The Reflecters Defense of His Letter to a Friend, Dialogue 1

The Reflecters Defense of His Letter to a Friend · Dialogue 1

Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus; The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend, &c.

Jan. 18. 1687. Guil. Needham, R. R. in Chriſto P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepiſc. Cant. à Sacr. Domeſt.

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

THE Reflecter's Defence OF HIS LETTER to a FRIEND, AGAINST The Furious Aſſaults of M^r I. S. In his Second Catholic Letter.

IN Four DIALOGƲES.

LONDON: Printed for William Rogers, at the Sun over againſt St. Dunſtan's Church in Fleet-ſtreet. MDCLXXXVIII.

p. 1A DIALOGUE BETWEEN I. S. a Roman-Catholick, AND C. a Catholick CHRISTIAN.

C.

WHatever Honour it may be to me, it was, I am ſure, a very wonderful Condeſcenſion in you, Sir, to ſtoop ſo low, with all your Glory of Self-Evidence, Abſolute Certainly and Infallibility, as to addreſs a Catholick Better to one, unto whom you allow no more at beſt, than honest Ignorance, and hardly ſo much, when you are a little our of humor, as common Sence, or to underſtand Engliſh. How civilly, you have therein Treated me, how juſtly you have Accuſed, or how fully Confuted me, is not a thing that deſerves the notice of many. The things we talk of, are too weighty to rely on either mine or your Wit, Breeding, Reputation, or Skill: I am not therefore careful either to Vindicate or Recriminate, or yet to learn of your Right Catholick Letter, how to anſwer it as it deſerves. I ſhall p. 2only, with your good leave, lay the matter open in a plain Dialogue, and leave it to every moderate Judgment (in your own words) to ſee by the very Methods we take, which ſide deſires and ſincerely endeavours that Truth may appear. There is only one little Miſtake of yours running almoſt quite through your obliging Letter, which it concerns me here to give notice of, becauſe it reflects on the Honour of a Perſon, whoſe Books I confeſs my ſelf unworthy to carry after him. Know then, Sir, beſeech you, that you honour me too much in calling me Dr. St.'s Defender, and my Letter a Defence of his. I never had the happineſs either by Face to be known by him, or in Word or Writing to converſe with him, Neither had I his Letter by me, or knew much more of it, when I writ mine, than what I read in yours, which I thought not my ſelf obliged to account all Oracle. The Reputation therefore of that Great Man is no way concerned in my Failings (as you would fain have it); but whatever they are, I alone am to anſwer for them. This I now tell you, becauſe of your (I will not ſay after you, affected) Inadvertence, who might have ſeen in the Title-page of my Letter, that I intended only to Reflect on ſome Paſſages … you first; and alſo in the beginning of it, what they were; all regard to the Conference it ſelf, being laid aſide. And this I take to be Anſwer enough to a great part of your Catholick Epiſtle.

I. S.

Your Anſwer affords no work for a Replier, but the moſt ungrateful one in the world, to be perpetually telling men of their Faults, without the leaſt hopes of doing them good, or contributing to their amendment. R. Pref.

C.

Whether then your Charity in judging us incorrigible, or your Wiſdom in writing ſo long a Letter to no purpoſe, or your Delight in troubling the World with Impertinences, be the greateſt, I will not now inquire; but rather p. 3by a ſincere promiſe of Amendment, endeavour to put you in better hopes and a more charitable opinion.

I. S.

Be pleaſed to leave off your affected Inſincerities, otherwiſe I muſt be forced to expoſe them yet farther. R. pag. 80.

C.

Be pleaſed firſt to exerciſe more your Charity in diſcovering them to my ſelf, or I ſhall a little ſuſpect your Juſtice in expoſing them to others.

I. S.

Your conſtant uſe is, to pick out a few words ſcattered here and there, which you thought you might moſt commodiouſly pervert. Ib.

C.

If I pick'd up nothing but what you had ſcatter'd, and anſwer'd all I pick'd up, I did all that I undertook to do. You muſt not perſwade me, that I may not anſwer ſome periods of a Diſcourſe, without binding my ſelf thereby to anſwer the whole; though you would make the World believe that all my anſwering is only perverting.

I. S.

I have now traced you punctually ſtep by ſtep; wherefore I have reaſon to expect the ſame exact meaſure from you. Ib.

