Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	holy_a	scripture_n	tradition_n	3,735	5	9.1394	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33224	The summ of a conference on Feb. 21, 1686, between Dr. Clagett, and Father Gooden, about the point of transubstantiation	Clagett, William, 1646-1688.; Gooden, Peter, d. 1695.	1689 (1689)	Wing C4401; ESTC R7092	13,374	33

the Contrary is barely Possible Pap. To a Parliamentary Protestant the Antient Fathers can't be such a Rule because they are Accounted fallible Ans We never said they were such a Rule This therefore is Impertinent Pap. Nor Councels because they also are accounted fallible Ans This is Impertinent also for we never said they were our Rule of Faith. But we have better Reasons to give why Fathers and Cou●●ils cannot be our Rule of Faith than this that the Disputer has made for us And one is this That we cannot make them the Rule of our Faith but by so doing we must depart from the Primitive Fathers and the ancient Councils in as much as all agree That the Holy Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and they made it theirs Pap. Nor Scriptures senced by a fallible Authority because all such Interpretations may be false Ans This is the Place where I shall tell the Disputer what we believe and why we believe it And when I have done I shall consider whether he hath said any thing in this clause to shake our Assurance We firmly believe all the Articles of the Creed into the Profession whereof we have been Baptized We moreover believe all other Doctrine that is Revealed in Holy Scriptures The Grounds of this our Faith are these That in the Holy Scriptures are Recorded those Testimonies of Divine Revelation by which the Doctrines therein contained are confirmed That these Testimonies were too notorious and Publick to be gainsaid in so much that the Doctrine built upon them could not be overthrown by the Powers of the world engaged against it That the holy Books were written by the Inspired Preachers of that Doctrine which they contain And that for this we have the Testimony of Vniversal and uncontroulable Tradition which is a thing credible of it self This is the Sum of that External Evidence upon which our Faith is grounded In assigning of which I do by no means exclude that Internal Evidence that arises from the Excellent Goodness of the Doctrines themselves which shews them to be worthy of God. Now whereas this Disputer says That these Scriptures cannot be an Infallible Rule to us because they are sensed by a fallible Authority that is because we who are fallible understand them as well as we can I answer That no man needs to be Infallible in order to the understanding of plain Scripture I who do not pretend to Infallibility am yet certain which is enough for me That I do find the Articles of the Creed in the Scriptures and many other Doctrines besides which I do understand I am sure that I know what these words of St. John signifie 1 John 2.25 And Chap. 5.3 This is the Promise that he hath promised us even eternal life And this is the love of God that we keep his Commandments and the like The Antient Fathers thought the Scriptures to be so plain that they argued out of them without pretending to an Infallible Authority of Interpretation as I will shew this Disputer when he pleases If nothing less than Infallibility will serve to understand or as he says to sense words why does this Disputer put into my hands this Paper of his which is none of the plainest neither I am sure he does not take me to be Infallible and yet I am confident he would be angry if I should say his Paper was not to be understood without an Infallible Interpreter let him answer this if he can The Reason he gives why Scripture sensed by a fallible Authority cannot be the Rule of Faith is because all such Interpretations may be false That is to say because there is a bare Possibility of any fallible man's mistaking the sense of plain Texts Which kind of Reasoning makes impossible that every man should come to be a Believer unless himself be first Infallible And this I shall Demonstrate so plainly that no man who has any share of Understanding and modesty shall be able to deny it There is no possible way for any sort of Christians to make known either the Articles or Reasons of Faith to those that are yet Ignorant of them but by words or sentences written or spoken He who hears or reads the words and Sentences cannot tell either what is to believe or why he should believe till he understands or in the Disputers Phrase till he Senses those words and Sentences but as yet his Authority is but fallible and words sensed by a Fallible Authority can never give a man certainty either of the Rule or of the Reason of his Faith If this Disputer be in the Right therefore 't is impossible to make him a Believer unless you can make him Infallible first that it may not be Possible for him to be mistaken in Sensing the words which he hears or reads And thus farewell to all Advantage that any man can have by the Infallibility of Popes and Councils or Oral Tradition as well as by the Scriptures Nay and to all Possible means of arriving to certainty in any matter of Faith unless every body be Infallible first so that upon supposition that God would have all men to be saved and therefore to believe it inavoidably follows from the wild Reasoning of this man that God has made every Man Infallible But if it be evident that men are fallible