THE SUM OF A CONFERENCE On Feb. 21. 1686.  
BETWEEN Dr. Clagett, and Father Gooden, About the Point of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  
LONDON: Printed for William Rogers, at the Sun over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. MDCLXXXIX.   

ERRATA.  
PAge vi. l. 4. for me r. us. ib. l. 6. for me r. us. p. viij l. 4. r. a greater thing than the Representers answering, etc. p. 2. after l. 13. add, Now against This, I thus argue, p. 2. l. 14. add in the beginning Dr.   

The SUM of a CONFERENCE On Feb. 21. 1686. BETWEEN Dr. Clagett, and Father Gooden, About the POINT of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  
Introduction.  
IT will perhaps appear to some a little strange, that I do not say almost Incredible, that there should have passed a Conference above two years since, in which Mr. Gooden was concerned, and the World yet to learn the Substance of it. The Vanity of that Gentleman to thrust himself upon all Occasions into Disputes with the most Learned Men of our Church first, and then to boast of his own Performances in them, was so great, that there is scarce a Coffee-house in the Town that has not been filled with the Noise of his Impertinent Vapours. And if those of the Other Communion have been always remarkable for an Assurance becoming the pretended Infallibility of their Church; I may venture to say, that next to Father P— the Jesuit, and his friend Mr. M—, I scarce know any among them that have ever talked so loud, or made such Heroical Defiances of the Champions and Armies of our Israel, in all Places, and upon all Occasions, as Mr. Gooden these late Years has done among us. But thus shallow Waters always run with the Greatest Noise and Violence; and little Sophisters, who either want Capacity to see into their own Fallacies, or think they have forehead enough to c●rry that off with Clamour and Confidence which they cannot do by Reason and Argument, delight to expose themselves and their Religi n to the most dangerous Trials; whilst Men of Learning and Judgement are modest and ingenuous, and know it to be neither for the Honour of their Church, nor their own Reputation, to challenge all Mankind to answer Paradoxes, and to show that not to be Demonstration, which when brought to the Trial is hardly sense. 
See Mr. G's. Pap.   
I hope will this not be thought too severe a Reflection on the late Pretenders of this kind among us, which I speak out of a just respect to the more Learned and Charitable Persons of the Church of Rome; who have been no less Scandalised at these forward Zealots, than ourselves; and to whom I ought to give this Testimony, That during a long acquaintance with many of them, I never met with any thing of the Vanity of those I have before mentioned. Our Differences in matters of Religion, made no Disturbance either in our Friendship or Conversation with One Another. If the discourse at any time led to a Controversy of Faith, we argued it upon the same Principles, and with the s●●e Calmness, that we did any other Subject whatsoever; by Arguments drawn from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, or from the Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers, as the Nature of the thing required us to do. I● these did not Convince, they never flew off to the Common Place Topic's of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church; m●ch less to that Exploded refuge of Oral Tradition; but the Controversy Ended. And when all was done, they were content to h●pe well of those of our Church, who being sincere in their Inquiries, and willing to be led by Truth wherever it was, still continued to differ from them. Instead of calling Me a Heretic or Schismatic, or Thundering out Damnation against Me as such, a mutual Charity concluded the discourse. We hoped and prayed for the Conviction of the Erring Party, which ever it was; but made no question, but that the same Heaven might receive us All, though we should continue to disagree to the last.  
But this was not the Temper of Mr. Gooden, and the rest of the little Herd of that Church, who gave so much Trouble and Disturbance to their own and the Nations repose; and have contributed what in them lies by their Heat and Folly, to ruin both themselves and u●.  
As for the Occasion of the present Conference, it was this. A Gentlewoman of a Good Estate, and intimately acquainted with divers R. Cs. was by a frequent Conversation with them, wrought up by degrees into an Extraordinary Opinion of the advantages of a Recluse Life, for the better performing the Exercises of Religion; Insomuch that the desire she began to have for such a sort of retirement, made her almost willing to leave our Church, and go over to the Roman Communion; but that she still looked upon their Doctrine, in those points wherein they differ from us, to be False, and Dangerous, and to one so persuaded as she was, Destructive of Salvation.  
