The doctrine of the Trinity and transubstantiation compared as to Scripture, reason, and tradition. The first part in a new dialogue between a Protestant and a papist : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation in the books called Consensus veterum and Nubes testium, &c. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. 1688 Approx. 200 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 49 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A61550 Wing S5589 ESTC R14246 13589094 ocm 13589094 100628 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A61550) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 100628) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 851:31) The doctrine of the Trinity and transubstantiation compared as to Scripture, reason, and tradition. The first part in a new dialogue between a Protestant and a papist : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation in the books called Consensus veterum and Nubes testium, &c. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. The second edition. 48, [1] p. Printed for W. Rogers ..., London : 1688. Written by Edward Stillingfleet. Cf. Wing. Advertisement on p. [1] at end. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Gother, John, d. 1704. -- Nubes testium. Sclater, Edward, 1623-1699? -- Consensus veterum. Transubstantiation -- Early works to 1800. Trinity -- Early works to 1800. 2004-02 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-03 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-04 Jonathan Blaney Sampled and proofread 2004-04 Jonathan Blaney Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE Doctrine of the TRINITY AND Transubstantiation COMPARED , AS TO Scripture , Reason , and Tradition . In a New DIALOGUE between a Protestant and a Papist . The first part . WHEREIN An ANSWER is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation , in the Books called Consensus Veterum , and Nubes Testium , &c. The Second Edition . IMPRIMATUR . Ex Aedib . Lambeth . Jan. 17. 1686. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo Pat. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacris . LONDON , Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street . M DC LXXX VIII . The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared , as to Scripture , Reason , and Tradition . In a New Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist . Pr. I Remember your last Words at parting were , Farewel ; and God give his holy Spirit to instruct you . Which have run much in my Mind : For if the holy Spirit instruct us , what need is there of an Infallible Church ? I hope those were not only words of course with you . Pa. No ; but I meant that the holy Spirit should instruct you about the Authority of the Church . Pr. Was this indeed your meaning ? Then you would have me believe the Church Infallible , because the holy Spirit which is Infallible will instruct me about it , if I seek his Directions . P. Yes . Pr. But then I have no Reason to believe it ; for the holy Spirit after my seeking his Instructions , teaches me otherwise . And if the holy Spirit is Infallible which way soever it teaches , then I am infallibly sure there is no such thing as Infallibility in what you call the Catholick Church . P. Come , come ; you make too much of a sudden Expression at parting ; I pray let us return to our main business , which is to shew , that there is the same Ground from Scripture , Reason , and Tradition , to believe Transubstantiation , as there is to believe the Trinity . And this I affirm again , after reading the Answers to the former Dialogue ; and I now come somewhat better prepared to make it out . Pr. So you had need . And I hope I shall be able not only to defend the contrary , but to make it evident to you , that there is a mighty difference in these two Doctrines , as to Scripture , Reason , and Tradition . But I pray keep close to the Point : for I hate impertinent trifling in a Debate of such Consequence . P. I must confess , I over-shot my self a little in the former Dialogue , when I offer'd to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity unreasonable and absurd : For no Church can make such a Doctrine , which is unreasonable and absurd in it self , not to be so to me ; No Church can make three and one to be the same , if they be repugnant in themselves . But my meaning was , that Mens Disputes about these things will never be ended , till they submit to the Authority of the Church . Pr. And then they may believe three , or three hundred Persons in the Trinity , as the Church pleases . Is that your meaning ? P. No. But I said to my Carnal Reason it would appear so ; but not to my Reason as under the Conduct of an Infallible Guide . Pr. Then an Infallible Guide can make three hundred to be but three ; which is a notable trick of Infallibility . P. No ; I tell you I meant only that we are not to follow Carnal Reason , but the Church's Authority , i. e. we are not to search into Mysteries above Reason , but only believe what the Church delivers . And I intend now to argue the Point somewhat closely with you . Do you believe that there are any Mysteries in the Christian Doctrine above Reason , or not ? If not , you must reject the Trinity ; if you do , then you have no ground for rejecting Transubstantiation , because it is above Reason . Pr. You clearly mistake us ; and I perceive were very little acquainted with our Doctrine : for we do not reject any Doctrine concerning God , meerly because it is above our Reason , when it is otherwise clearly proved from Scripture . For then we own our selves bound to submit in matters of Divine Revelation concerning an Infinite Being , though they be above our Capacity to comprehend them . But in matters of a finite Nature , which are far more easie for us to conceive , and which depend upon the Evidence of Sense , we may justly reject any Doctrine which overthrows that Evidence , and is not barely above our Reason , but repugnant to it . P. I do not well understand you . Pr. So I believe ; but I will endeavour to help your Understanding a little . And I pray consider these things : 1. That there is a great difference in our Conceptions of Finite and Infinite Beings . For , whatsoever is Infinite , is thereby owned to be above our Comprehension , otherwise it would not be Infinite . The Attributes of God which are essential to him , as his Wisdom , Goodness and Power , must be understood by us , so far as to form a true Notion of that Being which is Infinite ; but then the Infinity of these Attributes is above our reach . And so his Infinite Duration , which we call Eternity ; his Infinite Presence which we call his Immensity ; the Infinite Extent of his Knowledg , as to future Contingencies ; all these must be confessed to be Mysteries , not above our Reason , but above our Capacity . For we have great Reason to own them , but we have not Faculties to comprehend them . We cannot believe a God , unless we hold him to be Infinite in all Perfections : and if he be Infinite , he must be incomprehensible ; so that Religion must be overthrown , if something incomprehensible be not allowed . And as to finite Beings , so far as they run into what we call Infinite , they are so far out of our reach ; as appears by the insuperable Difficulties about the Infinite Divisibility of Quantity . 2. That we have certain Notions of some things in the visible World ; both that they are , and that they have some Attributes essential to them . We daily converse with things visible and corporeal ; and if we do not conceive something true and certain in our Minds about them , we live in a Dream and have only Phantasms and Illusions about us . If we are certain that there are real Bodies , and not meer Appearances , there must be some certain way of conveying such Impressions to our Minds , from whence they may conclude , this is a Horse , and this a Man , and this is Flesh , and this Blood , and this is Wood , and this Stone ; otherwise all certainty is gone , and we must turn meer Scepticks . 3. That in examining the sense of Scripture we may make use of those certain Notions of visible things which God and Nature have planted in us ; otherwise we are not dealt with as Reasonable Creatures . And therefore we must use those Faculties God hath given us , in reading and comparing Scriptures , and examining the sense that is offered by such Notions which are agreeable to the nature of things . As for instance , the Scripture frequently attributes Eyes and Ears and Hands to the Almighty : must we presently believe God to have an Human Shape because of this ? No ; we compare these with the necessary Attributes of God , and from thence see a necessity of interpreting these Expressions in a Sense agreeable to the Divine Nature . So if other Expressions of Scripture seem to affirm that of a Body which is inconsistent with the Nature of it ; as , that it is not visible , or may be in many Places at once , there is some Reason for me to understand them in a Sense agreeable to the Essential Properties of a Body . 4. There is a difference between our not apprehending the manner how a thing is , and the apprehending the impossibility of the thing it self . And this is the meaning of the distinction of Things above our Reason , and contrary to our Reason . If the Question be , how the same individual Nature can be communicated to three distinct Persons ? We may justly answer , we cannot apprehend the manner of it , no more than we can the Divine Immensity , or an Infinite Amplitude without Extension . But if any go about to prove there is an impossibility in the thing , he must prove that the Divine Nature can communicate it self no otherwise than a finite individual Nature can : For all acknowledg the same common Nature may be communicated to three Persons , and so the whole Controversie rests on this single Point as to Reason ; whether the Divine Nature and Persons are to be judged and measured as Human Nature and Persons are . And in this , I think we have the advantage in point of Reason of the Anti-trinitarians themselves , although they pretend never so much to it . P. Good night , Sir ; I perceive you are in for an hour ; and I have not so much time to spare , to hear such long Preachments . For my part , talk of Sense and Reason as long as you will , I am for the Catholick Church . Pr. And truly , she is mightily obliged to you for oppoposing her Authority to Sense and Reason . P. Call it what you will , I am for the Churches Authority ; and the talk of Sense and Reason is but Canting without that . Pr. The matter is then come to a fine pass ; I thought Canting had rather been that which was spoken against Sense or Reason . But I pray , Sir , what say you to what I have been discoursing ? P. To tell you truth , I did not mind it ; for as soon as I heard whither you were going , I clapt fast hold of the Church , as a Man would do of a Mast in a Storm , and resolved not to let go my hold . Pr. What! altho you should sink together with it . P. If I do , the Church must answer for it ; for I must sink or swim with it . Pr. What Comfort will that be to you , when you are called to an account for your self ? But if you stick here , it is to no purpose to talk any more with you . P. I think so too . But now we are in , methinks we should not give over thus ; especially since I began this Dialogue about the Trinity and Transubstantiation . Pr. If you do , we know the Reason of it . But I am resolved to push this matter now as far as it will go ; and either to convince you of your Mistake , or at least to make you give it over wholly . P. But if I must go on in my Parallel , I will proceed in my own way . I mentioned three things , Scripture , Reason , and Tradition . And I will begin with Tradition . Pr. This is somewhat an uncouth Method ; but I must be content to follow your Conduct . P. No , Sir , the Method is very natural ; for in Mysteries above Reason , the safest way is to trust Tradition . And none can give so good account of that as the Church . Pr. Take your own way : but I perceive Tradition with you is the Sense of the present Church ; which is as hard to conceive , as that a Nunc stans should be an eternal Succession . P. As to comparing Tradition , I say , that the Mystery of the Trinity was questioned in the very Infancy of the Church , and the Arians prevail'd much against it in the beginning of the fourth Age ; but Transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet for a long time ; and when it came into debate , there was no such opposition as that of Arius , to call in question the Authority of its Tradition ; the Church received it unanimously , and in that Sense continued till rash Reason attempted to fathom the unlimited Miracles and Mysteries of God. Pr. I stand amazed at the boldness of this Assertion : But I find your present Writers are very little vers'd in Antiquity ; which makes them offer things concerning the Ancient Church , especially as to Transubstantiation , which those who had been modest and learned , would have been ashamed of . P. I hope I may make use of them to justify my self , tho you slight them , I mean the Consensus Veterum , the Nubes Testium , and the single Sheet about Transubstantiation . Pr. Take them all , and as many more as you please , I am sure you can never prove Transubstantiation to have