yet here's Tradition pretended against Tradition, and many, it may be, carried away with the Pretence; and a great number (as you have said) attesting, the attestation is to be thought sufficient; and then a greater number can add nothing to it. Let others then oppose and manifest what they can, all possibly will not be convinced. What if others through a blind zeal, ignorant devotion, superstitious rigour, and vain credulity, added many things to the Doctrine of Christ, which by degrees grew into more general esteem, till at last they were owned, and imposed as necessary to be believed and practised?  I. S. 
If they belonged to Faith they could not come in, while the Rule of Tradition was adhered to, as has been proved and granted. R. p. 62.  C. 
True, not whilst Apostolical Tradition wholly and solely was adhered to by All, whether they belonged to Faith or no.  I. S. 
Perhaps some Points involved in the main Body of Faith, not yet so explicitly or universally known, might, on emergent occasions be singled out, defined, and more especially recommended than formerly, without any detriment to the Faith received, but rather to the advantage and farther explication of it. Ib.  C. 
I understand you thus. All Points of Faith are no more explicitly conveyed to us by Tradition, than by Scripture; but some of them implicitly only. 'Tis something else which hath all in its breast, and by degrees vents it in parcels, as there is occasion to define and recommend; and then, though men might before be saved, without the knowledge of it, it becomes as necessary an Article of Faith as any of the rest. This is the great Mystery, had all been given out at first, the Box being empty, would have been in some danger to have been laid aside and disregarded. Well, but after all this, If somebody should start up and say, this or that Article thus defined is no part of the old Apostolical Tradition, but a mere innovation, who must decide the matter? Who but the Church? All Truth is lodged in her breast. But which is this Church? That which holds to Tradition, the Church of Rome: Which is the true Tradition? That which the Church; viz. of Rome holds. What now if Error any of the former Ways brought forth, grew, multiplied, spread, obtained most power, and drove out all that held the naked truth from all those Countries where it came?  I. S. 
Do any Histories tell you, This Error spread over the Whole Church, without your supposing the Question, that such or such a Tenet is an Error, which you pretend such; which is above the skill of Historians to decide, and is only to be determined by examining first who have, who have not a certain Rule of Faith? Ib.  C. 
Over the Whole Church is too much. Histories tell us of the spreading of Error, such as both You and We account so, over divers Countries. What need is there of supposing the Question, that such or such a Tenet is an Error, betwixt us who are agreed about it, as I think we are in that of Arianism? But as to what you add, pray tell me. If Tradition be the Rule of Faith, who can be fit to decide what Tenet is Error than Historians, who should know best what belongs to former Ages? But I forget, 'tis the Oral Tradition of the prefent Church is your Rule of Faith, and Historians have to do only with things past: and I agree with you, that it exceeds their Skill to show us, that all those things which your present Church calls Errors, were decided to be such in the first Ages. However, seeing what is Error is only to be decided by examining first who have, who have not a certain Rule of Faith, I beseech you be not so hasty, as you use to be, to call us Heretics, whilst this Point is but yet under examination.  I. S. 
But what are all these rambling Questions to our Argument, which insists on the impossibility of altering the Yesterday Faith, but either out of want of Memory, or out of Malice? R. p. 62, 63.  C. 
They ramble home to your Argument, where you would not see them.  I. S. 
Apply them to this, and they lose all their force. Ibid.  C. 
If Faith may be altered all or any of these Ways, then, if they all should imply forgetfulness or malice, (as you say most of them do in some degree) men may through forgetfulness or malice innovate in Faith; and if they imply neither, men may innovate otherwise than through forgetfulness or malice. Either way your Arguments spoiled.  I. S. 
I long to see't made out, that an erring Church can still plead Tradition, and adhere to it. L. p. 18.  C. 
That an erring Church adheres (as I have formerly said) to Tradition, I know no man that will undertake to make out to save your longing. But may not a Church that once adhered to Tradition, leave it?  I. S. 
That a Church may follow Tradition at one time, and leave it at another, is no news. L. p. 15.  C. 
If this be no News, then though we should grant Tradition to be an infallible conveyance of the Truth, yet would it not make even that Church which now adheres to it iufallible; and therefore the Church of Rome (though we should confess her at present to adhere to infallible Tradition) could not prove herself thereby to be infallible. That Church only is infallible, which cannot err; the Church that at one time follows Tradition, may leave it at another, and so doing errs. Therefore if the Church of Rome will be infallible, she must prove not only, that she follows Tradition, for so she proves only, that she does not err; but also that she cannot leave it, for infallibility excludes all possibility of erring, by leaving Tradition. She must therefore seek out a new Medium to prove herself infallible. A. p. 25.  I. S. 
Do not you see this already proved to your hand? R. p. 63.  C. 
No, truly, and I despair of ever hearing him prove, that a Church which now follows Tradition, cannot leave it, who has told me, 'tis no News, but a common case, for a Church that follows it, to leave it.  I. S. 
Not to repeat the many Reasons produced for this point, Sect. 45. R p. 63.  C. 
