The Reflecters Defense of His Letter to a Friend, Dialogue 2
The Second Dialogue.
I. S.
I Will let you ſee in a ſhort Diſcourſe, how far your Rule of Faith is from being abſolutely certain. L. p. 30.
C.
Far enough, if you ſhew what you undertook to ſhew, the Nullity of it.
I. S.
My first Propoſition is this: God has left us ſome way to know ſurely what Christ and his Apoſtles taught. R. p. 2.
C.
Your Propoſition is granted, what now infer you from it?
I. S.
Therefore this way, must be ſuch, that they who take it ſhall arrive by it at the end it was intended for, that is, know ſurely what Christ and his Apoſtles taught. L. p. 30.
C.
If God have left us a way to know, then by that way we may know.
I. S.
You muſt needs be wording on't your own way, to ſhew that either you did not underſtand it, or that you had a mind to inform us how neatly and dexterouſly you can change and pervert words, as well as anſwer. R. p. 21.
C.
Where have I changed or perverted your words?
I. S.
Is ſhall know, and may know, all one? R. p. 22.
C.
They are not the ſame word indeed, and I now confeſs I did put may for ſhall not in your ſaying, but my own. And if I had done it wittingly, to ſhew either my Ignorance or my Art, little reaſon could you have to be angry with ſo courteous an Adverſary, who was willing to ſacrifice the credit of his Ʋnderſtanding or Sincerity, as according to you I muſt have been to your ſervice. But to ſay truth, I was not ſo kind; neither over obſerved I the change I had made, till you inform'd me. I beg your pardon for this error, and have more cauſe to thank you for minding me of it, than it may be you thought of giving me. Let it therefore be ſhall, what mean you by it more than may?
I. S.
Shall, that is, cannot chuſe but know. Ib.
C.
I confeſs I took them for terms equivalent, as they are often uſed, and therefore I granted all as true, thô 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 diſcover'd my Error, you have ſpoiled my Complement 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 Jarr of Oyl. 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 your ſelf, (L. p. 15.) that they who both take and follow the Way may leave it again. You ſpake 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 Judgments, 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 then 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 your ſelf 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 happen'd 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 propos'd 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 concern'd 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 wrest 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 it ſelf 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 ſhew 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 Ʋnderſtanding, 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 ſtraight Ruler, and yet make never a Line ſtraight. 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, drouzy, or drunk. However, let the Line prove as it will, the Rule is ſtraight whether you underſtand how to draw by it or no, which is that I affirm'd.
I. S.
If you make the Letter of Scripture your Rule, and ſo Private interpreting the Ʋſing of it, and the Sence the Line drawn; unriddle to us, if you can, how the Sence drawn from the Letter can any more fail to be true, than the Line drawn by the Rule to be ſtraight; and which way that Sence can be miſunderſtood, and how the Rule can be a good Rule, if it be uſed, and the Sence to which it is a Rule be miſunderſtood? R. p. 25.
C.
Had you ſuffer'd 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 Sence 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 ſence. Ib.
C.
Where did I put it barely, Ʋſed, or where ſaid I, it would produce right Sence? Here's no falſifying! Did you indeed, Sir, never make falſe Latine 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 Latine, whileſt 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 School-boy 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 Sence and intelligible the Rule of our Ʋnderſtanding 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 Ʋnderſtanding it? If not, by what other Rule do you underſtand it?
I. S.
You Queſtion on. Muſt a Way be a wrong Way, becauſe ſome that take it will not keep it? Riddle my Riddle again. R. p. 26.
C.
More Riddles ſtill? Well, let's have 'em.
I. S.
Pray who are or can be thoſe ſome who take it and will not keep it? Ib.
C.
The very ſame, who (as you have told me) at one time follow it, and at another leave it.
I. S.
As long as they take it, they keep it, I think. Ib.
C.
And when they leave it, they keep it not, I am ſure.
I. S.
He who has no will to keep it, may when he pleaſes go out of it, but then he does no longer take it, and is none of the ſome of whom the Queſtion ſpeaks. Ib.
C.
So may he that has no care to keep it, go out of it when he conſiders it not. Yet are they both the ſame of whom the Queſtion was (if it was not impertinent) who firſt took it, and after went out of it, and then kept it not. You ask, Who can do this? You anſwer, Whoever will may do it.
I. S.
He that takes the Way, ſhall certainly arrive at his Journey's end, let him will what he pleaſes, and the way muſt needs be a wrong way if he do not. Ib.