been , and the Trinity not to have been the constant Belief of the Primitive Church . P. Let me manage my own Argument first . Pr. All the Reason in the World. P. My Argument is , That the Doctrine of the Trinity met with far more Opposition than Transubstantiation did . Pr. Good Reason for it , because it was never heard of then . You may as well say , the Tradition of the Circulation of the Blood lay very quiet , from the days of Hippocrates to the time of Parisanus . Who was there that opposed things before they were thought of ? P. That is your great Mistake ; for Transubstantiation was very well known , but they did not happen to speak so much of it , because it was not opposed . Pr. But how is it possible for you to know it was so well known , if they spake not of it ? P. I did not say , they did not speak of it , but not so much , or not half so express ; because it is not customary for Men to argue unquestionable Truths . Pr. But still how shall it be known that the Church received this Doctrine unanimously , if they do not speak expresly of it ? But since you offer at no Proof of your Assertion , I will make a fair offer to you , and undertake to prove , That the Fathers spake expresly against it . P. How is that ? Expresly against it ? God forbid . Pr. Make of it what you please , and answer what you can : I begin with my Proofs . P. Nay , then , we are in for all Night . I am now full of business , and cannot hearken to tedious Proofs out of the Fathers , which have been canvassed a hundred times . Pr. I will be as short as I can ; and I promise you not to transcribe any that have hitherto written , nor to urge you with any spurious Writer , or lame Citation at second or third hand ; and I shall produce nothing but what I have read , considered , and weighed in the Authors themselves . P. Since it must be so ; let me hear your doubty Arguments , which I cannot as well turn against the Trinity ; For that is my Point . Pr. I leave you to try your Skill upon them . The first shall be from the Proofs of the Truth of Christ's Incarnation ; and I hope this will not hold against the Trinity . And those Arguments which they brought to prove Christ Incarnate , do overthrow Transubstantiation effectually . So that either we must make the Fathers to reason very ill against Hereticks ; or , if their Arguments be good , it was impossible they should believe Transubstantiation . For can you suppose that any can believe it , who should not barely assert , but make the force of an Argument to lie in this , that the Substance of the Bread doth not remain after Consecration ? And this I now prove , not from any slight inconsiderable Authors , but from some of the greatest Men in the Church in their time . I begin with St. Chrysostom , whose Epistle to Coesarius is at last brought to light by a learned Person of the Roman Communion ; who makes no question of the Sincerity of it , and faith , The Latin Translation which only he could find entire , was about five hundred years old ; but he hath so confirm'd it by the Greek Fragments of it , quoted by Ancient Greek Authors , that there can be no suspicion left concerning it . P. What means all this ado before you come to the Point ? Pr. Because this Epistle hath been formerly so confidently denied to be St. Chrysostom's ; and such care was lately taken to suppress it . P. But what will you do with it now you have it ? Pr. I will tell you presently . This Epistle was written by him for the satisfaction of Caesarius a Monk , who was in danger of being seduced by the Apollinarists . P. What have we to do with the Apollinarists ? Do you think all hard words are akin , and so the affinity rises between Apollinarists and Transubstantiation ? Pr. You shall find it comes nearer the matter than you imagined . For those Hereticks denied the Truth of the Human Nature of Christ after the Union , and said that the Properties of it did then belong to the Divine Nature ; as appears by that very Epistle . P. And what of all this ? Do we deny the truth of Christ's Human Nature ? Pr. No ; but I pray observe the force of his Parallel . He is proving that each Nature in Christ contains its Properties ; for , saith he , as before Consecration we call it Bread , but after it by Divine Grace sanctifying it through the Prayer of the Priest , it is no longer called Bread , but the Body of our Lord , altho the nature of Bread remains in it ; and it doth not become two Bodies , but one Body of Christ ; so here the Divine Nature being joyned to the Human , they both make one Son , and one Person . P. And what do you infer from hence ? Pr. Nothing more , but that the Nature of Bread doth as certainly remain after Consecration , as the Nature of Christ doth after the Union . P. Hold a little . For the Author of the single Sheet , saith , That the Fathers by Nature and Substance do often mean no more than the natural Qualities , or visible Appearances of Things . And why may not St. Chrysostom mean so here ? Pr. I say , it is impossible he should . For all the Dispute was about the Substance , and not about the Qualities , as appears by that very Epistle ; for those Hereticks granted , that Christ had all the Properties of a Body left still ; they do not deny that Christ could suffer , but they said , the Properties of a Body after the Union belonged to the Divine Nature , the Human Nature being swallowed up by the Union . And therefore St. Chrysostom , by Nature , must understand Substance , and not Qualities ; or else he doth by no means prove that which he aimed at . So that St. Chrysostom doth manifestly assert the Substance of the Bread to remain after Consecration . P. But doth not St. Chrysostom suppose then , that upon Consecration , The Bread is united to the Divinity , as the Human Nature is to the Divine ; else what Parallel could he make ? Pr. I will deal freely with you by declaring , that not St. Chrysostom only , but many others of the Fathers , did own the Bread after Consecration to be made the real Body of Christ ; but not in your Sense , by changing the Substance of the Elements into that Body of Christ which is in Heaven ; but by a Mystical Union , caused by the Holy Spirit , whereby the Bread becomes the Body of Christ , as that was which was conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin. But this is quite another thing from Transubstantiation ; and the Church of England owns , that after Consecration , The Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ. P. But altho this be not Transubstantiation , it may be something as hard to believe or understand . Pr. By no means . For all the difficulties relating to the taking away the Substance of the Bread , and the Properties of Christ's Body , are removed by this Hypothesis . P. Let us then keep to our Point : but methinks this is but a slender appearance yet ; St. Chrysostom stands alone for all that I see . Pr. Have but a little Patience , and you shall see more of his mind presently . But I must first tell you , that the Eutychians afterwards were condemned in the Council of Chalcedon for following this Doctrine of Apollinaris ; and that Council defines , that the differences of the two Natures in Christ were not destroyed by the Union ; but that their Properties were preserved distinct and concur to one Person . And against these , the other Fathers disputed just as St. Chrysostom had done before against the Apollinarists . Theodoret brings the same Instance , and he affirms expresly , That the Nature of the Elements is not changed , that they do not lose their proper Nature , but remain in their former Substance , Figure and Form , and may be seen and touched as before . Still this is not to prove any Accidental Qualities , but the very Substance of Christ's Body to remain . P. But was not Theodoret a Man of suspected Faith in ●he Church ? and therefore no great matter can be made of his Testimony . Pr. Yield it then to us ; and see if we do not clear Theodoret ; but your own learned Men never question him , as to this matter ( at least ) and the ancient Church hath vindicated his Reputation . And he saith no more than St. Chrysostom before him , and others of great Esteem ●fter him . P. Who were they ? Pr. What say you to a Pope , whom you account Head of the Church ? Pope Gelasius writing against the same Hereticks , produces the same Example ; and he expresly saith , The Substance of the Bread and Wine doth not cease . P. I thought I should find you tripping . Here you put a Fob-head of the Church upon us . For the Author of the single Sheet saith , this was another Gelasius , as is prov'd at large by Bellarmin . Pr. In truth , I am ashamed of the Ignorance of such small Authors , who will be medling with things they understand not . For this Writer , since Bellarmin's time , hath been evidently proved from Testimonies of Antiquity , such as Fulgentius and John the second , to have been Pope Gelasius , and that by some of the most learned Persons of the Roman Communion , such as Cardinal Du Perron , Petavius , Sirmondus , and others . P. Have you any more that talk at this rate ? Pr. Yes . What think you of a Patriarch of Antioch , who useth the same Similitude for the same purpose ; and he affirms , that the sensible Substance still continues in the Eucharist , tho it hath Divine Grace joyned with it ? And I pray , now tell me seriously , did the Tradition of Transubstantiation lie unquestion'd and quiet all this while ? when we have three Patriarchs , of Constantinople , Rome , and Antioch , expresly against it ; and one of them owned by your Selves , to be Head of the Church ; and held by many to be Infallible , especially when he teaches the Church ; which he doth , if ever , when he declares against Hereticks . P. I know not what to say , unless by Nature and Substance they meant Qualities and Properties . Pr. I have evidently proved that could not be their meaning . P. But I am told Monsieur Arnaud in his elaborate Defence against Claude goes that way , and he saith , The Eutychians and Apollinarists did not absolutely deny any Substance to remain in Christ's Body , but not so as to be endued with such Properties as ours have . Pr. I grant this is the main of his Defence ; but I confess , Monsieur Arnaud hath not so much Authority with me , as a General Council which declared the contrary ; viz. That the Eutychians were condemned for not holding two Substances or Natures in Christ after the Union . And Domnus Antiochenus , who first laid open the Eutychian Heresie , saith , It lay in making a mixture and confusion of both Natures in Christ , and so making the Divinity passible ; and to the same purpose others . There were some who charged both Apollinaris and Eutyches with holding , that Christ brought his Body from Heaven , and that it was not con-substantial with ours ; but Apollinaris himself , in the Fragments preserved by Leontius , not only denies it , but pronounces an Anathema against those that hold it . And Vitalis of Antioch , a great Disciple of his , in discourse with Epiphanius , utterly denied a Coelestial Body in Christ. Vincentius Lerinensis saith , his Heresie lay in denying two distinct Substances in Christ. St. Augustin saith , he held but one Substance after the Union ; so that he must deny any Substance of a Body to remain after the Union , which he asserted to be wholly swallowed up , and the Properties to continue : Which was another kind of Transubstantiation ; for no more of the Substance of Christ's Body was supposed to remain after the Union , than there is supposed to be in the Elements after Consecration . But in both Cases the Properties and Qualities were the same still . And it is observable , that in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon , Eutyches rejected it , as a Calumny cast upon him , that he should hold that Christ brought a Body from Heaven . But the Eutychian Doctrine lay in taking away the Substance of the Body , and making the Divinity the sole Substance , but with the Accidents and Properties of the Body . And for this they produced the Words of Saint John , The Word was made Flesh ; which they urged with the same Confidence that you now do , This is my Body . And when they were urged with Difficulties , they made the very same recourse to God's Omnipotency , and the Letter of Scripture , and made the same Declamations against the use of Reason that you do ; and withal , they would not have the Human Nature to be annihilated , but to be changed into the Divine ; just as your Authors do about the Substance of the Bread. So that it is hard to imagin a more exact Parallel to Transubstantiation than there is in this Doctrine ; and consequently there can be no more evident Proof of it , than the Fathers making use of the Instance of the Eucharist , to shew , tha● as the Substance of Bread doth remain after Consecration ; so the Substance of Christ's Body doth continue after the Union . And when the Fathers from the remaining Properties do prove the Substance to remain , they overthrow the possibility of Transubstantiation . For , if they might be without the Substance , their whole Argument loses its force , and proves just nothing . P. But all this proves nothing as to the Faith of the Church ; being only Arguments used by Divines in the heat of Disputes . Pr. Do you then in earnest give up the Fathers as Disputants to us ; but retain them as