C.

How reaſonable a task this is, I will not diſpute; though I know not why your being at more pains than needed, (as you certainly were, if the Anſwer afforded no more work for a Replier) muſt bind me to be ſo too. But ſeeing you have made this my task, I'll endeavour to obey you; only excuſe me, when you ſtep into the Dirt, if I follow you not, leſt I come to need more Holy-water than (by your Letter I gueſs) you can well ſpare. However, the way is tedious, and, as you have made it, rugged enough; '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, p. 4or Certainly: Then ſhould I have hoped, ſeeing they narrow ſo faſt, they would ſoon have come to nothings. Some of you told us many years ago, when the chief Queſtion was, Which is the only true Church? That this was the ſhorteſt Compendium of our Controverſies. If you have now found a ſhorter than the ſhorteſt, why ſtand we thus at a diſtance? Let's throw away our Weapons and embrace.

I. S.

My firſt Letter inſiſted chiefly on two ſhort Diſcourſes, whereof the one undertook to ſhew the Nullity of the Rule of Faith claim'd by Dr. St. and his Proteſtants: the other, the Abſolute Certainty of the Catholic Rule. R. Ib.

C.

I hope it will be thought but an honest Ignorance, if I be not able to diſtinguiſh Dr. St.'s Proteſtants from the Catholick Chriſtians of the Church of England, whoſe Rule of Faith is the Holy Scripture. Remember now what your two Diſcourſes undertook to ſhew; and when that is ſhown indeed, (and I wiſh you be not in too good earneſt to ſhew it) wonderful things (as you ſpeak) will follow, and you will be ſure of many Converts; yea, I dare ſay, even of Dr. St. and all his Proteſtants. In the mean time, what a neat way of reducing Controverſies to a narrower compaſs is this, whereby the Diſputants have not left them any common Rule, whereby it may be determined who is in the right?

I. S.

The whole Controverſie was, in ſhort, about the Certainty or Ʋncertainty of Chriſtian Faith. Ib.

C.

Theſe words would make one think you are Narrowing our Conteſts into a wider compaſs yet; as if the Diſpute had been betwixt Believers and Infidels: and then which Party you would have the Infidel, denying the Certainty of Chriſtian Faith, would not be hard to find. It's a little oddly expreſſed, but I am willing to make the beſt on't, and to think that you mean no more than what p. 5you 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 return'd 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 juſtifie their Accounts themſelves. R. p. 2.

C.

Speak you this in good earneſt, as conſidering how you ſhall juſtifie your Accounts your ſelf 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 juſtifie his Accounts, unleſs he know that he hath the Grace of God, and ſeeing you, being a Roman Catholick, believe the Council of Trent, ſaying, No man can know that he hath obtain'd the Grace of God, how you can be ſo unreaſonably exacting, as to require that of our Party, which your ſelf believe no man can do.

I. S.

If you ſpeak, as I did, of an Account of Faith, I hope you will not perſwade 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 perſwade us, that a mans bare knowing why he believes, will enable him to juſtifie his Account, even of his Faith it ſelf. We know why we believe the Chriſtian Faith; think you we are therefore able to p. 6juſtifie 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 juſtifie 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 ſpake of an Account that will paſs, as it is in it ſelf, (L. p. 5.) but this Account of Faith will not paſs, as it is in it ſelf 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 Ʋnrighteouſneſs, 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 mens 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 careleſneſs of mens 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? &c. 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 juſtifie their Accounts themſelves, and furniſhing them with Aſſurance that p. 7they can? &c. 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 ſhew 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 juſtifie 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 aim'd 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 alledged 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 mens 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 tye 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 p. 8plainly, 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, &c. 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 wrong'd. I gather hence, that in your Account, To ſay a thing more plainly, is to diſguiſe it; and to ſay we know it, is to laugh at it.

I. S.

Thence you ſtart aſide to tell us, That the Vulgar Catholick has leſs Certainty than the Vulgar Proteſtant, becauſe the one has only the Word of his Prieſt, the other hath the Word of his Miniſter, and the Word of God in Seripture beſides. Ib.

C.