C.
Yea! Thô he will go out of it? And is the way a wrong way when he goes out of it? Doth a man's taking or leaving a Way make it right or wrong? This I imagine is it you would have. The way is Right that you take, and Wrong that you leave; and ſo we need not ask for the Right way, but which Way you go, and that to be ſure is right.
I. S.
You imagine we are talking of one, who only takes the Way at firſt, and after leaves it. Ib.
C.
If you talk of one that takes it and cannot leave it, you talk of no body that I know, and ſo may talk on for me.
I. S.
The Argument proceeds of ſuch as make the way their choice, and perſiſt to follow no other to their lives end. Ib.
C.
It proceeds of thoſe whom you ſuppoſe to err in Faith, and if it be true which you ſuppoſe, thô they may pretend to chuſe the Scripture for their Rule, they do not indeed follow it, In ſhort, till it be proved that God hath left ſuch a Way or Rule, as no man can poſſibly err out of it, miſtake it or abuſe it; and that it is not enough that he hath left us ſuch a Way or Rule, as men may underſtand and obſerve, if they be not wanting to themſelves; it will not follow, that the Scripture's Letter, as we own it, is not the Way, thô not only Presbyterians and Socinians, but the greater number of Mankind ſhould own it, and yet differ about Fundamental Points contained in it. A. p. 15, 16.
I. S.
As many as leave the Catholick Church, leave the Way left by God; and you, like a right pleaſant man, would have it prov'd, that the thing cannot poſſibly be done, which we ſee is done by Millions; and would have us, who ſay they all do err and miſtake, to prove they cannot. R. p. 27.
C.
I ſay nothing now of the Catholick Church, but asle if it be not as pleaſant in you, to ſuppoſe me to bid you prove it, becauſe I ſay till it be proved, which I grant it can never be, your Argument's naught?
I. S.
Will it not follow, that the Way by which, a man that goes in it, comes to Error; is not the Way to Truth? R. p. 28.
C.
If the Way lead him into Error, it is not the Way to Truth.
I. S.
Since Presbyterians and Socinians both Interpret Scripture by their own Judgments, and one ſide knows not the Doctrine of Christ, it follows unavoidably, that the Way of Private Interpretation is no ſure Way to know it. R. Ib.
C.
Scripture we affirm to be the Rule, you will prove Scripture's Letter Interpretable, &c. is not the Rule, and at laſt conclude, Private Interpretation is not the Rule. What's all this to us? You have thus Hackney'd out a pair of Metaphors (Way and Rule) to courſe it on all four (which no Metaphor can do) ſo long after your nimble Fancy, till you have quite jaded them, and then you would turn them up to us for Riddles. No, Sir, take them as you have uſed them, and let them reſt at Private Interpretation, for Scripture has no longer any room for them ſo uſed.
I. S.
What do you talk of erring, or miſtaking the Way? '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 Judgment, and ſo take not miſtake, uſe not abuſe it. Ib.
C.
Private-Interpretation you muſt mean by It. for that is it which you would make us call the true Way, though it be not. Scripture is the true Way, and their private interpretation is their abuſe of it.
I. S.
Sure you mean, they miſtake the Doctrine of Chriſt, and ſo by miſtaking the Way, you wiſely underſtand miſtaking the Eud. Ib.
C.
The Doctrine of Chriſt in the Scripture is the Way to a right Faith, and by miſtaking that Way, they err in Faith.
I. S.
To what purpoſe do you tell us that men may underſtand and obſerve (as if obſerving concern'd our queſtion of knowing) if they be not wanting to themſelves? Ib.
C.
A rare kind of knowledge it is that comes without obſerving. Should we not obſerve what you ſay, we ſhould anſwer you as you defire, without knowing your craft. It is ſure to ſome purpoſe, to tell of underſtanding a Rule, and obſerving or keeping (ſo I meant) a way.
I. S.
They who take a right way, not only may, but must, and cannot poſſibly fail of coming whither it leads.—Men have no more to do with a way, but to travel in it, and ſo cannot be wanting to themſelves in that reſpect, if they do. Ib.
C.
Men have not ſo much to do, it ſeems, as to obſerve the Way; but as long as they trot on any how, all's well enough.
I. S.
Of the ſame batch is your not underſtanding, and not keeping a Way. As if they who interpret by their private Judgments, did not keep the way of interpreting by private Judgments. R. p. 29.