Believers to your selves ? But how should we know their Faith but by their Works ? P. I perceive you have a mind to be pleasant ; but my meaning was , that in Disputes Men may easily over-shoot themselves , and use ineffectual Arguments . Pr. But is it possible to suppose they should draw Arguments from something against the Faith of the Church . As for instance ; Suppose now we are disputing about Tran substantiation , you should bring an Argument from the Human Nature of Christ , and say , That as in the Hypostatical Union the Substance is changed , and nothing but the Accidents remain ; so it is in the Elements upon Consecration . Do you think I should not presently deny your Example , and say , your very Supposition is Heretical ? So no doubt would the Eutychians have done in case the Faith of the Church had then been , that the Substance of the Elements was changed after Consecration . And the Eutychians were the most sottish Disputants in the World , if they had not brought the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to prove their Heresy . P. Methink you are very long upon this Argument ; when shall we have done at this rate ? Pr. I take this for your best Answer ; and so I proceed to a second Argument , which I am sure will not hold against the Trinity ; and that is from the natural and unseparable Properties of Christ's Body ; which are utterly inconsistent with the belief of Transubstantiation . And the force of the Argument in general lies in this , That the Fathers did attribute such things to the Body of Christ , which render it uncapable of being present in such a manner in the Sacrament as Transubstantiation supposes . And no Men who understand themselves , will assert that at one time , which they must be bound to deny at another ; but they will be sure to make an Exception or Limitation , which may reconcile both together . As if you should say , That the Body of Christ cannot be in more places than one at once , upon the Doctrine of St. Thomas ; ye would presently add , with regard to the Sacrament , i. e. not in regard of its natural Presence , but in a Sacramental it may : So , if the Fathers had an Opinion like yours as to the Body of Christ , they would have a Reserve , or Exception , as to the Sacrament . But it appears by their Writings , that they attribute such Properties in general to the Body of Christ , as overthrow any such Presence , without Exceptions or Limitations . But that is not all : For I shall now prove , 1. That they do attribute Circumscription to Christ's Body in Heaven , so as to exclude the possibility of its being upon Earth . 2. That they deny any such thing , as the supernatural Existence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit . P. What do you mean ? I am quite tired already ; and now you are turning up the other Glass . Pr. Since you will be dabling in these Controversies , you must not think to escape so easily . I have been not a little offended at the Insolence of some late Pamphlets upon this Argument ; and now I come to close Reasoning , you would fain be gone . P. I am in a little haste at present ; I pray come quickly to the Point . Pr. As soon as you please . What think you , if a Man now should bring an Argument to prove a matter of Faith from hence , That Christ's Body could not be in Heaven and Earth at once , would this argument hold good ? Yet thus Vigilius Tapsitanus argues against those who denied two Natures in Christ ; for , saith he , The Body of Christ when it was on Earth , was not in Heaven ; and now it is in Heaven , it is not upon Earth ; and it is so far from being so , that we expect him to come from Heaven in his Flesh , whom we believe to be now present on Earth by his Divinity . How can this hold , if the Body of Christ can be in Heaven and Earth at the same time ? P. He speaks this of the Natural Presence of Christ's Body , and not of the Sacramental . Pr. The Argument is not drawn from the manner of the Presence , but from the Nature of a Body , that it could not be in Heaven and Earth at the same time . And so St. Augustin said , That Christ was every where present as God ; but confined to a certain place in Heaven according to the Measure of his true Body . P. This is only to disprove the Ubiquity of Christ's Body ; and not his being in several places at the same time . Pr. Then you yield it to be repugnant to the Nature of a Body to be every where present . P. Yes . Pr. But what if there be as great a repugnancy from St. Augustin's Argument , for a Body to be present in several places at once ? P. I see no such thing . Pr. No ? His Argument is from the Confinement of a true Body to a certain place . And if it be in many places at once , it is as far from being confined , as if it took up all places . And there are some greater Difficulties as to a Body's being distant from it self , than in asserting its Ubiquity . P. I perceive you are inclined to be a Lutheran . Pr. No such matter . For I think the Essential Properties of a Finite and Infinite Being are incommunicable to each other , and I look on Ubiquity as one of them . P. Then the same Argument will not hold as to Presence in several places , for this is no Infinite Perfection . Pr. You run from one Argument to another . For these are two distinct ways of arguing ; and the Argument from the Repugnancy of it to the Nature of a Body , doth as well hold against Ubiquity , as that it is a Divine Perfection . And St. Augustin in that excellent Epistle doth argue from the Essential Properties and Dimensions of Bodies , and the difference of the Presence of a Spirit , and a Body . I pray read and consider that Epistle , and you will think it impossible St. Augustin should believe Transubstantiation . P. St. Augustin was a great Disputant , and such are wont while they are eager upon one Point , to forget another . But St. Augustin elsewhere doth assert the Presence of Christ's real Body in the Sacrament . Pr. Then the plain Consequence is , that he contradicted himself . P. But he doth not speak of a Sacramental Presence . Pr. What again ? But St. Augustin makes this an essential difference between a Divine and Corporal Presence ; that the one doth not fill places by its Dimensions as the other doth ; so that Bodies cannot be in distant places at once . What think you of this ? P. I pray go on . Pr. What think you of the Manichees Doctrine , who held that Christ was in the Sun and Moon when he suffered on the Cross ? Was this possible or not ? P. What would you draw from hence ? Pr. Nothing more , but that St. Augustin disproved it , because his Body could not be at the same time in the Sun and Moon , and upon Earth ? P. As to the ordinary course of Nature , St. Augustin's Argument holds , but not as to the Miraculous Power of God. Pr. There is a difference between the ordinary Course of Nature , and the unchangeable Order of Nature . P. Let me hear this again ; for it is new Doctrine to us . Pr. That 's strange ! Those things are by the ordinary Course of Nature , which cannot be changed but by Divine Power ; but imply no Repugnancy for God to alter that Course ; but those are by the unchangeable Order of Nature , which cannot be done without overthrowing the very Nature of the things ; and such things are impossible in themselves , and therefore God himself cannot do them . P. It seems then you set Bounds to God's Omnipotency . Pr. Doth not the Scripture say , there are some things impossible for God to do ? P. Yes ; such as are repugnant to his own Perfections ; as it is impossible for God to lye . Pr. But are there no other things impossible to be done ? What think you of making the time past not to be past ? P. That is impossible in it self . Pr. But is it not impossible for the same Body to be in two different times ? P. Yes . Pr. Why not then in two or more different Places ; since a Body is as certainly confined , as to Place , as it is to Time ? P. You are run now into the Point of Reason , when we were upon St. Augustin's Testimony . Pr. But I say , St. Augustin went upon this ground , that it was repugnant to the Nature of a Body to be in more places than one at the same time . And so likewise Cassian proves , That when Christ was upon Earth he could not be in Heaven , but in regard of his Divinity . Is there not the same Repugnancy for a Body in Heaven to be upon Earth , as for a Body upon Earth to be in Heaven ? P. These are new Questions , which I have not met with in our Writers , and therefore I shall take time to answer them . But all these Testimonies proceed upon a Body considered under the Nature of a Body ; but in the Sacrament we consider Christ's Body as present after the manner of a Spirit . Pr. That was the next thing I promised to prove from the Fathers , that they knew of no such thing , and therefore could not believe your Doctrine . Have you observed what the Fathers say about the difference of Body and Spirit ? P. Not I ; but I have read our Authors , who produce them for our Doctrine . Pr. That is the perpetual fault of your Writers , to attend more to the sound of their Words , than to the force of their Reasonings . They bring places out of Popular Discourses intended to heighten the Peoples Devotion , and never compare them with those Principles which they assert , when they come to Reasoning ; which would plainly shew their other Expressions are to be understood in a Mystical and Figurative Sense . But I pray tell me , do you think the Fathers had no distinct Notion of a Body and Spirit , and the Essential Properties of both ? P. Yes doubtless . Pr. Suppose then they made those to lye in such things as are inconsistent with the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit ; do you think then they could hold it to be so present ? And if they did not , they could not believe Transubstantiation . P. Very true . Pr. What think you then of St. Augustin , who makes it impossible for a Body to be without its Dimensions and Extension of Parts ? But you assert a Body may be without them ; or else it cannot be after the manner of a Spirit , as you say it is in the Sacrament . P. I pray shew that St. Augustin made it inconsistent with the Nature of a Body to be otherwise . Pr. He saith , That all Bodies how gross or subtle soever they be , can never be all every where ( i. e. cannot be indivisibly present after the manner of a Spirit ) but must be extended according to their several Parts , and whether great or little , must take up a space , and so fill the Place , that it cannot be all in any one Part. Is this possible to be reconciled with your Notion of a Body being present after the manner of a Spirit ? P. To be present after the manner of a Spirit , is with us , to be so present , as not to be extended , and to be whole in every part . Pr. But this St. Augustin saith , no Body can be ; and not only there , but elsewhere he saith , Take away Dimensions from Bodies , and they are no longer Bodies . And that a greater part takes up a greater space , and a lesser a less ; and must be always less in the part than in the whole . P. But he speaks of Extension in it self , and not with respect to Place . Pr. That is of Extension that is not extended ; for if it be , it must have respect to Place ; but nothing can be plainer , than that St. Augustin doth speak with respect to Place . And he elsewhere saith , That every Body must have Place , and be extended in it . P. But he doth not speak this of the Sacrament . Pr. But he speaks it of all Bodies wheresoever present ; and he doth not except the Sacrament , which he would certainly have done , if he had believed as you do concerning it . P. St. Augustin might have particular Opinions in this , as he had in other things . Pr. So far from it , that I shall make it appear , that this was the general Sense of the Fathers . St. Gregory Nazianzen saith , That the Nature of Bodies requires , that they have Figure and Shape , and may be touched , and seen , and circumscribed . St. Cyril of Alexandria saith , That if God himself were a Body , he must be liable to the Properties of Bodies , and he must be in a place , as Bodies are . And all those Fathers , who prove , that God cannot be a Body , do it from such Arguments as shew , that they knew nothing of a Bodies Being after the manner of a Spirit : For then the force of their Arguments is lost , which are taken from the Essential Properties of a Body , such as Extension , Divisibility , and Circumscription . But if a Body may be without these , then God may be a Body after the manner of a Spirit ; and so the Spirituality of the Divine Nature will be taken away . P. I never heard these Arguments before , and must take some time to consider . Pr. The sooner the better ; and I am sure if you do , you will repent being a New Convert . But I have yet something to add to this Argument ; viz. That those who have stated the Difference between Body and Spirit , have made Extension , and taking up a place , and Divisibility , necessary to the very Being of a Body ; and that what is not circumscribed , is incorporeal . P. Methinks your Arguments run out to a great length . I pray bring them into a less Compass . Pr. I proceed to a Third Argument from the Fathers , which will not take up much time ; and that is , That the Fathers knew nothing of the Subsistence of Accidents without their Substance , without which Transubstantiation cannot be