Being thus prepared for their Seduction; they let slip no Opportunity to finish their work, and gain their Proselyte. For which purpose, care was taken, first by one of Her Acquaintance, to represent to Her all the Popular Pretences of that Church, by which many are Prejudiced in Favour of it; and the Advantages it Had, in point of Antiquity, Unity, Universality, Infallibility, and what not, beyond Ours; and then, in the next place, to get Father Gooden brought to Her, as one that would give Her a fuller satisfaction in all these matters, if she would but afford him the Opportunity of Discoursing with Herald And to the End his Arguments might make the deeper Impression upon Her, it was thought fit to set forth the Priest to Her; not in the Glorious Idea of the Great Master of Demonstration, one who had devoured all Mr. I. Ss. Principles, and was thereby become such a Mighty Man of Controversy, that none of our Divines durst Cope with him; He in whose hands the Dean of Paul's himself was nothing, who had a certain Paper that in a few lines baffled all that could be said or written in favour of the Reformation, (which was a greater thing, answering in a few sheets all the Books and Sermons that had ever been published or preached against them); But in the humble Character of a Country Priest, a little, inconsiderable man amongst them; and his Dress was accommodated to his Character, that so under this disguise he might talk with the greater Advantage to her.  
But Mr. Gooden forgetting the person he had put on, presently fell into his usual strain. He began to talk of nothing but Infallibility, Antiquity, Demonstration: That all the Fathers and Councils were on their side: That he had baffled our most considerable Divines, and particularly the Dean of Paul's; who had in truth all of them so little to say for themselves when he came amongst them, that he desired nothing more to convince her of the Truth of their Doctrines, than that she would pitch upon some Point, and bring 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 gained, 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 gained his Proselyte. But as great Wits are too often a little inconsiderate; and, before they are ware, 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 herself to Dr. Clagett; and the Time, and Place, and Subject being fixed, 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 passed into the Abstract too, had not another Person who was with him, and seemed much more modest and understanding than himself, observed what passed, 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, though 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. Upon 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 though the Abstract be very short, yet I am persuaded it is enough to satisfy 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 passed 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 though the Doctor was willing to let this matter die, and showed himself as careful of Mr. Gooden's Reputation after the Conference, as he was of the Lady's 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 judge 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, etc.  
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 expressed 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 changed into the Substance of Christ's Body: and the Substance of the Wine is changed 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, than it is not changed 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, than 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 show 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 truly 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 itself, 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 given, to say that the Nature of Bread is not there, and consequently could not be broken: For the Bread there spoken of, is not meant of Natural Bread, but of Bread which came down from Heaven, and which is the flesh of Christ, John 6.41. I am the bread which came down from Heaven. John 6.48. I am the bread of Life, Ver. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58. From whence I infer my Answer to be good; that though the H. Eucharist be called Bread, and broken as to the Species of Bread; yet it is not natural Bread, but only in appearance, of which St. Paul spoke; for the same St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the same bread, saith, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord. Christ also speaking of the same bread, saith, Take, eat, this is my Body, Matt. 26.26. Also Luk. 22.19. speaking of the same Eucharist, This is my Body which is given for you.  Dr. 
The Answerer forgetting the Part of a Disputant, has pretended to prove largely by the sixth Chap. of St. John, and other places of Scripture, That St. Paul in the aforementioned places, did not speak of Bread properly so called, although he spoke of Bread that was to be broken. All which places, when it is my turn to Answer, I will consider particularly.  
But if that which is here said is to go for an Answer, the force of it lies in this, That by the Bread which St. Paul spoke of, we are to understand the Bread which St. John spoke of, namely, the bread which came down from Heaven; by which the Answerer understands the Natural and ●roper flesh of Christ.  
But that the Bread which St. Paul ●peaks of cannot be the natural flesh of Christ, I prove thus; 