Had I a mind to turn the Diſpute into a Wrangle, I ſhould here tell you, as you did me, You leave out thoſe words you do not like. But take and leave what you pleaſe. Only tell me why I muſt be thought to ſtare aſide, when I ſtep ſtraight forward only to a concluſion, which naturally follows from your own Premiſes? If Truth depend on intrinſical grounds, and not on mens ſaying this or that; can it depend any more on the Word of your Prieſt, than of our Miniſter? And therefore if the Word of your Prieſts be all that your Vulgar Catholics have, doth it not alſo follow on this ſuppoſition, that they have leſs certainty than Vulgar Proteſtants have, who have, beſides the Words of their Miniſters, the Word of God too. But this is to walk where you have no mind to ſee me, and therefore it muſt needs be a ſtarting aſide out of the way.

I. S.

Do you think Catholick Prieſts are at liberty to tell the Vulgar what Faith they pleaſe, as your Miniſters may interpret Scripture as ſeems beſt to their judgment of Diſeretion! When you cannot but know they dare not teach them any Faith, but what the Church holds; nor does the Church hold any, but upon Tradition. R. p. 4.

C.

Say and Prove, Sir, is your own Rule, and thereby you have here ſet your ſelf a very hard task. Prove then We cannot p. 9but know firſt, That your Church holds no Faith but upon Tradition, whilſt the Council of Trent takes the Word written, as well as unwritten Traditions, for the Rule of Verity and Diſcipline. Prove again, that the ſame Council held no Faith but upon Tradition, decreeing the No-neceſſity of Communicating in both kinds, and yet confeſſing there was neither Scripture nor Tradition to build that bold Decree upon. Prove, We know that your Prieſts dare teach no Faith but what the Church holds. Not to mention any more, Have none of them ever taught the Pope's Depoſing Power? And doth your Church give that liberty, or dare they do it without her leave? Yet be it all as you ſay, Have the Vulgar Catholicks any more than the Prieſt's word for their Faith? If not, what I ſaid is true, and they cannot with reaſon hold your Doctrine for Truth, unleſs you will have a groundleſs preſumption that Prieſts dare not teach any Faith but what the Church holds, paſs for an intrinfical ground of Truth, which proves all they teach to be ſuch.

I. S.

Again, you do well to ſay your People have it in Scripture, or in a Book, for they have it no-where elſe. Ib.

C.

If by [it] you mean the Word of God, I ſay they have it there.

I. S.

You know Vulgar Socinians and Presbyterians, and all the rest, have it as much there. Ib.

C.

For what reaſon you couple Socinians and Presbyterians ſo frequently, I muſt not now ſtay to ask. I grant they have the Word of God in the Scripture as well as we.

I. S.

Then I ſuppoſe you do not think they truly have the Word of God on their ſide. R. p. 5.

C.

I do not think that any, who err in Faith have the Word of God on their ſide.

I. S.

To tell me, that Truth can depend no more upon the ſaying of a Romiſh Priest, than of an Engliſh Miniſter, when I tell you it depends not on any private man's ſaying, is not the Reply of a man well awake. Ib.

C.

Let it paſs but for a Dream, if you pleaſe. Yet may the p. 10Interpretation of it be of ſome concernment to your Vulgar Catholicks. For if I ſay true, as you grant I do, then whilſt they have no more but the Word of their Prieſts to build their Faith upon, they have (according to me) leſs Certainty than the Vulgar Proteſtants, and (according to you) none at all.

I. S.

But two things more, ſay you, follow from my Poſition, which you fear I will not grant. Ib.

C.

I remember them very well. The First was, That we cannot with Reaſon hold any thing for a Truth, merely becauſe the Church of Rome hath determined it; for her Determination is no intrinſical ground of Truth, but only an outward Teſtimony or Declaration of it: and then what's become either of her Infallibility, or Authority to command our Faith?

I. S.

Slips of honest Ignorance deſerve Compaſſion and Inſtruction; and becauſe I do not know this to be any more, I will be ſo charitable as to ſet you right. R. p. 5.

C.

Such Slips I may be guilty of, for I am but a Man, and am not exempt from humane Infirmities: I ſhall thankfully therefore accept your Compaſſion, be attentive to your Inſtruction, and the rarer ſuch Charity appears in you, the more highly do I prize it.

I. S.

Authority, amongſt thoſe who already admit it for true, has force to prove that to be Truth which depends upon it, and will conclude againſt thoſe who allow its Veracity, if it be ſhewn to be engaged against them. R. p. 5, 6.