C.
As if the way or Rule to be interpreted, and the way of interpreting were all one. Or as if by keeping his own way of interpreting a man may not mif-interpret or wiſ-underſtand, or go out of the right way.
I. S.
Yet that very miſ-underſtanding is their underſtanding it to be the Way, and ſo they, even in your opinion, miſ-underſtand not the Way, however they miſ-underſtand by it. Ib.
C.
Here's a Riddle indeed! Might not all this confuſion and blundring have been avoided, might I have ſet your Propoſition right at firſt? But ſo you had loſt your advantage of traveling in the dark, leſt your Errors ſhould be too eaſily diſcovered. They underſtand Scripture to be the Way, yet cannot their miſunderſtanding of Scripture be their underſtanding it to be ſo, unleſs miſ-underſtanding and right underſtanding be all one. And ſo, in my opinion, underſtanding Scripture to be the Way, they may yet miſ-underſtand it, but not miſ-underſtand by it.
I told you, It follows no more that Scripture is not the Way, becauſe men that own it differ about matters contained in it, than it follows, that becauſe we ſee men miſ-interpret and break good Laws daily, therefore thoſe Laws are unintelligible, or cannot be kept, and must be thought inſufficient to ſhew what the Lawgiver expects from them. R. p. 16.
I. S.
What breaking and keeping Laws is brought in for, you beſt know that bring them in. R. p. 29.
C.
I brought them in to ſhew, that a Rule may be intelligible and ſufficient, though ſome men miſ-interpret or break it.
I. S.
Our Diſcourſe is only about knowing the Doctrine of Faith, and not at all about living up to it, and ſo hath nothing to do with thoſe who know, but will not keep the Laws. Ib.
C.
Yet if the Rule of living be no leſs a true Rule for being miſ-interpreted, why muſt the Rule of Faith be for that no true Rule?
I. S.
You end your Diſcourſe very ſuitably to the reſt, with an inſtance directly againſt your ſelf. You ſee that Laws left to private interpretation are by all mankind judg'd inſufficient, and publick Interpreters therefore ſet up every-where; and from the parity with them which are inſufficient, you conclude the Letter of Scripture is not inſufficient. Ib.
C.
The Laws are of themſelves a ſufficient Rule, though liable to a miſ-interpretation, and ſo is Scripture. What need there is of publick Interpreters of either, who they are to be, or how qualified, is not now the Queſtion, nor ſhall you now engage me in it.
I. S.
Any body but your ſelf would have made another uſe of this Inſtance. As God can write much plainer than men, when he thinks fit, and has more care of their ſalvation, than they of their temporal concerns; another man would have concluded, that God did not intend their ſalvation ſhould depend on the privately interpretable Letter of the Divine Law, which he left leſs plain than men made the Letter of humane Lows. Ib.
C.
Another man poſſibly, with your ſelf at his Elbow to prompt him, might both ſuppoſe and conclude as miſely and piouſly too as you do: He might ſuppoſe firſt, that humane Laws are plainer than the divine Laws, which will not be granted him, and thence infer, that thoſe being of temperal concernment only, and theſe of eternal, and God being more careful of our ſalvation, than men of our temporal concerns, and able to ſpeak plainer than they, '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 Judgments, is not the Way left by God to know ſurely what Christ and his Apoſtles taught, or ſurely to arrive at right Faith. Ib.
C.
This, when it was propoſed only to be proved, you call'd your Concluſion, and would not allow me to ſpeak to it. Now '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 unſens'd Characters, I confeſs it cannot be the Rule or Way to know. Yet if you can allow as much to Scripture as you would have us allow to your Letter, that it contains good ſence in words ſignificant and intelligible, we deny your Propoſition.
I. S.
I wiſh ſome body would tell me for you, whether you take Scripture's Letter, in this period, for unſenc'd or ſenc'd characters; for truly I cannot tell my ſelf. R. p. 31.
C.
If you underſtand not Engliſh, I cannot help it; any body elſe might ſee I take it for ſenc'd characters.
I. S.
By the terms you put [intelligible] and [ſignificant] one would gueſs you mean unſenc'd characters. For [intelligible] imports what may be underſtood, but is not yet; and [ſignificant] what may be perceived by the ſign, whether it be or no. Ib.
C.