maintained : And therefore in the Roman Schools , the possibility of Accidents subsisting without their Subjects , is defended . But on the contrary , Maximus , one of the eldest of the Fathers , who lived in the Second Century , affirms it to be of the Essence of Accidents to be in their Substance . St. Basil saith , Nature doth not bear a distinction between Body and Figure , altho Reason makes one . Isidore P●lusiota , saith , That Quality cannot be without Substance . Gregory Nyssen , That Figure cannot be without Body , and that a Body cannot be conceived without Qualities : And that if we take away Colour , and Quantity , and Resistance , the whole Notion of a Body is destroy'd . Take away Space from Bodies , saith St. Augustin , and they can be no where ; and if they can be no where , they cannot be : And so he saith , if we take away Bodies from their Qualities . And in plain terms , That no Qualities , as Colours , or Form , can remain without their Subject . And that no Accidents can be without their Subject , is in general affirmed by Isidore Hispalensis , Boethius , Damascen , and others , who give an Account of the Philosophy of the Ancients . P. All this proceeds upon the old Philosophy of Accidents : What if there be none at all ? Pr. What then makes the same Impression on our Senses when the Substance is gone , as when it was there ? Is there a perpetual Miracle to deceive our Senses ? But it is impossible to maintain Transubstantiation , as it is defined in the Church of Rome , without Accidents : They may hold some other Doctrine in the place of it , but they cannot hold that . And that other Doctrine will be as impossible to be understood . For if once we suppose the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament , in place of the Substance of the Bread , which appears to our Senses to be Bread still : Then suppose there be no Accidents , the Body of a Man must make the same Impression on our Senses , which the Substance of Bread doth , which is so horrible an Absurdity , that the Philosophy of Accidents cannot imply any greater than it . So that the New Transubstantiators had as good return to the Old Mumpsimus of Accidents . P. I suppose you have now done with this Argument . Pr. No : I have something farther to say about it , which is , that the Fathers do not only assert , That Accidents cannot be without their Subject , but they confute Hereticks on that Supposition ; which shew'd their assurance of the Truth of it . Irenoeus overthrows the Valentinian Conjugations , because Truth can no more be without a Subject , than Water without Moisture , or Fire without Heat , or a Stone without Hardness ; which are so joined together , that they cannot be separated . Methodius confutes Origen's Fancy about the Soul having the Shape of a Body without the Substance , because the Shape and the Body cannot be separated from each other . St. Augustin proves the Immortality of the Soul from hence , because meer Accidents can never be separated from the Body , so as the mind is by abstraction . And in another place he asserts it to be a monstrous absurd Doctrine , to suppose that , whose Nature is to be in a Subject , to be capable of subsisting without it . Claudianus Mamertus proves , That the Soul could not be in the Body as its Subject ; for then it could not subsist when the Body is destroy'd . P. I hope you have now done with this Third Argument . Pr. Yes ; and I shall wait your own time for an Answer . I go on to a Fourth : And that is from the Evidence of Sense asserted and allowed by the Fathers , with respect to the Body of Christ. P. I expected this before now . For , as the Author of the Single Sheet observes : This is the Cock-Argument of one of the Lights of your Church ; and it so far resembles the Light , that like it , it makes a glaring shew , but go to grasp it , and you find nothing in your hand . Pr. Then it 's plain our Senses are deceived . P. Not as to Transubstantiation : for he believes more of his Senses than we do : for his Eyes tell him there is the Colour of Bread , and he assents to them ; his Tongue , that it has the Taste of Bread , and he agrees to it : and so for his Smelling and Feeling : But then he hath a notable fetch in his Conclusion : viz. That his Ears tell him from the Words spoken by Christ himself , that it is the Body of Christ , and he believes these too . Is not here one Sense more than you believe ? And yet you would persuade the World , that we do not believe our Senses . Pr. This is admirable Stuff ; but it must be tenderly dealt with . For I pray what doth he mean when he saith , he believes from Christ's own Words , that it is the Body of Christ ? What is this It ? Is it the Accidents he speaks of before ? Are those Accidents then the Body of Christ ? Is it the Substance of Bread ? But that is not discerned by the Senses , he saith : and if it were , will he say , that the Substance of Bread is the Body of Christ ? If neither of these , then his believing It is the Body of Christ , signifies nothing ; for there can be no sense of it . P. However , he shews , That we who believe Transubstantiation , do not renounce our Senses , as you commonly reproach us : For we believe all that our Senses represent to us , which is only the outward appearance . For , as he well observes , If your Eyes see the Substance of things , they are most extraordinary ones , and better than ours . For our parts , we see no farther than the Colour or Figure , &c. of things which are only Accidents , and the entire Object of that Sense . Pr. Is there no difference between the Perception of Sense , and the Evidence of Sense ? We grant , that the Perception of our Senses goes no farther than to the outward Accidents ; but that Perception affords such an Evidence by which the Mind doth pass Judgment upon the thing represented by the outward Sense . I pray tell me , have you any certainty there is such a thing as a material Substance in the World ? P. Yes . Pr. Whence comes the certainty of the Substance , since your Senses cannot discover it ? Do we live among nothing but Accidents ? Or can we know nothing beyond them ? P. I grant we may know in general that there are such things as Substances in the World. Pr. But can we not know the difference of one Substance from another , by our Senses ? As for instance , can we not know a Man from a Horse , or an Elephant from a Mouse , or a piece of Bread from a Church ? Or do we only know . there are such and such Accidents belong to every one of these ; but our Senses are not so extraprdinary to discover the Substances under them ? I pray answer me one Question , Did you ever keep Lent ? P. What a strange Question is this ? Did you not tell me , you would avoid Impertinencies ? Pr. This is none , I assure you . P. Then I answer , I think my self obliged to keep it . Pr. Then you thought your self bound to abstain from Flesh , and to eat Fish. P. What of all that ? Pr. Was it the Substance of Flesh you abstained from , or only the Accidents of it ? P. The Substance ? Pr. And did you know the difference between the Substance of Flesh and Fish by your Tast ? P. Yes . Pr. Then you have an extraordinary Tast , which goes to the very Substance ? P. But this is off from our Business , which was about the Fathers , and not our own Judgment about the Evidence of Sense . Pr. I am ready for you upon that Argument . And I only desire to know whether you think the Evidence of Sense sufficient , as to the true Body of Christ , where it is supposed to be present ? P. By no means ; For then we could not believe it to be present , where we cannot perceive it . Pr. But the Fathers did assert the Evidence of Sense to be sufficient , as to the true Body of Christ ; so Irenoeus , Tertullian , Epiphanius , Hilary , and St. Augustin . I will produce their Words at length , if you desire them . P. It will be but lost labour , since we deny not , as Cardinal Bellarmin well saith , The Evidence of Sense to be a good positive Evidence , but not a negative , i. e. that it is a Body , which is handled , and felt , and seen ; but not , that it is no Body which is not . Pr. Very well ! And I pray then what becomes of your single Sheet man , who so confidently denies Sense to be good positive Evidence as to a real Body ; but only as to the outward appearance ? P. You mistake him ; for he saith , We are to believe our Senses , where they are not indisposed , and no Divine Revelation intervenes , which we believe there doth in this Case ; and therefore , unless the Fathers speak of the Sacrament , we have no reason to regard their Testimonies in this matter . But we have stronger Evidence against you from the Fathers , for they say we are not to rely on the Evidence of Sense , as to the Sacrament . So St. Cyril , St. Chrysostom , and St. Ambrose . Pr. I am glad you offer any thing which deserves to be considered . But have you already forgot Bellarmin's Rule , That Sense may be a good positive Evidence , but not a negative , i. e. it may discover what is present as a Body , but not what is not , and cannot be so present , viz. the Invisible Grace which goes along with it ; and as to this the Fathers might well say , we are not to trust our Sense . P. This is making an Interpretation for them . Pr. No such matter . It is the proper and genuine Sense of their Words ; as will appear from hence . ( 1. ) They assert the very same , as to the Chrism and Baptism , which they do as to the Eucharist . ( 2. ) That which they say , our Senses cannot reach , is something of a spiritual Nature , and not a Body . And here the Case is extremely different from the Judgment of Sense , as to a material Substance . And if you please , I will evidently prove from the Fathers , that that wherein they excluded the Judgment of Sense in the Eucharist , was something wholly Spiritual and Immaterial . P. No , no , we have been long enough upon the Fathers , unless their Evidence were more certain one way or other . For my part , I believe on the account of Divine Revelation in this matter , This is my Body ; here I stick , and the Fathers agreed with us herein , that Christ's words are not to be taken in a figurative Sense . Pr. The contrary hath been so plainly proved in a late excellent Discourse of Transubstantiation , that I wonder none of your Party have yet undertaken to answer it ; but they write on , as if no such Treatise had appear'd : I shall therefore wave all the Proofs that are there produced , till some tolerable Answer be given to them . P. Methinks you have taken a great Liberty of talking about the Fathers , as tho they were all on your side ; but our late Authors assure us to the contrary ; and I hope I may now make use of them , to shew that Transubstantiation was the Faith of the Ancient Church . Pr. With all my heart , I even long to hear what they can say in a matter , I think , so clear on our side . P. Well , Sir , I begin with the Consensus Veterum , written by one that professed himself a Minister of the Church of England . Pr. Make what you can of him , now you have him ; but I will meddle with no personal Things , I desire to hear his Arguments . P. What say you to R. Selomo , interpreting the 72. Psal. v. 16. Of Wafers in the days of the Messias ; to R. Moses Haddarsan , on Gen. 39. 1. and on Psal. 136. 25 , to R. Cahana , on Gen. 49. 1. who was long before the Nativity of Christ ; R. Johai , on Numb . 28. 