C.

By the way, what kind of Authority do you ſpeak of?

I. S.

Humane Authority, ſuch as that of the Church, the Infallibility whereof, in deriving down Chriſtian Faith, we go about, you ſee, to demonſtrate. Ib.

C.

So far good; but now, ſuppoſing this Authority be of force with thoſe who already admit it, what is it, I pray tell me, which can oblige men to admit it? If nothing, they may reject it, and be blameleſs.

I. S.

It has not this effect upon humane nature by its proper power, as 'tis meer Authority; but becauſe intrinſical Mediums juſtifie it worthy to be relied on. Ib.

p. 11C.

Muſt not thoſe intrinſical Mediums be known, before it can oblige men to admit it?

I. S.

Let that Authority come into diſpute, it will loſe its credit, unleſs it can be prov'd by ſuch Mediums to deſerve what it pretends to. No Authority deſerves any Aſſent further than Reaſon gives it to deſerve. Ib.

C.

Till that Reaſon then appear, no man is bound to aſſent unto it.

I. S.

The Authority of the whole Catholick Church would be no greater than that of an Old Woman, were there no more reaſon to be given for believing the former, than there is for believing the later. Ib.

C.

I hear all this; have you any more to add for my Inſtruction? I would not loſe a drop of your Compaſſion, it is ſo rare a thing.

I. S.

By this time I hope you ſee, that all Truths are built upon intrinſical Mediums. Ib.

C.

Not one jot more, I aſſure you, than I did before: for you 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 ſhew 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 our ſelves 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 owe 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 p. 12Church, becauſe that Authority (whatever it be, and on what intrinſical grounds ſoever eſtabliſh'd) 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, it ſelf 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 vertue 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, chuſe 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 p. 13People muſt be allow'd their Judgment 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 your ſelf 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 write 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 write them: nor indeed how any one can judge of them, unleſs they would have them judg 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 intend they ſhould judge of what they read therein, and examine Doctrines by it? Do you now grant us this Judgment 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 mens Books, or their writing them that we may judge?

I. S.

Indeed I think it no great ſign of a Judgment of Diſcretion, to pretend to diſcern the Truth of Faith by Lights that do not ſhew 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 Ʋncertainty p. 14on 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 Ʋncertainty 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 affirm'd, 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 our ſelves well enough, as long as you cannot prove we have none.

I. S.

Well, but did I ſay true or no?

C.

In that which you ſay you meant, you ſay true.

I. S.

Becauſe I ſaid then, our not proving the contrary is no p. 15certainty 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 no, you grant we have ſome other certainty, though you undertook to ſhew we have none.

I. S.

You know well enough, that to prove Proteſtants have no Abſolute certainty of their Faith, is no hard task for a weak man. L. p. 6.

C.

I meddle not yet with the word [Abſolute]: But ask, how know we this? A. p. 6.

I. S.

You know any man may find it confeſs'd to his hand by Proteſtants. L. Ib.

C.

Who, I pray, are thoſe Proteſtants?

I. S.

Dr. Tillotſon in his Rule of Faith, p. 117, 118. Ib.

C.

Dr. Tillotſon is but one Proteſtant; yet I am content he ſhould paſs for many. But his Confeſſion, that Proteſtants have no certainty, I find not. A. 6, 7.

I. S.

No Abſolute certainty, if it pleaſe you. R. p. 10.

C.

It pleaſes me not, and I'll tell you why anon.

I. S.

If you do not underſtand Engliſh, I cannot help it; but any one that does, may find it, p. 118. Ib.

C.

He ſaith there, that we are not infallibly certain, &c. but yet have ſuch an Aſſurance, as there is not any just cauſe of the least doubt. Not a word find I of Abſolute certainty.

I. S.

You would perſwade us you ſee it not. Ib.

C.

Nor you neither, if you may be believed againſt your ſelf; for you tell us, We ſeem to grant we are thus abſolutely certain or infallible by virtue of Tradition, A. p. 7. If we ſeem to you to grant we are abſolutely certain, how can you ſee our Confeſſion that we are not ſo?

I. S.

As if it were ſo ſtrange a thing for Proteſtants to contradict one another. Ib.

C.

No very ſtrange thing, I confeſs, no not for Papiſts, even p. 16Popes and Councils. Though it may ſeem ſtrange to ſome, that Pretenders to Infallibility ſhould do ſo.