You did not sure mean, I saw it proved to my hand in those Reasons which you had not then produced. And I see as little yet, that they were produced for this point. I granted you all that for which you told me you produced them, when you mentioned them, but that the Church of Rome cannot leave Tradition was not it you then told me you produced them for.  I. S. 
Innovation and Tradition being formally and diametrically opposite, what proves she could not innovate, proves also that she could not leave Tradition, for this were to innovate R. p. 63.  C. 
But where was it proved she could not innovate?  I. S. 
Our Argument you see has already proved it. I wonder you should dissemble a thing so obvious, and run forwards upon that affected inadvertence of yours. 'Tis the very thing our Argument chiefly aims at. R. p. 63, 64.  C. 
Aiming and hitting are two things; you say it aimed at it, but I have shown you it missed it. And farther I tell you, that if ever you hit it, you will wound yourself. Will you prove a Church that follows Tradition cannot leave it, and yet say the contradictory to it is true?  I. S. 
You would persuade us rather to prove our Church free from Error. R. p. 64.  C. 
I think it good advice, and for your encouragement have told you, that I think we are obliged (whenever you prove it) to be of her Communion. Will you not take my advice to make us your Converts? I said also, 'tis the easier task for you, if she be so; and if she be not so, you in vain attempt to prove her more than so, infallible.  I. S. 
Your wise advice amounts to this, that 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 proved, 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 unheardof a Negligence as to forget to morrow her yesterday 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 than 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 satisfy 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. 
'Tis the right of the Respondent, to deny any thing that is not driven up to Evidence. R. p. 66.  C. 
'Tis 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. 
'Tis 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 show 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 Heretics— 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 show 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 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 'twas the same? Surely you do, when you say they might err by leaving it. Yet than 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, 'tis certain, have been made in this Doctrine; and therefore without dispute some have believed and taught otherwise than men were at first taught, etc. A. p. 26, 27.  I. S. 
Some particular Churches may err in Faith. Ib.  C. 
You are then to show what special Privilege 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 followed this Rule] for a proof that they hold the same, etc. Ib.  C. 
You brought those words as an Introduction to your Proof, which amounts to no more than your, or your Church's saying, she did follow it. And what say you more, I pray? Yes, say you, she could not innovate. Why could she not? If she could, she must either forget, or through malice alter it. Why not so, or some other way alter the Faith? You say you need not prove that men had always Memories, etc. 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 aught to be the common Rule to All, even to Heretics, though they miserably abuse it, and though I could tell you too of Heretics 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 Heretics, 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 Heretics and Us. I begin to hope by this, that you count Us no Heretics.  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. 
'Tis 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 Judgement 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 considered well of all things which we know of to be considered, 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 justify you for judging them to be miserable Abusers of Scripture. Ib.  C. 
We usurp not to ourselves a Praetorian power of judging others, and therefore need nothing to justify us for doing what we do not. That we say is this, that Heretics, whoever are so, going about to support their Errors by the Scripture, do abuse it. All the Judgement we challenge touching Heretics in particular, is no more but a Judgement of Discretion, to discern for ourselves by the best means we can use, whose Doctrine is true, whose false, that we may know which to choose, 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, eat it. Which of us judgeth truly, we leave to the Judgement of God.  I. S. 
Your own Interpretation of it is, beyond all Evasion, that which differences you from them, and so 'tis your peculiar or specific 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, though 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 patronising true Faith and Heresy, 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 patronise Truth and Heresy, or can it do both? This alone you know is our Rule.  I. S. 
This being my Charge, it was manifestly your Duty to show 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 yourself) say, the Generical Rule we give. And this you say again is common to all Heresies, that is, patroniteth true Faith and Heresy, reconcileth Christ and Belial. I wish you may well discharge yourself 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 uttered any thing like it, neither gave you the least occasion to utter it.  I. S. 
The Difference constituting your Protestant Rule, as distinguished from that of most abominable Heretics, can only be [as my own Judgement▪ 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 ourselves, 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? Tho' a Child's Lesson be plain, yet needs he useful helps to learn it.  I. S. 
Scripture conceived 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. 
'Tis 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  to the Rule, and no constitutive difference of it, as you imagine. A. p. 28.  I. S. 
Still Scripture as interpretable by yourselves is your particular Rule, and not  to it. Ib.  C. 
Scripture as interpretable is not  to our Rule, but is indeed our Rule; yet is the interpretation of it  to it, which is that I said.  I. S. 
'Tis your own Interpretation we said was your Rule. Ib.  C. 
We say 'tis 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 ordained 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, 'tis the same Word written, or the Scripture only. And as differenced from both Romanists and other Heretics and Sectaries, it is the same Scripture still, plainly delivering a sense owned 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 [owned and declared, etc.] 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 Heretics and Sectaries, what is this Essential different Rule of yours. R. p. 76.  C. 
I know no such thing, as that the Orthodox and Heretics 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, though in the interpreting of it they do.  
Thus have I endeavoured (notwithstanding the many Squibs you have thrown in the way to scare or vex me) to trace you step by step, wherever I could discern the least colour of Reason. And yet I confess is the far greater part of your long Letter unanswered, 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 bestowed on,  
Sir, Your Servant.  
FINIS.