The Bread which St. Paul speaks of, was broken.  
But the Natural Body of Christ cannot be broken.  
Ergo. The Bread which St. Paul speaks of cannot be the Natural body of Christ.    Fath. 
As to the Species and Appearance of Bread, it was broken, I grant it; as to any Nature contained under those Species of Bread, I deny it.  Dr. 
This Distinction does not avoid the Argument, because if the Bread in St. Paul and the Bread in St. John are really and properly the same, and the Bread in St. John be really and properly the flesh of Christ, than what is affirmed of the one, must be true of the other, and therefore if the Bread be broken in St. Paul, than the Natural body of Christ must be broken too; which cannot be.  
I add further, That if by breaking of Bread St. Paul means breaking the Accidents of Bread only; and if the Bread that is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid; it follows also that the Accidents of Bread are properly the body of Christ.  Fath. 
That which St. Paul calls Bread, had in it both the Accidents of Bread and the substance of Christ's body. As to the Accidents of Bread, it might be broken; as to the substance of Christ's body which is mentioned in St. John, it is not broken, unless you mean as Christ's Body was broken upon the Cross.  
And if the bread which is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid, both as to the Accidents and nature of Bread, I grant, that the Accidents of Bread would be the Body of Christ; and if it be not the same, both as to the Nature and Accidents, I deny it.  
This I profess not to understand.  Fath. 
As to the Doctor's Argument it includes a Sophism, as will appear when brought into form, because it involves 4 Terms; because he supposes in one Proposition for the Accidents of Bread and in the other for the Nature.  Dr. 
In the Argument I used, I went upon this Supposition, That the Accidents of Bread were only to be understood, as the Answerer supposes, and therefore I have not confounded the Nature and the Accidents of Bread together. Besides, the Distinction between the Nature of Bread and the Accidents of Bread, was not to be remembered any more by the Answerer, because I proceed upon his Supposition, That the Accidents only are broken.  
Now if St. Paul speaks of nothing but what is broken, and Accidents only are broken, and yet if he speaks of the very flesh of Christ too, than the Accidents of the Bread are the very flesh of Christ.  
And whereas the Answerer by his last Answer, means the Nature of Christ's Body, as he says, I understood him of the Nature of Bread. And now once more I desire him to show me where the four Terms are.  Fath. 
The Text of St. Paul, the Dr. takes for his Medium, and argues from a double Supposition, as first, taking it for the Accidents of Bread which were broken, and afterwards for the substance of Christ's Body under the Accidents, in which latter sense it signifies the same that is meant by our Saviour in St. John.  Dr. 
I observe the Answerer will allow nothing to be broken but Accidents; I observe also, that nothing is said to be the Body of Christ, or the Communion of the Body of Christ, but what is broken; If therefore nothing is broken but Accidents, than Accidents are either, according to the Answerer's long proof, the very Body of Christ; or according to the Apostle, the Communion of the Body of Christ.  
But neither are the Accidents of Bread, the Body of Christ, nor the Communion of the Body of Christ. And this, I say, is not answered, and believe will not be answered by any man that maintains, that St. Paul does not here speak properly of Bread.  Fath. 
All along in my Discourse I have supposed, that when St. Paul speaks of this bread, he spoke of the H. Eucharist, in which were contained both the Accidents of Bread, and the true body of Christ. How the Dr. has disproved this Doctrine so clearly as to justify the Reformation, I understand not; Because, I conceive no private Persons, or particular Church, aught to pretend a Reformation, without clear evidence; whether the Dr. has given such, I leave to the consideration of the Readers. And whether, having broken off from the great body of the Universal Church, and its testimony, he can possibly have any certain Rule to arrive at Christian Faith? If Scripture be pretended, interpreted by a fallible Authority, how Certainty can be obtained, or why a Socinian, following Scripture for his Rule of Faith, is not to be believed as well as any other Reformer following the same Rule, I see not.  
Signed 