I. S.

Dr. St. did ſay at the Conference, They are abſolutely certain: And Dr. Tillotſon did ſay, we are not infallibly certain.

C.

It may be ſo; I ſee not the Contradiction yet.

I. S.

If one of thoſe Writers do not ſeem to grant, that they are abſolutely certain (or infallible) and the other confeſs they have no abſolute certainty, Engliſh is no intelligible Language in England. R. p. 10, 11.

C.

Well, ſuppoſe we at preſent, for your ſake, that theſe two Reverend Perſons did contradict each other, will this prove that Proteſtants have no certainty of their Faith? Remember that you are ſpeaking of ſuch a Confeſſion of Proteſtants as may make it no hard task for a weak man to prove that they have no abſolute certainty of their Faith. Do you think the Confeſſion of one ſingle Proteſtant enough for this? Allow us but this way of proof, and ſee if it be not as eaſie for us (as weak men as we are) to prove the uncertainty of all your new Trentan Creed, yea and of Tradition too. Again, if the Confeſſion of one Doctor be proof enough for Proteſtant Ʋncertainty, tell me, with all your Learning, why the Confeſſion of one Doctor ſhould not be as good a proof for Proteſtant Certainty? Your Weights and Scales you ſo much talk of, would do well here, to ſhew which Doctor's Authority weighs moſt, and whether your proof weigh any thing at all. You have undertaken to ſhew the Nullity of the Proteſtant Rule, and thus you prove it, one Proteſtant confeſſed they had no abſolute certainty, another ſaid they had; therefore Proteſtants have no certain Rule of Faith, or no certainty of Faith. 'Tis eaſie indeed for any weak man to prove at this rate, that is, ſo as becomes a very weak man indeed. Once more I muſt mind you of your Poſition. For if all Truths be proved by intrinſical grounds, and depend not on private mens ſaying this or that, then the uncertainty of Proteſtant Faith cannot be proved (no not by I. S. himſelf) p. 17from the ſaying of either Doctor, eſpecially if the one contradict what the other ſaith, as you ſuppoſe, but have not yet proved. Are not infallibly certain, and abſolutely certain, contradictory terms?

I. S.

I proved formerly, that abſolutely certain, and infallible, are all one; and it will come into play again are long. R. p. 11.

C.

It's well if your proof be not all Play: When I ſee it, I'll tell you what I think of it.

I. S.

However, I only ſaid, They ſeem'd to grant, &c. For the Tenet of Faiths certainty, I may ſpeak what I think, is hearty in them, its abſolute certainty is but ſeeming. Ib.

C.

Speak what you think? By all means, Sir. How elſe ſhould we know you are made a competent Judge of Hearts, or your great charity in judging us Hypocrites, ſaying what we think not; or that when you charge men with a contradiction, you mean only a ſeeming contrudiction, whilſt your ſelf think they mean the ſame thing; or laſtly, the ſtrength of the weak man's proof, proving that Proteſtants have no certainty, becauſe he thinks the Tenet of Faiths uncertainty is hearty in them?

I. S.

It is plain, that where Churches differ in Faith, infallible Faith in one, cannot ſtand with certain Faith in the other. L. p. 8.

C.

Whence you may do well to take notice, that when our Certainty is once proved, no more is needful to confute your Infallibility. A. p. 8.

I. S.

Abſolute certainty; I pray you again, for Dr. St.'s ſake. R. p. 13.

C.

Certainty is enough, Sir; for that's it in our Church, which you ſay Infallibility in yours cannot ſtand with. And you ſay true; though you leave out Abſolute.

I. S.

It bodes ill, that you would have the word [abſolutely] left out; it would make a jealous man ſuſpect you had a deſign to palm a certainty upon us, which will prove no certainty. R. p. 13.

p. 18C.

Ill to you, it may be, in that you cannot ſo confidently hereafter call on us for a proof of what we hold not: but fear not our deſign, your Infallibility will ſecure you from ſo palpable a Cheat.

I. S.

I, for my part, cannot conſent to leave out that word, becauſe it is not fair to alter a word of Dr. St.'s; nor poſſible, though it were fair. For you and I cannot make him not to have ſaid what he hath ſaid; and though we ſhould agree to ſuppreſs that word amongſt our ſelves, it will ſtill be found in his two Letters, do what we can. Ib.