You have a mind I ſee we ſhould know how excellent a Critick you are. You have now taught me what I confeſs I knew not before, that when a thing is underſtood, it is no longer intelligible, that is, cannot be underſtood; and that that is not ſignificant which doth ſignifie, but that is ſignificant which may be ſignified, whether it be perceived to be ſo or no. If it ſignifie, we muſt not call it ſignificant, or ſignifying; but if it be ſignified, though it ſignifie nothing to us, we muſt call it ſignificant. Who ever heard ſuch ſtuff as this before from a Critick?
But I ſhould remember you are of a Communion wherein ſuch Language may be as proper, as that other you mention (p. 1.2.) Worſhip in an Ʋnknown Tongue is no otherwiſe intelligible, than as, That which may be underſtood, but is not yet. And Tranſubſtantiation hath left no ſign to ſignifie, but makes the thing ſignified to be the thing ſignifying too, whether that which may be perceived by it, be ſo or no.
I. S.
The ſence of the characters of Scripture, is the ſence of God; and the ſence of God is that which we are to believe. And ſo Scripture-characters ſenced ſignifie Faith it ſelf in conjunction with thoſe characters. Ib.
C.
What means theſe words [in conjunction with thoſe characters?]
I. S.
A character ſenc'd ſignifies a character with the ſence joyn'd to it. Ib.
C.
A character ſenc'd or unſenc'd, are expreſſions we were never uſed to, but in reading ſuch. Writings as yours. You may therefore interpret your own Language as you pleaſe for me, whether we can underſtand you or no. For my part I can underſtand no more-by a ſenc'd character, but a character the ſignification whereof is intelligible. So Scripture-characters ſignifie Faith it ſelf, taken for the things to be believed, as is uſual.
I. S.
Faith is the end to which we are looking for a way to carry us. To tell us then that Scripture's Letter taken for ſenced Characters, is this Way, is to tell us the End is the Way to it ſelf; that the means to get Faith, is to have it firſt; that when we know it, we know it; — and ſuch fine things. Ib.
C.
Faith materially taken revealed in Scripture, is there revealed, that we may knew and believe it. To beget Faith in us, is the end of Faith's being there reveal'd. And ſo we ſay truly, that Faith ſignified in written characters is the way or means to beget Faith in us; or that the means to get Faith, is to ſeek it in the Scripture; that when we diſcern it there, we know what we are to believe. Theſe are plain things, which you by your fine Arts would make obſcure. Pray now keep your fine things for Bart'lemew Fair.
I. S.
You are not a man to be diſcouraged with ill ſucceſs. You are at your diſtinctions again. Ib.
C.
Much, I fear, againſt your will, who ſeem to delight in confuſion. If again by theſe words [interpretable by private Judgments] you mean, any way interpretable, as any private man may poſſibly wreſt the words to make them comply with his own Sentiments, or through ignorance, lazineſs, and neglect of helps and means fit to be uſed, may miſ-underſtand them; you muſt have as wide a Conſcience and as little Modeſty, as the impudent and wicked Author of PAX VOBIS, who has the face to faſten ſuch a meaning on the ſixth of our 39 Articles, &c. But if you mean, that Scripture as it may be underſtood by a private man of a competent Judgment, uſing ſuch helps as are proper, is not the Way, we again deny your aſſumption, or if you will, your Fourth Propoſition. A. p. 13, 14.
I. S.
I will, by your good leave, ſay in ſhort, Good and Bad Judgments, R. p. 32.
C.
As you pleaſe, Sir.
I. S.
I take you then to ſay, that Scripture's Letter, as interpretable by bad Judgments, is not the way; but as interpretable by good Judgments, is the way. Ib.
C.
You miſtake me then: for I ſay it is not the Way as any way interpretable, or as it may be wreſted either by good or bad Judgments.
I. S.
By this account three parts in four of Mankind at a modeſt computation, have no Way: for ſo many bad Judgments there are at leaſt. Ib.
C.
Not very modeſt, to conclude ſo haſtily, that three parts in four cannot underſtand, with all the helps God affords them, the Scripture in their own Language.
I. S.
While we are inquiring which is the Way which God hath left, pray what have we to do with the Judgments of men? Can they make or unmake it? Ib.
C.
Why are you then ſo buſie with that, wherewith you have nothing to do? Why, whether we will or no, and when we forbid you to do it, will you, when you talk of the Way which God hath left, meddle with private Judgments? Are not thoſe the Judgments of men? Were you not in a Dreams and fancy'd that we ſaid what no body but your ſelf ſaid?