W. Clagett.  
Peter Gooden.     

Dr. CLAGETT's Answer TO A PAPER Delivered to Him by Father GOODEN.  

The Paper  
ARticles of Christian Faith are Truths; Truths are Impossible to be False; Therefore Articles of Christian Faith are Impossible to be False; Therefore those who obtain Articles of the Christian Faith, must have some Rule to Acquire them by, which cannot deceive them: To a Parliamentary Protestant, the Ancient Fathers cannot be such a Rule, because they are accounted Fallible; Nor Counsels, because they also are accounted Fallible; Nor Scriptures sensed by a Fallible Authority, because all such Interpretations may be False; And therefore Faith cannot be Obtained by any such means. For that which is Doubtful can only Create Opinion, which is also Doubtful; And He that doubts in Faith, (the Apostle says) is Infidelis; And a Company of Doubters are not a Church of Faithful, but a Society of such as the Apostle calls Infidels.  
Signed Peter Gooden.   

The Answer.  Pap. 
Articles of Christian Faith are Truths.  
Ans. The Design of the Disputer is to prove, that we are Doubters and therefore Infidels; But never did any man begin a business more unluckily, for at the very first dash he takes it for granted, that we do undoubtedly believe Articles of Christian Faith to be Truths; for otherwise he ought to have proved that they are so. But there is another Misfortune he is fallen into, no less than that; for his Argument to prove that we must needs be Doubters, is, that we want an Infallible Rule. Now if he is sure that we want an Infallible Rule, and that without such a Rule there can be no Faith, I am sure he does notoriously contradict himself, by supposing that we believe all Articles of Christian Faith to be Truths, though we have no such Rule. This is a very hopeful Paper, and like to make wise Converts, which ends in making us Infidels, and gins to prove it by an Argument, that manifestly supposes Us to be Believers; which also pretends that we have no Infallible Rule, and therefore can be sure of no Point of Faith; but yet manifestly supposes Us to be Assured of Some without it; which shows the Paper to be a trifling Paper, and worth no more Consideration. But because the Disputer is said to boast so much of the Argument Contained in it, I will go on with every Clause of it to Convince him, (if he does not already know it,) that there is not a Line in it, but is either false, or nothing to the purpose.  Pap. 
Truth's are Impossible to be False.  
Ans. By Truths, the Disputer means, the Truth of Things, or of Propositions, and therefore this is a vain and fulsome saying, which does not Advance his Reasoning one jot farther than it was before: For this is no more than to say, That which is true, is true, and it cannot possibly be, but truths must be truths. I think he applies himself to us, as if we wanted not only Christian Faith, but Common sense.  Pap. 
Therefore Articles of Christian Faith are Impossible to be False.  
Ans. There is no doubt of this, supposing that they are Truths. So that the Argument he gins with being put into the right order, and into other words, is this; It is Impossible but truths must be truths, but Articles of Christian Faith are Truths; Therefore it is Impossible but they must be Truths. The Ancient Fathers had made wise work with Christianity, if they had gone this way to work to Convert Infidels.  Pap. 
Therefore those who obtain the Articles of the Christian Faith, must have some Rule to acquire them by, which cannot deceive them.  
Ans. This is an obscure saying, and I must make the best of it. By obtaining Articles of the Christian Faith, I suppose he means believing them, and by a Rule by which to acquire them, He must understand a Rule, or means whereby to know what the Articles of the Christian Faith are; and then his meaning is, That those who believe the Articles of the Christian Faith, must be provided of some such Rule or Means, to know what they are, as cannot deceive them. Now whether this be in itself true or false, it does not at all follow from what he had laid down before; For though the Truth of Things or Propositions is so sure, that (as he wisely says) 'tis Impossible they should be false, yet it does by no means follow, that the Reasons upon which I believe these things must necessarily be as sure as the Truth of the Things themselves. And this I make no doubt the Disputer was well ware of; But because I am sensible who they are whom he designs to pervert by this Paper, and for whose sake I Answer it, I will explain this matter by an Instance that will bring it down to all Capacities: If there was such a man as Henry the 8th, It is certainly Impossible that there should be no such man; but my Belief that there was such a Man, is grounded upon such Reasons as do not imply an absolute Impossibility of the Contrary, because it is grounded upon the Testimony of Fallible men: And yet I should be very little better than a madman if I should entertain the least doubt that there was such a man: which plainly shows, that I may have sufficient Reason to believe a thing without any Evidence of the Impossibility of the contrary; and this is enough to overthrow his Consequence. I shall now inquire what truth there is in the Conclusion itself; To which end I observe, That there are two things which may be understood by those words, cannot deceive them, either first, that the Rule itself is so plain and certain, that no man who uses it can be deceived by the Rule; or secondly, that 'tis Impossible any man should be mistaken in the Use of it. If he means the former, than I shall show him presently, that we have such a Rule as he speaks of, and that he hath said nothing to make us ashamed of it. If he means the latter, than I say it is absolutely false, That those who without doubting believe the Articles of the Christian Faith, must have such a Rule to know what they are, as that they cannot possibly mistake in the Use of it. To make which plain to every body's understanding, I shall add another Instance easy to be Applied; If a man skilful in Arithmetic hath a great many Numbers before him, and desires to know what Sum they make when they are put together; he has the Rule of Addition to do it by, which Rule cannot deceive him. Now there are these two things to be observed farther, which I think the Disputer himself will not deny; first, that it is in the Nature of the thing Possible, that this man may be mistaken every time that he puts these several Numbers together, to bring them all into one Sum; but secondly, that notwithstanding this Possibility of being mistaken, yet after he has tried it over and over again, he may be sure without the least doubt that he has done his work right. Even so we may have a Rule of Faith that cannot deceive us, and though it is not Absolutely Impossible, that we should be mistaken in the use of it; yet we may for all that be Assured, and believe without the least doubting, that we have learned what the true Faith is by that Rule; For all the World knows, that it is no sufficient Reason to Doubt of any thing, that the Contrary is barely Possible.  Pap. 
To a Parliamentary Protestant, the Ancient 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 Counsels, 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 Councils 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 departed 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 sensed 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 Baptised. 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 Public 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 Universal and  Tradition, which is a thing credible of itself. 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 shows 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 signify, 
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 Ancient 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 show 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 'tis 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, than 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 'tis so very absurd that no body, well in his wits, can be misled by it.  Pap. 
And therefore Faith cannot be obtained by any such means.  
Ans. Which is as much as to say, that Faith cannot be obtained, 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; 'tis 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; 'tis 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 shown 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 than I am sure he can prove, That Truth not only 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 'tis Absurd. And that is, to bring weak Persons to Infidelity first, that they may afterwards be settled upon Romish Grounds. I do acknowledge 'tis 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 'tis 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 destroyed 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'll pull it down again.   
FINIS.