C.

There let it ſtand. When you diſpute with him, agree on what terms you can; but '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 ſhew the Nullity of our Rule of Faith, which is Scripture: I knew by that, that the certainty of Scripture is not the point to be prov'd by me; but the Nullity of it, the point to be proved by you. And you might have remember'd, that I had ſaid in the ſame place, p. 8. That you yielded our certainty of Scripture; and yet you again, p. 19like a man well awake, ask me if I do not remember what I have told you I do remember.

I. S.

But pray how do you prove that which is the point? Ib.

C.

That which is the point, is to be proved by you, who undertook in your Diſcourſe to prove it. I only told you again, that it being granted us that Scripture is God's Word, we think that we ſufficiently prove the certainty of every Article of our Faith, when we ſhew it to be ſolidly grounded on that Word. A. p. 9.

I. S.

We are not ſo far yet; it will be time to talk of this or that Article, when this or that Article comes in queſtion R.p. 15.

C.

I went not about to prove this or that Article, but only told you how we thought they might be proved. If it be neither the certainty of Scripture which is our Rule, nor of the Articles which are our Faith, what is it, I pray, you would have us prove, when it comes to our turn to prove?

I. S.

At preſent you are to ſhew, that you have any means, unleſs you take ours, to ground any Article ſolidly on the Word of God. You are to ſhew your interpretation of it is abſolutely certain, and that God's Word means as you teach it does. R.p. 15.

C.

The queſtion at preſent is, about the certainty of our Rule the Scripture, which you undertook to prove null. When you have proved it null, it will be vain and idle to diſpute about the means of underſtanding it; and now that you have but undertaken it only, 'tis unſeaſonable to require of us to ſhew the certain means of underſtanding it, before you have made good your undertaking. I hope it may therefore now ſuffice to tell you, That we both have and uſe all the means which God hath leſt us for that purpoſe, and they are the very ſame again that the men of your Church uſe, not omitting Tradition (which I ſuppoſe is it you call yours) ſo far as it can be of any uſe to us. Our Articles (as I told you, A.p. 9.) are yours too, contain'd in thoſe very Creeds which you receive, and all proved by your own Writers, yea and Councils too, to be ſolidly grounded on p. 20Scripture, no otherwiſe than we prove them to be. What more do you deſire? Two things more you would have us prove: Firſt, That we are abſolutely certain of all this: And ſecondly, Not only of this, but of all that more which our Saviour taught his Apoſtles. But we are not obliged to prove either of theſe. Ap. 9.

I. S.

Dr. St. did affirm, that you are abſolutely certain of all this, and of all this I demand proof. Ib.

C.

What Dr. St. affirm'd is nothing to me, till I know in what ſence he affirm'd it, which I am to learn (when it concerns me) of himſelf, and not of you. I therefore abſtain from the word [abſolutely] becauſe you take it to be the ſame with [infallibly]. Whatever proof therefore you may demand of him for it, you ought not to demand any of me.

I. S.

All mankind made abſolutely certain and infallible all one, before I was born. And yet you would perſwade us I break the Laws of Diſputation by underſtanding that word us every body does. R. p. 16.

C.

How every body underſtood words before you were born, I pretend not to know; nor ſay I, you break the Laws of Diſputation by ſo underſtanding the word, but by impoſing on me a proof of what I affirm'd not.

I. S.

I would be glad to know how your ſelf take it, who to be ſure take it right. Ib.

C.

I never uſed it, and therefore am not concern'd to tell you how I take it. But if any Proteſtant affirm himſelf abſolutely certain, I muſt think (how improperly ſoever he may ſpeak) that he means not he is infallible, but as certain as a man can or needs to be, and without all juſt cauſe of doubting.

I. S.

With all then that a man can get here, he may be deceived. R. p. 17.

C.

'Tis poſſible he may, but there is no cauſe to imagine he is; 'tis honeſter dealing to perſwade men to reſt ſatisfied with that meaſure of certainty their condition admits, than to tempt them (as you know who did) to think they ſhall be as Gods, infallible.

p. 21I. 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 your ſelf, Sir, that I cannot be angry.