I. S.
Your diſtinction unluckily has no relation at all to the Queſtion. R. p. 33.
C.
Moſt unluckily indeed to you, it has ſo near a relation to your Propoſition, that it ſhews, now you have made it your concluſion, that you conclude nothing to the Queſtion.
I. S.
You ſay, that bad Judgments may miſ underſtand the Letter of Scripture, and that it is not the way to ſuch; which I think, is to ſay, that becauſe they may miſunderſtand it, therefore it is not the Way. Ib.
C.
Where ſaid I, it is not the Way to ſuch? Beware of unconſcionable falſifying; and then be at what pains you will to tell us that you have read Bayes his Play, and learn'd of him to talk like a Player. Pag. 34.
I. S.
The Queſtion is, Whether Scripture's Letter interpretable by Private Judgments be the Way left by God. R. p. 35.
C.
Is it ſo? Anſwer then your own Queſtion, while we are enquiring after the Way left by God, what have we to do with Private Judgments?
I. S.
I maintain it is not; and prove it, becauſe men, who take that way, err. Ib.
C.
What you maintain in oppoſition to us, pray ſee it be oppoſite to our Doctrine. As to your proof, it needs another proof yet, viz. That men who take the right way, may not err from it.
I. S.
I thought it needed no proving, that the Way leſt by God is not the Way to Error. Ib.
C.
But this doth, that men who take it, may-not err from it.
I. S.
The Propoſition is of the Letter Interpretable, that is, not yet interpreted, or which has not the ſence put to it, and ſo is yet unſenſed. Ib.
C.
Then your Propoſition is of ſenſleſs Characters, that they are not the Rule of Faith, which being granted you, you oppoſe no body, and ſo are left to diſpute with your ſelf.
I. S.
When you diſtinguiſh the Letter Interpretable into ſenſed and unſenſed, you make a diſtinction, whereof one branch is not comprehended in the Notion to be divided. Ib.
C.
'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 unſens'd Characters in Scripture; how then ſhould I diſtinguiſh the Letter into ſenſed and unſenſed. I only asked you which branch of your own ſenſeleſs diſtinction you meant. You now tell me, you meant unſenſeable characters, and that the Letter Interpretable can be no other: If ſo, for my part I think 'tis nothing, for I cannot ſee how unſenſed Characters are Interpretable at all.
I. S.
Your ſecond Diſtinction is of Judgments into competent and incompetent, which is Twin to the former. Ib.
C.
Are all competent then, or all incompetent, or are they neither?
I. S.
I vouch'd for proof Presbyterians and Socinians, men of very competent judgments, who fall under none of your ill qualifications. Ib.
C.
Then may they underſtand the Scripture in Points of Faith; or if they may not, they are of incompetent judgments. You ſuppoſe them to err, and yet to fall under none of my ill qualifications of Ignorance, Lazineſs, or Negligence. But how can you prove they do not? However, there is yet behind an ill qualification mentioned there by me, that you take no notice of: Why then may they not be of thoſe who wreſt Scripture to comply with their own Sentiments, ſuch as I told you (A. p. 15.) you might find enow of nearer home? This humour, I now tell you, I take to be the ſourſe of the moſt pernicious Miſinterpretations, as I fear it may be amongſt Socinians; and alſo ſome others, who affecting a Supremacy, labour ſo long to find it in Scripture, till at laſt they think they have found it in every Verſe that ſpeaks well of St. Peter: in like manner as they will needs prove Tradition it ſelf, thô the foundation of all certainty, by Scripture, our derided Rule.
I. S.
I foretold I ſhould have nothing but an unconcerning return for an anſwer.
C.
Either my Anſwer is a concerning return to your Diſcourſe, or your Diſcourſe is not concerning the Ʋncertainty of our Faith, much leſs hath it ſhewn the Nullity of our Rule, which you ſay it undertook to do. And truly I might have foretold, as eaſily as you, that it was in vain to expect from him, who had proclaim'd his Diſcourſe unanſwerable any acknowledgment that it was anſwer'd.
I. S.
You conclude with an Argument againſt my Concluſion. R. p. 36.
C.
No Argument by your favour, Sir, nor did I conclude my Anſwer with it, as you well know. I was but telling in what ſence your Propoſition (after which two more then follow'd, thô but one of them now appear) muſt be taken, if you would prove any thing againſt us. To this purpoſe, I laid before you ſeveral Suppoſitions of ours, which you muſt by your proof overthrow, if you proved any thing to purpoſe. This is it you now call a concluding with an Argument againſt your concluſion. And laugh at your own conceit.