Creatures then this Disputer has Advanced a Principle the most destructive to all certainty of Faith that ever was heard of in the world But the comfort is that 't is so very absurd that no body well in his wits can be misled by it Pap. And therefore Faith cannot be obtain'd by any such means Ans Which is as much as to say that Faith cannot be obtain'd till a man have the gift of Infallibility And if every man has it before he can be taught to any purpose what need can there be of an Infallible Interpreter to teach him But as I observed before 't is impossible to make Believers of those that are not Infallible unless the Disputer or his Church has a way to make known the Doctrines and Reasons of Christian Faith without words Pap. For that which is doubtful can only create opinion which is also doubtful Ans Therefore since all words are doubtful to him that has but a fallible Authority to sense them as no man has more before he believes 't is impossible for the Disputers Church to create any thing more than opinion which is also doubtful in those whom she teaches unless as I have already said she can make them Infallible first and teach them afterwards And even then there would be no need of teaching them at all because they are now Infallible themselves Of all the Papers that ever I read I never met with any thing more absurd and contradictious than the Reasoning of this In which the Disputer out of a vehement desire to overthrow our Faith and the Grounds of it has laid down Principles that do effectually overthrow all ways of making men sure of any thing and in particular the use of those very methods by which his own Church pretends to lead men to Faith. Pap. And he that doubts in Faith the Apostle saith is Infidelis and a company of Doubters are not a Church of Faithful but a society of such as the Apostle calls Infidels Ans What Apostle says this if the Disputer refers to Rom. 14.23 as I think he does he has shewn his skill in the Interpretation of Scripture to be equal to his mastery in Reasoning If in the Infallible Church they can Interpret Scripture no better than thus give me the honesty and industry of a Fallible Church before it The Conclusion AND now after all this Paper is as absurd in the design as it is in the management for the business of it is to prove That Protestants have no Faith but are Infidels and that by this Argument they are and must be doubters Now whether I doubt or do not doubt is a Question concerning a matter of Fact that I have more reason to know the truth of than the Disputer can possibly have and if I know that I do not doubt and he can yet prove that I do doubt he is an extraordinary man indeed For then I am sure he can prove That Truth not onely may be but is false which perhaps such a man as he can Reconcile with what he said at first That truths are impossible to be false And this alone had been a sufficient Answer to his Paper for nothing can be more frivolous than to go about to prove to a man by fine Reasoning that he does doubt of a thing when he is as sure that he does not doubt of it as he can be of any thing in the World. But the design of this Paper seems to be as Impious as 't is Absurd And that is to bring weak Persons to Infidelity first that they may afterwards be setled upon Romish Grounds I do acknowledg 't is a very proper way to bring us over to the Church of Rome to make us Infidels first But this they will not find so easy a matter for we trust that we are not of those who draw back to Perdition but of those that believe to the saving the Soul. I have omitted nothing in the whole Paper but to take notice of that little and mean Reflection in calling the Protestant a Parliamentary Protestant I have told this Disputer the Reason and Ground of our Faith If we moreover are Protected in the Profession of it by the Laws of the Land I suppose 't is no more than what he would desire for the Profession of Popery and he would think never the worse of himself for being a Parliamentary Papist Thus I have Answered this Paper through every clause of it And I am confident destroy'd all that little Appearance of Reasoning that it made Let the Disputer build it up again if he can I promise him by God's Grace that I 'le pull it down again FINIS

one of our Men to meet him and she should see what work he would make with him Such a noise as this from one of the little inconsiderable Priests of the Church of Rome amazed the poor Lady and had he Prudently contented himself with the Boast of the Victories he had already gain'd without aspiring after the Honour of adding one more for the increasing his Triumph he might possibly have saved himself from the shame of that discovery the following Conference made of his Abilities and have gain'd his Proselyte But as great Wits are too often a little inconsiderate and before they are aware run themselves into difficulties out of which they cannot tell afterwards how to extricate themselves so it fell out with Mr. Gooden on this Occasion For the Lady presently took hold on his Offer and applied her self to Dr. Clagett and the Time and Place and Subject being fix'd Mr. Gooden and the Doctor met accordingly at Grays-Inn Feb. 21. 