2. and to R. Judas , who was many years before Christ came . Pr. Can you hold your Countenance when you repeat these things ? But any thing must pass from a New Convert . What think you of R. Cahana , and R. Judas , who lived so long before our Saviour , when we know that the Jews have no Writings preserved near to our Saviour's time , besides the Bible , and some say the Paraphrasts upon it . I would have been glad to have seen these Testimonies taken from their Original Authors , and not from Galatinus , who is known to have been a notorious Plagiary , as to the main of his Book , and of little or no Credit as to the rest . But it is ridieulous to produce the Testimonies of Jewish Rabbins for Transubstantiation , when it is so well known that it is one of their greatest objections against Christianity , as taught in the Roman Church , as may be seen in Joseph Albo , and others . But what is all this to the Testimony of the Christian Fathers ? P. Will not you let a Man shew a little Jewish Learning upon occasion ? But if you have a mind to the Fathers , you shall have enough of them ; for I have a large Catalogue of them to produce , from the Consensus Veterum , Nubes Testium , and the single Sheet , which generally agree . Pr. With Coccius or Bellarmin , you mean ; but before you produce them , I pray tell me what you intend to prove by them ? P. The Doctrine of our Church . Pr. As to what ? P. What have we been about all this while ? Pr. Transubstantiation . Will you prove that ? P. Why do you suspect me before I begin ? Pr. I have some Reason for it . Let us first agree what we mean by it . Do you mean the same which the Church of Rome doth by it , in the Council of Trent ? P. What can we mean else ? Pr. Let us first see what that is . The Council of Trent declares , That the same Body of Christ , which is in Heaven , is really , truly and substantially present in the Eucharist after Consecration , under the Species of Bread and Wine . And the Roman Catechism saith , It is the very Body which was born of the Virgin , and sits at the right hand of God. ( 2. ) That the Bread and Wine after Consecration , lose their proper Substances , and are changed into that very Substance of the Body of Christ. And an Anathema is denounced against those who affirm the contrary . Now if you please , proceed to your Proofs . P. I begin with the Ancient Liturgies of St. Peter , St. James , and St. Matthew . Pr. Are you in earnest ? P. Why ; what is the matter ? Pr. Do not you know , that these are rejected as Supposititious , by your own Writers ? And a very late and learned Dr. of the Sorbon , hath given full and clear Evidences of it . P. Suppose they are , Yet they may be of Antiquity enough , to give some competent Testimony as to Tradition . Pr. No such matter : For he proves St. Peter 's Liturgy , to be later than the Sacramentary of St. Gregory ; and so can prove nothing for the first 600 years ; and the Aethiopick Liturgy , or St. Matthew's , he shews to be very late . That of St. James , he thinks to have been some time before the Five General Councils ; but by no means to have been St. James's . P. What think you of the Acts of St. Andrew , and what he saith therein , about eating the Flesh of Christ ? Pr. I think he saith nothing to the purpose . But I am ashamed to find one , who hath so long been a Minister in this Church , so extreamly ignorant , as to bring these for good Authorities , which are rejected with scorn by all Men of Learning and Ingenuity among you . P. I am afraid you grow angry . Pr. I confess , Ignorance and Confidence together , are very provoking things ; especially , when a Man in years pretends to leave our Church on such pitiful Grounds . P. But he doth produce better Authorities . Pr. If he doth , they are not to his purpose . P. That must be tried ; What say you to Ignatius ? I hope you allow his Epistles ? Pr. I see no reason to the contrary . But what saith he ? P. He saith , That some Hereticks then would not receive the Eucharist and Oblations , because they will not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Christ. And this is produced by both Authors . Pr. The Persons Ignatius speaks of , were such as denied Christ to have any true Body , and therefore did forbear the Eucharist , because it was said to be his Body . And in what ever Sense it were taken , it still supposed that which they denied , viz. that he had a true Body : For , if it were figuratively understood , it was as contrary to their Doctrine , as if it were literally . For a Figure must relate to a real Body , as Tertullian argued in this Case . And Ignatius in the same Epistle , mentions the trial Christ made of his true Body , by the Senses of his Disciples , Take hold of me , and handle me , and see , for I am no incorporeal Doemon ; and immediately they touched him , and were convinced . Which happen'd but a few days after Christ had said , This is my Body ; and our Saviour gave a Rule for judging a true Body , from an appearance , or spiritual Substance ; A Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones , as ye see me have . Therefore it is very improbable that Ignatius so soon after , should assert that Christ's true and real Body was in the Eucharist , where it could be neither seen nor felt : For then he must overthrow the force of his former Argument . And to what purpose did Christ say , That a Spirit had not Flesh and Bones , as they saw him to have ; if a Body of Christ might be so much after the manner of a Spirit , as tho it had Flesh and Bones , yet they could not possibly be discerned ? But after all , suppose Ignatius doth speak of the Substance of Christ's Flesh , as present in the Eucharist ; yet he saith not a word of the changing of the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body ; which was the thing to be proved . P. But Justin Martyr doth speak of the change , and his Words are produced by all three . And they are thus rendred in the single Sheet . For we do not receive this as common Bread , or common Drink , but as by the Word of God , Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made Man , had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation ; so also , we are taught that this Food , by which our Blood and Flesh are by a change nourished , being consecrated by the Power of the Word , is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate : What say you to this ? Pr. I desire you to consider these things . ( 1. ) That Justin Martyr doth not say , That the Bread and Wine are by Consecration changed into the Individual Flesh and Blood , in which Christ was Incarnate ; but that , as by the Power of the Word , Christ once had a Body in the Womb of the Virgin ; so by the Power of the same Word , upon Consecration , the Bread and Wine do become the Flesh and Blood of Christ Incarnate ; so that he must mean a parallel , and not the same Individual Body , i. e. that as the Body in the Womb became the Body of Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit ; so the Holy Spirit after Consecration , makes the Elements to become the Flesh and Blood of Christ , not by an Hypostatical Union , but by Divine Influence , as the Church is the Body of Christ. And this was the true Notion of the Ancient Church , as to this matter , and the expressions in the Greek Liturgies to this day confirm the same . ( 2. ) He doth not in the least imply that the Elements by this change do lose their Substance ; for he mentions the nourishment of our Bodies by it ; but he affirms , that notwithstanding their Substance remain , yet the Divine Spirit of Christ , by its Operation , doth make them become his Body . For we must observe , that he attributes the Body in the Womb , and on the Altar , to the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Divine Word . For he did not think Hypostatical Union necessary , to make the Elements become the Body of Christ , but a Divine Energy was sufficient , as the Bodies assumed by Angels are their Bodies , tho there be no such vital Union , as there is between the Soul and Body of a Man. P. I go on to Irenoeus , from whom two places are produced , one by the Consensus Veterum , where he saith , That which is Bread from the Earth , perceiving the call of God , now is not common Bread , but the Eucharist , consisting of two things , one Earthly , and the other Spiritual . Pr. Very well ! Then there is an Earthly , as well as a Spiritual thing in the Eucharist , i. e. a Bodily Substance , and Divine Grace . P. No ; he saith , The Earthly is the Accidents . Pr. Doth Irenoeus say so ? P. No ; but he means so . Pr. There is not a word to that purpose in Irenoeus ; and therefore this is downright Prevarication . I grant Irenoeus doth suppose a change made by Divine Grace ; but not by destroying the Elements , but by super-adding Divine Grace to them ; and so the Bread becomes the Body of Christ , and the Wine his Blood. P. The other place in Irenoeus is , where he saith , That as the Bread receiving the Word of God , is made the Eucharist , which is the Body and Blood of Christ , so also our Bodies being nourished by it , and laid in the Earth , and there dissolved , will arise at their time , &c. Pr. What do you prove from this place ? P. That the same Divine Power is seen in making the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ , which is to be in the Resurrection of the Body . Pr. But doth this prove , that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christ's Body ? P. Why not ? Pr. I will give you a plain Argument against it ; for he saith , Our Bodies are nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ. Do you think that Irenoeus believed the substance of Christ's Body was turned into the substance of our Bodies , in order to their nourishment ? No ; he explained himself just before in the same place ; De Calice qui est Sanguis ejus , nutritur ; & de pane qui est Corpus ejus ; augetur : So that he attributes the nourishment to the Bread and Wine ; and therefore must suppose the substance of them to remain , since it is impossible a substantial nourishment should be made by meer Accidents . And withal , observe , he saith expresly , That the Bread is the Body of Christ ; which your best Writers ( such as Bellarmin , Suarez and Vasquez ) say , is inconsistent with Transubstantiation . P. My next Author is Tertullian , who is produced by the Consensus Veterum , and the Single Sheet , but omitted by the Nubes Testium ; but the other proves , That Bread which was the Figure of Christ's Body in the Old Testament , now in the New , is changed into the real and true Body of Christ. Pr. This is a bold Attempt upon Tertullian , to prove , that by the Figure of Christ's Body , he means his true and real Body . For his Words are , Acceptum panem & distributum Discipulis Corpus illum suum fecit , Hoc est Corpus meum dicendo , id est , Figura Corporis mei . He took the bread , and gave it to his Disciples , and made it his Body , saying , This is my Body ; i. e. this is the Figure of my Body . How can those men want Proofs , that can draw Transubstantiation from these Words , which are so plain against it ? P. You are mistaken ; Tertullian by Figure meant , it was a Figure in the Old Testament , but it was now his real Body . Pr. You put very odd Figures upon Tertullian : I appeal to any reasonable man , whether by the latter words he doth not explain the former ? For he puts the Sense upon Corpus meum , by adding dicendo to them ; i. e. This is the meaning of that speech , when he calleth the Bread his Body . P. Doth not Tertullian say , That it had not been the Figure , unless it had been the Truth ? Pr. This is again perverting his words , which are , Figuratum non fuisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus ; i. e. there had been no place for a Figure of Christ's Body , unless Christ had a true body . For he was proving against Marcion , that Christ had a true Body ; and among other Arguments he produces this from the Figure of his Body , which he not only mentions here , but in other places ; where he saith , That Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread ; which cannot relate to any Figure of the Old Testament . P. But doth not Tertullian say afterwards , That the Bread was the figure of Christ's body in the Old Testament ? Pr. What then ? He had Two Designs against Marcion ; one to prove , that Christ had a true body , which he doth here from the figure of his body : and the other , that there was a Correspondency of both Testaments : and for that purpose he shews , that the bread in Jeremiah , was the figure of Christ's body . P. But the Author of the Single Sheet , cites another place of Tertullian , where he saith , that our flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ , that our soul may be filled with God. Pr. By the body and blood of Christ , he means there , the Elements , with Divine Grace going along with them ; as appears by his design , which is , to shew how the body and soul are joyned together in Sacramental Rites . The flesh is washed , and the soul is cleansed ; the flesh is anointed , and the soul consecrated ; the flesh is signed , and the soul confirmed ; the flesh hath hands laid upon it , and the soul enlighten'd ; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ , that the soul may be filled with God. Now unless Tertullian meant the Elements , the Parallel doth not proceed ; for all the rest are spoken of the external Symbols ; and so this doth not at all contradict what he saith elsewhere , no more than the Passage in the second Book adUxorem doth . For there he speaks of Christ , with respect to the invisible Grace , as he doth here , as to the outward Symbols . P. Clemens Alexandrinus saith , That Melchisedeck gave Bread and Wine in figure of the Eucharist . Pr. And what then ? What is this to Transubstantiation ? P. Origen saith , When you eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord , then our Lord enters under your roof , &c. Pr. Are you sure that Origen said this ? But suppose he did , must he enter with his flesh and bones , and not much rather by a peculiar presence of his Grace ? For is it not Origen who so carefully distinguishes the Typical and Symbolical body of Christ , from the Divine Word , and so expresly mentions the material part of the Elements after Consecration , which pass into the Draught , &c. Is all this meant of the Accidents only ? P. What say you to St. Cyprian de Coena Domini ? Pr. I beg your pardon , Sir ; this is now known and acknowledged to be a late Author , in comparison , and cannot come within your 600 years ; and therefore is not ancient enough to be considered . P. But in his genuine Writings he speaks of those who offer'd Violence to the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist . Pr. And I pray what follows ? That the substance of the Elements is gone : Where lies the Consequence ? But St. Cyprian saith , the bread was his body , and the wine his blood ; therefore their substance must remain . P. What say you to Eusebius Emesenus ? Pr. That he is not within our compass ; and withal , that he is a known Counterfeit . P. I perceive you are hard to please . Pr. You say very true , as to supposititious Writers . P. I hope you have more Reverence for the Council of Nice . Pr. But where doth that speak of Transubstantiation ? P. It