I. S.
You ſuppoſe then—
C.
Yes, we ſuppoſe, 1. That the Scripture is God's Word. A. p. 14.
I. S.
So do I too provided you mean the true ſence of it. Ib.
C.
We mean no other. 2. That it was written to be underſtood.
I. S.
Undoubtedly, but not by every one, barely by means of the Letter — Books without Maſters will make but few Grammarians or Mathematicians. Ib.
C.
And ſuch Maſters we want not. 3. That it is written for the Inſtruction of Private Men.
I. S.
Yes, but not the only or ſufficient means of their inſtruction, barely by the Letter. Ib.
C.
Not, ſuppoſing that Letter an unſenſed Character: nor, taking it as ſens'd, (as we always do) is it ſo our Rule or Means as to exclude all other Means for the underſtanding it. 4. That Private Men are concern'd to underſtand it.
I. S.
Yes, and as much concern'd not to miſunderſtand it. Ib.
C.
'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 Publick Interpretation of the Church, or Tradition.
C.
Means ſo ſufficient, as they need not fear but by the bleſſing of God on their pious endeavours to underſtand it; among which is the Publick Interpretation of the Church, and written Tradition in the Creeds and Firſt Councils. 6. That uſing theſe Means as they ought, they may underſtand it, and thus it is to them the way to know ſurely what Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught as neceſſary to their ſalvation.
I. S.
Never mince it with May; they ſhall and certainly ſhall underſtand it who uſe the Means. R. p. 37.
C.
Not unleſs they uſe them as they ought, ſo indeed they certainly ſhall.
I. S.
'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 Publick Interpretation be thoſe Means, as it needs muſt, ſince I have proved, that Private is not; the Scripture plainly is no way to thoſe who only rely on the Private Means to underſtand it. Ib.
C.
You have prov'd you ſay, that Private Interpretation is not the Means of underſtanding Scripture; whilſt the thing you undertook to prove was the Nullity of our Rule, the Scripture itſelf. You ſuppoſe elſewhere Private Interpretation to be our Rule, and now you would have me to ſuppoſe it is the Means of Underſtanding our Rule; and will needs ſay you have proved it is not, and thence Infer, that Publick Interpretation is the Means: pray, Sir, for Logick's ſake, tell me, if this be a good conſequence, without the help of another ſuppoſition, that there is no other means, which is yet unproved. Yet grant you this, Scripture ſtill Remains the Way or Rule, even to thoſe who rely only on Private Interpretation, this only follows from your Premiſes, that they uſe not the right Means of Underſtanding it. To tell you now my thoughts, Interpretation is not ſo properly call'd the Means, as the Ʋſe of the Means.
I. S.
Your Proteſtants are much beholding to your Argument, which ſhews, that Scripture Interpreted, as they Interpret it, by Private Judgments, is no Way to them. Ib.
C.
My telling you what Proteſtants hold, will ſhew no ſuch thing as you imagine; but let you alone to ſhew your Art in turning it into an Argument, and then they will ſoon ſee how much they are obliged to ſomebody.
I. S.
Had you been confident of your performance againſt my Argument, you would never have thought of changing it, as you do, page 17. R. p. 18.
C.
I muſt not contend with you in confidence of our own Performances, yet am I ſtill ſo confident that your Argument has proved nothing to the purpoſe, that I dare tell you again, that if you will prove what you undertook to ſhew, (whereby I think you meant proving) you muſt thus frame your Argument. God hath left us ſome Way or Rule, which no man can poſſibly miſunderſtand or abuſe; The Scripture-Letter is not ſuch a Way or Rule as no man can poſſibly miſunderſtand or abuſe; Therefore, The Scripture-Letter is not the Way or Rule which God hath left us.
I. S.
No body elſe would have left out the Principal Conſideration, Ʋſing the Rule, and ſo coming to the right Faith by uſing it. R. p. 38.
C.
Put in thoſe words then, when you pleaſe, thô I think them not very needful, ſeeing Miſunderſtanding and Abuſing ſeem to me ſufficiently to imply an Ʋſing of it.
I. S.
Your Argument has all the Faults of your Anſwer, in ſhort.
C.
Be it ſo, and farewel to it; for if it may not be ſerviceable to you, it is I am ſure of no uſe at all to me.