1686. I shall say nothing of the Menage of the Conference its self but that it was with much Noise on Mr. Gooden's side who in Discourse let fall some very extraordinary things and which might have pass'd into the Abstract too had not another Person who was with him and seem'd much more modest and understanding than himself observed what pass'd and corrected his Blunders After the Dispute was ended which lasted about Four or Five Hours a new Discourse arose about the Paper which Mr. Gooden made such Boasts of about the Town and had so often represented to the Lady and others as unanswerable He was very unwilling a great while to let the Doctor have a Copy of it tho he promised to give him an Answer to it till at last it was declared That if he refused to let him have it the Company would look upon it as an idle Paper that had nothing in it and that therefore he durst not trust him with it Vpon this he gave him a Copy of it and the Doctor in pursuance of his Promise the next day sent him the following Answer to it For what concerns the Sum of the Conference here Published it was taken in Writing and signed by both Parties upon the place so that there can be no cause for any one to question the sincerity of it And tho the Abstract be very short yet I am persuaded it is enough to satisfie every impartial Reader why Mr. Gooden did not care to make any boasts of it And those who were present at the Meeting and heard all that pass'd between them as well as the Lady for whose sake they met were very well satisfied that he would not force them to publish the History of it But tho the Doctor was willing to let this matter die and shew'd himself as careful of Mr. Gooden's Reputation after the Conference as he was of the Ladies Conviction in it yet being now by the Providence of God removed from us I thought it a just debt to his Memory to subjoin here a true Copy of these Papers there being several of them abroad both to prevent an imperfect Edition from some other hand and lest Mr. Gooden and his Friends who were so silent in his Life-time should take occasion to raise any false Reports of this Encounter if they thought they could not be disproved now he is dead And if the great Esteem I had for that Excellent Person and most useful Instrument of God's Service in our late dangerous and critical Times does not render me a very incompetent judg of whatever comes from his hand the Reader will find even in these short Notes enough to reward his Pains and to keep him from thinking the time lost that he shall please to spend in the perusal of them A Private Conference BETWEEN Dr. Clagett and Father Gooden ABOUT Transubstantiation c. FAther Gooden Proposed the Rule of Faith to be the Subject of the Conference but upon the Request of the Lady for whose sake it was the Question of Transubstantiation was taken And the Father desiring that the Doctor would be the Opponent the Question was Stated on both Sides Dr. That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false Doctrine and That the Natural Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament but in Heaven Fa. That after the Words of Consecration the true Body and Blood of Christ are in the Holy Eucharist and that the manner is well exprest by Transubstantiation Dr. This is not all the Doctrine of Transubstantion in the Church of Rome the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is this That the Substance of the Bread is chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Body and the Substance of the Wine is chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Blood which Change the Church of Rome does conveniently call Transubstantiation If the Substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist then it is not chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Body But the Substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist Therefore the Substance of Bread is not changed into the Substance of Christ's Body Fath. I deny the Minor viz that the substance of Bread does remain Dr. If Bread remains the substance of bread remains But Bread remains Therefore the substance of bread remains Fath. If the Nature of Bread remains Bread remains but if only the Name of Bread and Species remain then Bread does not remain Dr. That Bread which is properly Natural Bread remains in the Eucharist is proved from 1 Cor. 11.26 As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come 1 Cor. 10.16 The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Now from hence we argue thus If that which is here said to be Broken and to be the Communion of the Body of Christ be properly natural Bread then that which is properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist Fath. I grant the Major Dr. But that which is here said to be broken and to be the Communion of the Body of Christ is properly natural Bread Ergo Properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist Fath. I deny the Minor. Dr. The Bread of which Saint Paul speaks is Bread that may be broken and therefore it is truely and properly natural Bread. Fath. I distinguish the Antecedent as to the Accidents and Appearance of Bread it may be broken as to the Nature of Bread it cannot because it is not there Dr. This is to beg the Question for the Question is whether Bread be there or not and the Argument to prove that it is there is Because Saint Paul speaks of Bread that might be and was broken but it is no sufficient Answer to this to say that the Accidents of Bread may be broken because the Bread is not there it self which is the thing that was disproved Fath. The Question to be proved was that the Nature of Bread was there therefore it is not a begging of the Question according to the Distinction