calls the Eucharist the body of Christ. Pr. And so doth the Church of England ; therefore that holds Transubstantiation . I pray bring no more such Testimonies , which prove nothing but what we hold . P. I perceive you have a mind to cut me short . Pr. Not in the least , where you offer any thing to the purpose . But I pray spare those who only affirm , that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ after Consecration . For I acknowledg it was the Language of the Church , especially in the fourth Century , when the Names of the Elements were hardly mention'd to the Catechumens ; and all the Discourses of the Fathers to them , tended to heighten the Devotion and Esteem of the Eucharist . By which Observation you may easily understand the meaning of the Eloquent Writers of that Age , who speak with so much Mystery and Obscurity about it . If you have any that go beyond lofty expressions , and Rhetorical flights , I pray produce them . P. I perceive you are afraid of S. Greg. Nazianzen , and S. Basil , but especially S. Chrysostom , you fence so much beforehand against Eloquent Men. Pr. As to the other two , there is nothing material alledged by any to this purpose ; but S. Chrysostom , I confess , doth speak very lofty things concerning the Sacrament in his popular Discourses , but yet nothing that doth prove Transubstantiation . P. What think you of his Homilies , 51 and 83. on S. Mat. 46. Homily on S. John 24. Homily on 1st to the Corinth . the Homilies on Philogonius and the Cross ? Are there not strange things in them concerning the Eucharist ? About eating Christ , and seeing him lie before them slain on the Altar ; about touching his Body there , and the Holy Spirit , with an innumerable Host , hovering over what is there proposed , with much more to that purpose . Pr. You need not to recite more ; for I yield that St. Chrysostom delighted in the highest flights of his Eloquence , on this Subject , in his Homilies ; and he tells for what Reason , to excite the Reverence and Devotion of the People . But yet himself doth afford us a sufficient Key to these expressions , if we attend to these things concerning his manner of speaking : ( 1. ) That he affirms those things which no side can allow to be literally understood . As when he so often speaks of our seeing and touching Christ upon the Altar , which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation : For Christ is utterly invisible on the Altar , even by Divine Power , saith Suarez . He is invisible in the Sacrament . saith Bellarmin ; and he saith also , that he cannot be touched . What then is to be said to such expressions of S. Chrysostom ? Behold thou seest him , thou touchest him , thou eatest him . It is not his Sacrament only which is offer'd us to touch , but himself . What if you do not hear his Voice , do you not see him lying before you ? Behold Christ lying before you slain . Christ lies on the holy Table , as a Sacrifice slain for us . Thou swearest upon the holy Table where Christ lies slain . When thou seest our Lord lying on the Table , and the Priest praying and the by-standers purpled with his Blood. See the Love of Christ ; he doth not only suffer himself to be seen by those who desire it , but to be touched and eaten , and our Teeth to be fixed in his Flesh. Now these Expressions are on all sides granted to be literally absurd and impossible ; and therefore we must say of him as Bonaventure once said of S. Augustin , Plus dicit sanctus & minus vult intelligi ; We must make great allowance for such Expressions , or you must hold a Capernaitical Sense . And it is denied by your selves , that Christ is actually slain upon the Altar ; and therefore you yield , that such Expressions are to be figuratively understood . ( 2. ) That he le ts fall many things in such Discourses which do give light to the rest : As , ( 1. ) That Flesh is improperly taken when applied to the Eucharist . ( 2. ) He calls the Sacrament the Mystical Body and Blood of Christ. ( 3. ) That the eating of Christ's Flesh is not to be understood literally , but spiritually . ( 4. ) He opposes Christ's sacramental Presence , and real corporal Presence to each other . ( 5. ) He still exhorts the Communicants to look upwards towards Heaven . And now if you lay these things together , this Eloquent Father will not , with all his Flights , come near to Transubstantiation . P. No! In one place he asserts the Substance of the Elements to be lost . Pr. Thanks to the Latin Translators , for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as the Criticks observe , doth not signify to destroy , but to refine , and purify a Substance . But I do not rely upon this ; for the plain answer is , that S. Chrysostom doth not there speak of the Elements upon Consecration , but what becomes of them , after they are taken down into the Stomach . St. Chrysostom thought it would lessen the Peoples Reverence and Devotion , if they passed into the draught , as Origen affirmed ; and therefore he started another Opinion ; viz. That as Wax , when it is melted in the fire , throws off no superfluities , but it passes indiscernably away ; so the Elements , or Mysteries , as he calls them , pass imperceptibly into the substance of the Body , and so are consumed together with it . Therefore , saith he , approach with Reverence , not supposing that you receive the divine body from a Man , but as with Tongs of Fire from the Seraphims : Which the Author of the Consensus Veterum translates , but Fire from the Tongues of Seraphims . S. Chrysostom's Words are , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : And the Sense is , that the divine Body ( i. e. the Eucharist , after Consecration , being by the divine Spirit made the divine Body , as in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy , there is a particular Prayer for the Holy Ghost to come , and so make the Bread to be the divine Body , or the holy Body of Christ ) , is to be taken , not with our Mouths , which can only receive the Elements , but after a divine manner , as with Tongs of fire from Seraphims ; by which he expresses the spiritual acts of Faith and Devotion , as most agreeable to that divine Spirit which makes the Elements to become the holy Body of Christ. But that St. Chrysostom did truly and firmly believe the Substance of the Bread to remain after Consecration , I have already proved from his Epistle to Coesarius . P. I pray let us not go backward , having so much ground to run over still . Pr. I am content , if you will produce only those who speak of the change of Substance , and not such as only mention the Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration , which I have already told you , was the Language of the Church ; and therefore all those Testimonies are of no force in this matter . P. Then I must quit the greatest part of what remains , as Optatus , Gaudentius , S. Jerom , and others ; but I have some still left which will set you hard . What say you then to Gregory Nyssen , who saith , the sanctified bread is changed into the body of the Word of God. And he takes off your Answer of a mystical Body ; for he puts the Question , How the same Body can daily be distributed to the faithful throughout the World , it remaining whole and entire in it self ? Pr. Gregory Nyssen was a Man of Fancy , and he shewed it in that Catechetical Discourse : However , Fronto Ducoeus thought it a notable place to prove Transubstantiation , which I wonder at , if he attended to the Design of it ; which was to shew , that as our Bodies , by eating , became subject to Corruption , so by eating they become capable of Immortality ; and this he saith , Must be by receiving an immortal Body into our B dies , such as the Body of Christ was : But then , saith he , how could that body , which is to remain whole in it self , be distributed to all the faithful over the whole Earth ? He answers , by saying , That our Bodies do consist of Bread and Wine , which are their proper Nourishment ; and Christ's Body being like ours , that was so too ; which by the Uni●n with the Word of God , was changed into a Divine Dignity . But what is this to the Eucharist , you may say ? He goes on therefore , so I believe the sanctified Bread , by the power of the Word of God , to be changed into the Body of God the Word . Not into that Individual Body , but after the same manner , by a Presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or God the Word in it ; and that this was his meaning , doth evidently appear by what follows . For , saith he , that Body , viz. to which , he was Incarnate , was sanctified by the Inhabitation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , dwelling in the Flesh ; therefore , as the Bread was then changed into a Divine Dignity in the Body , so it is now ; and the Bread is changed into the Body of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( not of Jesus Christ ) as it was said by the Word , This is my Body . And so by receiving this Divine Body into our bodies , they are made capable of Immortality . And this is the true Account of Gregory Nyssen's meaning , which if it prove any thing , proves an Impanation , rather than Transubstantiation . P. But Hilary's Testimony cannot be so avoided ; who saith , That we as truly eat Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament , as he was truly Incarnate ; and that we are to judg of this ; not by carnal Reason , but by the Words of Christ , who said , My Flesh is meat indeed , and my Blood is drink indeed . Pr. I do not deny this to be Hilary's Sense . But yet this proves nothing like to Transubstantiation . For it amounts to no more than a Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament ; and you can make no Argument from hence , unless you can prove that the Body of Christ cannot be present , unless the Substance of the Bread be destroy'd , which is more than can be done , or than Hilary imagined . All that he aimed at , was to prove a real Union between Christ and his People , That Christ was in them more than by meer consent ; and to prove this , he lays hold of those words of our Saviour , My Flesh is meat indeed , &c. But the substantial Change of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body , signifies nothing to his purpose ; and Bellarmin never so much as mentions Hilary in his proofs of Transubstantiation , but only for the real Presence . But I must add something more , viz. that Hilary was one of the first who drew any Argument from the literal Sense of John 6. I do not say , who did by way of Accommodation , apply them to the Sacrament , which others might do before him . But yet , there are some of the eldest Fathers , who do wholly exclude a literal Sense , as Tertullian look'd on it , As an Absurdity that Christ should be thought truly to give his Flesh to eat . Quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset . And Origen saith , It is a killing Letter , if those Words be literally understood . But this is to run into another debate , whereas our Business is about Transubstantiation . If you have any more , let us now examine their Testimonies . P. What say you then to St. Ambrose , who speaks home to the Business , for he makes the Change to be above Nature , and into the Body of Christ , born of the Virgin ? There are long Citations out of him , but in these words lies the whole strength of them . Pr. I answer , several things for clearing of his meaning . ( 1. ) That St. Ambrose doth parallel the Change in the Eucharist , with that in Baptism ; and to prove Regeneration therein , he argues from the miraculous Conception of Christ in the Womb of the Virgin ; but in Baptism no body supposes the Substance of the Water to be taken away ; and therefore it cannot hold as to the other , from the Supernatural Change ; which may be only with respect to such a Divine Influence , which it had not before Consecration . ( 2. ) He doth purposely talk obscurely and mystically about this matter , as the Fathers were wont to do to those , who were to be admitted to these Mysteries . Sometimes one would think he meant that the Elements are changed into Christ's Individual Body born of the Virgin : and yet presently after , he distinguishes between the true Flesh of Christ , which was crucified and buried , and the Sacrament of his Flesh. If this were the same , what need any distinction ? And that this Sacramentum Carnis , is meant of the Eucharist , is plain by what follows ; for he cites Christ's words , This is my Body . ( 3. ) He best explains his own meaning , when he saith , not long after , That the body of Christ in the Sacrament , is a Spiritual body , or a body produced by the Divine Spirit ; and so he parallels it with that spiritual Food , which the Israelites did eat in the Wilderness : And no man will say , that the Substance of the Manna was then lost . And since your Authors make the same St. Ambrose , to have written the Book De Sacramentis , there is a notable passage therein , which helps to explain this ; for there he saith expresly , Non iste Panis est qui vadit in Corpus , sed ille Panis Vitoe Eternoe qui animoe nostroe Substantiam fulcit . It is not the Bread which passes into the Body , but the Bread of Eternal Life , which strengthens the Substance of our Soul. Where he not only calls it Bread after Consecration , which goes to our Nourishment ; but he distinguishes it from the Bread of Eternal Life , which supports the Soul , which must be understood of Divine Grace , and not of any Bodily Substance . P. I perceive you will not leave us one Father of the whole number . Pr. Not one . And I hope this gives an incomparable Advantage to the Doctrine of the Trinity in point of Tradition , above Transubstantiation : when I have not only proved , that the greatest of the Fathers expresly denied it , but that there is not one in the whole number who affirmed it . For altho there were some difference in the way of explaining how the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ ; yet not one of them hitherto produced , doth give any countenance to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation , which the Council of Trent declared to have been the constant belief of the Church in all Ages ; which is so far from being true , that there is as little ground to believe that , as Transubstantiation it self . And so much as to this Debate , concerning the comparing the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation , in point of Tradition ; if you have any thing to say further , as to Scripture and Reason , I shall be ready to give you Satisfaction the next Opportunity . FINIS . BOOKS lately Printed for W. Rogers . THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome , truly Represented ; in Answer to a Book , Intituled , A Papist Misrepresented , and Represented , &c. Quarto . Third Edition . An Answer to a Discourse , Intituled , Papists protesting against Protestant Popery ; being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants 4to . Second Edition . An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer . Quarto . A View of the whole Controversie , between the Representer and the Answerer ; with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply . 4to . The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture , Reason , and Tradition ; in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist , the first Part ; Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation , in the Books called , Consensus Veterum , and Nubes Testium , &c. Quarto . The Doctrine of the Trinity , and Transubstantiation , compared as to Scripture , Reason , and Tradition , in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist , the Second Part ; Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason , and Transubstantiation repugnant to both . Quarto . A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry ; in which the Bishop of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted . 4to . The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation demonstrated . 4to . A Letter to the Superiours , ( whether Bishops or Priests ) which Approve or License the Popish Books in England , particularly to those of the Jesuits Order , concerning Lewis Sabran a Jesuit . A Preservative against Popery ; being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants , how to Dispute with Romish Priests . The First Part. The Fourth Edition . The Second Part of the Preservative against Popery ; shewing how contrary Popery is to the True Ends of the Christian Religion . Fitted for the Instruction of Unlearned Protestants . The Second Edition . A Vindication of both Parts of the Preservative against Popery ; in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran , Jesuit . A Discourse concerning the Nature , Unity aed Communion of the Catholick Church ; wherein most of the Controversies relating to the Church , are briefly and plainly stated . The First Part. 4to . These Four last by William Sherlock , D. D. Master of the Temple . Imprimatur , Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. a Sac. Dom. Ex Aedib . Lambeth , Feb. 4. 1686. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND Transubstantiation COMPARED , AS TO Scripture , Reason , and Tradition , IN A New DIALOGUE between a Protestant and a Papist . The Second part . Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason , and Transubstantiation repugnant to both . LONDON : Printed for William Rogers at the Sun in Fleet-street , over against St. Dunstan's Church . MDC LXXX VII . THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION Compared , &c. Pr. I Hope you are now at Leisure to proceed with your parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation , as to Scripture and Reason . P. Yes , and am resolved to make good all that I have said , as to both those . Pr. And if you do , I will yield the Cause . P. I begin with Scripture . And the whole Dispute as to both , depends on this : Whether the Scripture is to be understood Literally or Figuratively . If Literally , then Transubstantiation stands upon equal terms with the Trinity ; if Figuratively , then the Trinity can no more be proved from Scripture , than Transubstantiation . Pr. As tho there might not be Reason for a figurative Sense in one place , and a literal in another . P. It seems then , you resolve it into Reason . Pr. And I pray , into what would you resolve it ? Into no Reason ? P. Into the Authority of the Church . Pr. Without any Reason ? P. No : There may be Reason for that Authority , but not for the thing which I believe upon it . Pr. Then you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity , meerly , because the Church tells you it is the literal Sense of Scripture which you are to follow . But suppose a Man sees no Reason for this Authority of your Church ; ( as for my part , I do not ) have you no Reason to convince such a one that he ought to believe the Trinity ? P. Not I. For I think Men are bound to believe as the Church Teaches them , and for that Reason . Pr. What is it , I pray , to believe ? P. To believe , is to give our Assent to what God reveals . Pr. And hath God revealed the Doctrine of the Trinity to the Church in this Age ? P. No ; it was revealed long ago . Pr. How doth it appear ? P. By the Scripture sensed by the Church . Pr. But whence come you to know that the Church is to give the Sense of the Scriptures ? Is it from the Scripture , or not ? P. From the Scripture doubtless , or else we could not believe upon the Churches Testimony . Pr. But suppose the Question be , about the Sense of these places which relate to the Churches Authority , how can a Man come to the certain Sense of them ? P. Hold a little , I see whither you are leading me ; you would sain draw me into a Snare , and have me say , I believe the sense of Scripture from the Authority of the Church , and the Authority of the Church from the sense of Scripture . Pr. Do you not say so in plain terms ? P. Give me leave to answer for my self . I say in the case of the Churches Authority , I believe the Sense of Scripture without relying on the Churches Authority . Pr. And why not as well in any other ? Why not as to the Trinity , which to my understanding , is much plainer there , than the Churches Authority ? P. That is strange : Is not the Church often spoken of in Scripture ? Tell the Church . Upon this Rock will I build my Church , &c. Pr. But we are not about the Word Church , which is no doubt there , but the Infallible Authority of the Church ; and whether that be more clear in the Scripture than the Doctrine of the Trinity . P. I see you have a mind to change your Discourse , and to run off from the Trinity to the Churches Authority in Matters of Faith ; which is a beaten Subject . Pr. Your Church doth not tell you so ; and therefore you may upon your own grounds be deceived ; and I assure you that you are so ; for I intended only to shew you , that for Points of Faith we must examine and compare Scripture our selves , and our Faith must rest on Divine Revelation therein contained . P. Then you think the Trinity can be proved from Scripture ? Pr. Or else I should never believe it . P. But those places of Scripture you go upon , may bear a figurative Sense , as John 10. 30. I and my Father are one ; and 1 John 5. 7. And those three are one ; and if they do so , you can never prove the Trinity from them . Pr. I say therefore , That the Doctrine of the Trinity doth not depend merely on these places , but on very many others , which help to the true sense of these ; but Transu●stantiation depends upon one single Expression , This is my Body , which relates to a figurative thing in the Sacrament ; and which hath other Expressions joined with it , which are owned to be figurative ; This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood ; and which in the literal sense cannot prove Transubstantiation , as your own Writers confess , and which is disproved by those places of Scripture , which assert the Bread and the Fruit of the Vine to remain after Consecration . P. Shew the Literal Sense as to the Trinity to be necessary ; for I perceive you would fain go off again . Pr. Will you promise to hold close to the Argument your self ? P. You need not fear me . Pr. I pray tell me , Were there not false Religions in the World when Christ came into it to plant the true Religion ? P. Yes ; but how far is this from the business ? Pr. Have a little Patience ; Did not Christ design by his Doctrine to root out those false Religions ? P. That is evident from Scripture and Church History . Pr. Then Christs Religion and theirs were inconsistent . P. And what then ? Pr. Wherein did this Inconsistency lie ? P. The Gentiles worshipped false Gods instead of the true One. Pr. Then the Christian Religion teaches the worship of the true God instead of the false ones . P. Who doubts of that ? Pr. Then it cannot teach the Worship of a false God instead of the true One. P. A false God is one that is set up in opposition to the true God , as the Gods of the Heathens were . Pr. Is it lawful by the Christian Doctrine to give proper Divine Worship to a Creature ? P. I think not ; for Christ said , Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve : Which our Church understands of proper Divine Worship . Pr. But the Scripture requires proper Divine Worship to be given to Christ ; which is to require proper Divine Worship to be given to a Creature , if Christ be not true God by Nature . P. May not God communicate his own Worship to him ? Pr. But God hath said , He will not give his Glory to another , Isa. 42. 8. And the Reason is considerable , which is there given ; I am the Lord , that is my name ; which shews that none but the true Jehovah is capable of Divine Worship : for Adoration is done to God only on the account of his incommunicable Perfections , and therefore the Reason of Divine Worship cannot reach to any Creature . P. Not without Gods Will and Pleasure . But may not God advance a mere Creature to that Dignity , as to require Divine Worship to be given to him by his fellow-creatures ? Pr. Wherein lies the nature of that which you call proper Divine Worship ? P. In a due esteem of God in our Minds , as the first Cause and last End of his Creatures , and such Acts as are agreeable thereto . Pr. Then proper Divine Worship doth suppose an Esteem of God as infinitely above his Creatures ; and how then is it possible for us to give the same Worship to God , and to a Creature ? For if the distance be infinite between God and his Creatures , and we must judg of things as they are , then we must in our minds suppose a Creature to be infinitely distant srom God ; and if we do so , How is it possible to give the same Divine Worship in this sense to God , and to any Creature ? P. And what now would you infer from hence ? Pr. Do not you see already ? viz. that God cannot be supposed to allow Divine Worship to be given to Christ , if he were a mere Creature ; and therefore since such Divine Worship is required by the Christian Doctrine , it follows , that those expressions which speak of his being One with the Father , cannot be figuratively understood . P. But where is it , that such Divine Worship is required to be given to Christ in Scripture ? For , according to my Principles , the Church is to set the bounds and measures of Divine Worship , and to declare what Worship is due to God ; what to Christ ; what to Saints and Angels ; what to men upon Earth ; what to Images , Sacraments , &c. And if we depart from this Rule , I know not where we shall fix . Pr. I pray tell me , doth the difference between God and his Creatures , depend on the will of the Church ? P. No. Pr. Is it then in the Churches Power to give that to a Creature , which belongs only to God ? P. I think not . Pr. Who then is to be judg what belongs to God , and what not ? God or the Church ? P. God himself , if he pleases . Pr. Then our business is to search what his Will and Pleasure is in this matter , by reading the Scriptures , wherein his Will is contained : And there we find it expressed , That all men should h●nour the Son , even as they honour the Father , John 5. 23. Let all the Angels of God worship him , Heb. 1. 6. Blessing , and honour , and glory , and power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne , and to the Lamb for ever and ever , Revel . 4. 13. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow , of things in Heaven , and things in earth , &c. Phil. 2. 