I. S.

You faucy I would have you ſay, you are certain of thoſe points, which you deny to be in Scripture, and think them to be added by the Council of Trent; and which therefore you believe not. And theſe points you underſtand by the [were] of which I demanded proof.—Ridiculous Folly! to pretend we expected Proteſtants ſhould prove to us ſuch points as they denied, and our ſelves held, &c. Ib.

C.

Good ſtill. You will not give me leave to laugh, and I cannot get leave of my ſelf to be angry. Pray tell me once again, What is it you expect we ſhould prove?

I. S.

Your abſolute certainty of the [more] which you believe beſides this, that Scripture is Scripture. Ib.

C.

That Scripture is Scripture, is as ſelf-evident as that a Rule is a Rule. That it is the Word of God, may be proved, and it hath been granted. What we believe more, I told you we prove from plain places of Scripture wherein it is contain'd; and we we the more confirm'd in our Faith by the teſtimony and conſent of the Primitive Church in the Creeds eſpecially. Will this proof ſatisfie? Then we have ſufficiently proved all the more we believe; and could you thus prove all the more you believe, your whole Faith ſhould be ours too. If it ſuffice not, I would ſain know why your Trent Council called the Nicene Creed, That Principle wherein all that profeſs the Faith of Chriſt, neceſſarily agree, and the from and only foundation againſt which the gater of Hell ſhall not prevail. What, I pray, was the First Queſtion at the Conference?

I. S.

Whether Proteſtants are abſolutely certain that they hold now the ſame Tenets in Faith, and all that our Saviour taught his Apoſtles. L. p. 6.

C.

What we believe, is … in Scripture; and what is contain'd in Scripture, is that which Chriſt and his Apoſtles p. 22taught. We hold them the ſame Tenets in Faith which Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught. Is this enough?

I. S.

Prove that you hold the ſame, and all they taught.

C.

If the ſame that is contain'd in Scripture be all they taught. I have ſhew'd you how we prove we believe all. If that ſame be not all, then in bidding us prove we are certain of all, you bid us prove we are certain of more than is contain'd in Scripture, that is, what you hold, and what we believe not, but deny.

I. S.

You fancy I would have you ſay, you are certain of all thoſe points which you deny to be in Scripture, and think them to be added by the Council of Trent.

C.

I had ſaid (A. p. 11.) we have certainty of all that is taught us in Scripture, and we know of no more that Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught. That Papiſts ſay there is more, and that we are bound to believe it. And hence I fancy, that before you can oblige us to ſay we are certain of, or to believe all this more, it is your part to prove it. Ridiculous Folly! ſay you. Why? That a man ſhould not be obliged to believe a thing, till it be diſcover'd to him. Sir, I know very well, you expect not we ſhould prove to you ſuch points as we deny, and you hold: But do not you think, becauſe we cannot prove them, we ought therefore to confeſs we are not certain that we believe all that Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught? Do you hold no more but what is contain'd in Scripture? If no more, ſhew us all your Trentine Faith there, and we will believe it too: But if more, either you hold more than Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, or all they taught is not contain'd in Scripture. If the former be true, you will confeſs we are not bound to believe that more; if the later, you bid us prove what we deny and you hold, and ſay we are certain of all this, that is, more than is contain'd in Scripture, and what we believe not.

I. S.

You talk indeed of Proof, and that which you ſay of it is, That you prove when you prove. R. p. 19.

C.

I have told you how we prove the Scripture to be the Word of God.

p. 23I. S.

Which, if one ſhould put you to it, you cannot. R. Ib.

C.

Which when we would do, you ſay it needs not, nor ought you to allow it, L. p. 22. We ſhew alſo how we prove every Article of our Faith by Scripture.

I. S.

Common words, which every Heretick may and does uſe. Ib.

C.

But no common work, which every Heretick may or can do. Yet when we offer to do it, you tell us '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 Cloath will make a ſufficient Garment for him who is content to go half naked. Ib.

C.

Yes, if he have a mind to catch cold and die.

I. S.

A Table without Meat, is a ſufficient Meal for him that is contented to fast. Ib.

C.

How a naked Table can be a Meal, I know not: however, it is not always a ſufficient Meal for a Faſting Papist, though a Table without Wine may ſeem enough for a Feasting one. You told me your abſolute certainty and infallibility would come into play again ere long. Now you play indeed, and to tell you truly, I am quite weary on't.