9. If it were Gods great design , by the Christian Doctrine , to restore in the world a due sense of the infinite distance between God and his Creatures ; could any thing be more repugnant to it , than in the same Doctrine to advance a creature to a participation of the same Divine Honour with himself ? So that in plain truth , the Idolatry of the world lay only in a bad choice of the Creatures they were to worship , and not in giving proper Divine Worship to a Creature ; for that Christianity it self not only allows , but requires , on supposition that Christ were God merely by Office , and was originally a Creature , as we are . But I pray observe the force of the Apostles Argument , speaking of the Gentile Idolatry ; he saith it lay in this , That they did service unto them , which by Nature are no Gods , Gal. 4. 8. P. You know , I must now personate the Anti-Trinitarian ; and he answers , That by Nature no more is implied , than truly and really , i. e. God did not advance those Creatures among the Gentiles to that Worship and Honour , which he hath done Christ. Pr. Then you make it lawful by the Gospel to believe Christ to be a mere Creature , and at the same time to give him Divine Worship , which supposes him not to be a Creature ; and so you must believe him to be a Creature , and not to be a Creature , at the same time . P. How do you make that appear ? Pr. From your own words ; for you say , proper Divine Worship lies in a due esteem of God in our minds , as the first Cause and last End , and in actions agreeable thereto ; then to give Divine Worship to God , we must believe him to be above all Creatures as to his Nature and Being ; and theresore to give Christ Divine Worship , must imply our believing him not to be a Creature , and to be a Creature at the same time . P. But the meaning of Divine Worship here must not then relate to Acts of the Mind , but to outward Acts of Adoration in the Church . Pr. Were the Gentiles guilty of Idolatry in that respect , or not ? P. Yes ; but not those , whom God requires to Worship in such a manner . Pr. Then the Sin of Gentile-Idolatry lay only in giving Divine Worship to a Creature without Gods command ; which lessens it to that degree , as to make Will-worship and Idolatry the same ; and to blame the Apostles , for making such a dreadful Sin of it , and disswading Christians so much from returning to the Practice of it : For they had the priviledg of giving Divine Worship to a Creature by Gods command , which others were damned for doing without a command ; which makes the Christian Religion not to appear so reasonable , as the Anti-Trinitarians contend it is . But here are four foul mistakes in point of Reason , which they are guilty of . ( 1. ) In making the Sin of Idolatry so Arbitrary a thing ; which depends not on the Nature of the Object which is worshipped , but on the will and Pleasure of God. ( 2. ) In making the Gentiles guilty of a great Sin , meerly in wanting a Divine command , which was out of their Power . ( 3. ) In making the Christian Religion to set up the Worship of a Creature , when its design was to root out Idolatry . ( 4. ) In making a Fictitious God , or a Creature to be advanced to the Throne of God. Which I think is far more contradictious to Reason , than a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the same Nature . For nothing can be more absurd than to make that to be God , which wants all the essential Attributes and Perfections of God ; as every Creature must do : Such as Self-Existence , Eternity , Independency , Immensity , Omnipotency , &c. What a Contradiction is it , to suppose a weak , impotent , depending , confined , created God ? And such every Creature must be in its Nature , or else it is no Creature . I do not at all wonder to find the Socinians after this , to lessen the natural knowledg of God , and his infinite Perfections , both as to Power and Knowledg ; for it was their concernment to bring the Notion of God as low as possible , that a Creature might be in the nearer Capacity of being made God. But those who consider and know what God is , and what he must be , if he be God , will find far greater difficulty in making Man to be God , than in believing God to be made Man. For This implies no greater difficulty , than meerly as to our Conception , how an infinite Being can be so united to a finite , as to become one Person ; which implies no repugnancy , but only some thing above our Capacity to comprehend . And we confess our selves puzled in the manner of conceiving how a finite Spitit , which can pass through a Body , can be so united to it , as to make a Man by that Union ; yet we all acknowledg the Truth of this . But to suppose a Creature capable of being made God , is to overthrow the essential difference between God and his Creatures , and the infinite Distance between them . Which is of very pernicious Consequence , as to the great ends of the Christian Religion , which were to reform the World , and to restore the Distinction between God and his Creatures ; which by the prevalency of Idolatry was almost lost in the World : The Supreme God being hardly discerned in such a croud of created and fictitious Gods. And this very Argument is enough to turn my Stomack against Socinianism or Arianism . P. I had thought all Men of sense among you , had been Socinians ; I have often heard them charged with being so . Pr. You see how grosly you are deceived , notwithstanding your pretence to Infallibility . I do not pretend to any deep reach , but I see reason enough to be no Socinian . P. Let us return to our Matter in hand . What say you to those Texts which are said to be inconsistent with the literal Sense of those before mention'd , which relate to the Unity between Father and Son ? Pr. What Texts do you mean ? P. What say you to Joh. 10. from the 30. to the 39 ? Pr. I wonder what it is produced for . P. It is said , Joh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one ; now it is highly unreasonable to interpret these words literally , because of those which follow . Pr. How doth that appear ? For v. 31. it is said , That the Jews took up stones to stone him : Which shews , that they look'd on him as speaking Blasphemy . But what Blasphemy was it for Christ to declare an Unity of Consent between him and his Father ; which in Truth is nothing , but doing his Father's Will ? Therefore it is plain that the Jews did apprehend more in those Words of our Saviour . And they explain themselves , v. 33. what they understood by them , Because that thou being a Man , makest thy self God. Which shews that they thought not an Unity of Consent , but of Nature , was meant . P. But Christ's answer shews , that he speaks only of a God by Office , and not by Nature , v. 34. Jesus answered them , Is it not written in your Law , I said ye are Gods ? Pr. I pray go on , and see how Christ argues , v. 35 , 36. If he called them Gods , unto whom the Word of God came , and the Scripture cannot be broken ; say ye of him , whom the Father hath sent into the World , Thou blasphemest , because I said I am the Son of God ? P. This only shews that Christ had greater Reason to be called God , but not that he was so by Nature . Pr. I pray go on still , v. 37 , 38. If I do not the Works of my Father , believe me not . But if I do , tho ye believe not me , believe the Works , that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me , and I in him . P. Is it not said elsewhere , That he that keepeth his Commandments dwelleth in him , and he in him ? 1 Joh. 3. 24. Would you hence infer an Unity of Nature between Christ and Believers ? Pr. I do not lay the weight on the Phrase , but as it is the Conclusion of the Dispute between Christ and the Jews . And it ought to be observed , that this was the end of the third Conference between Christ and the Jews upon this Argument . The first was John 5. and then from Christ's saying , The Father worketh hitherto , and I work , v. 17. the Jews infer'd v. 18. That he made himself equal with God. In the second Conference , John 8. he said , Before Abraham was , I am , v. 58. And then the Jews took up stones to cast at him . After this followed this third Conference , John. 10. and this runs again into the same point , That he being a Man , made himself God. And these Conferences were all publick , in or near the Temple , and this last was in Solomons Porch , John 10. 23. a Place of great resort , and near the place where the Sanhedrim sate , who were the Judges in the Case of Blasphemy . Now the force of my Argument from hence , lies in these things : ( 1. ) That Christ certainly knew , that the Jews did think by his Discourse , That he made himself equal with God. 2. That if it were not true , it was notorious Blasphemy , and so esteemed by the Jews . 3. That such a mistake ought to have been presently corrected , and in the plainest manner ; as we find it was done by St. Paul , when the men of Lystra said , The Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men ; for he ran in presently among them , and said , We are men of like passions with you , Acts 14. 11 , 15. It is impossible for me to think , that if Christ had known himself to be a meer man , he would have suffered the Jews to have run away with such a mistake as this , without giving them the clearest and plainest information ; whereas in all his Answers he vindicates himself , and endeavours rather to fasten those Impressions upon them , as appears by this conclusion of the last Conference , That ye may know and believe , that the Father is in me , and I in him . Doth this look like correcting a dangerous mistake in the Jews ? And is it not rather a justification of that sense , which they took his words in ? And in the first Conference , John 5. Our Saviour is so far from doing as St. Paul did , that he challenges Divine Honour as due to himself , That all men should honour the Son , as they honour the Father , v. 23. From whence it follows , that Christ must be charged as one , who being a meer man , did affect Divine Honour ; or else , that being God as well as Man , he looked on it as justly due to him . I pray tell me what sense do your Friends the Socinians make of those words of St. Paul , Phil. 2. 6 , 7. Who being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God , but made himself of no Reputation , &c. P. The sense they give , is this , that he did not make a shew or Ostentation of his own Greatness , but studiously concealed it , and therein shewed his great Humility . Pr. But is there any Greatness like that of Divine Honour ? and yet this he challenged to himself . P. But he knew what the Father designed him for , and so spake those things by way of Prediction . Pr. He knew no Creature could deserve Divine Worship , and he deliver'd that as part of his own Doctrine ; and therefore those Words , where he is said , to make himself equal with God , must be understood of Nature , and not of Office. P. But St. John 17. 22. saith , that Christ prayed to his Father , for his Disciples , That they may be one , as we are one ; and that is not by Unity of Nature . Pr. I grant it . But our Saviour there speaks of a true , but a lower kind of Unity ; or else the Socinians must think every Believer as capable of Divine Honour , as Christ himself , if they take those Words strictly , That they may be one , as we are one . P. St. Paul saith , He that planteth , and he that watereth , is one , 1 Cor. 3. 8. Pr. Who doubts but there are other sorts of Unities , besides that of Nature ? But , doth this prove that there is no Unity of Nature between the Father and the Son ? If we have no better Arguments against Transubstantiation , we will give over disputing . P. I know you have other Arguments for the Trinity , but they prove as little without the Authority of the Church ; as from those places where Christ is called God , as Joh. 1. 1 , 2. Rom. 9. 5 , &c. Pr. And I think the Argument from those places , very good and strong , especially from John 1. 1 , 2 , 3. and it seems directly contrary to the whole design of Scripture to call any one God over all , Blessed for evermore , as Christ is called , Rom. 9. 5. but he that is God by Natuce . P. How do you prove that John 1. 1. relates to any thing beyond the beginning of the Gospel , and that Christ the Word , was before John the Baptists Preaching ? Pr. I desire any one to read the Text impartially , and he will find the Socinian sense to be unnatural , forced , obscure and jejune , proving a thing of no moment at that time ; but the Sense we give , to be strong , weighty , consistent , and of very great Consequence at that time , when the Cerinthians denied the Divinity of Christ. The Sentences are short , the Words lofty and significant , the manner of beginning unusual ; so that any one would expect some great and extraordinary matter to be said in these few Verses ; but what a frustration were this , if after all , they intended no more , than that altho John Baptist preached in publick before Christ , yet that Christ was in being before that ? Which is a Sense so mean , so remote from the occasion of his Writing , as it is deliver'd by the Ancients , that nothing but a miserable necessity could make Men of Wit and Subtilty to put such a Sense upon St. John's Words . P. But they deny there was any such occasion of St. John's writing , as the Cerinthians Heresy at that time . Pr. I know Socinus doth so ; but he might as well have denied that there was any such Person as Cerinthus . And I think the Cerinthian Heresy not only to have been the occasion of St. John's Writing , but that the understanding of it , gives the greatest and truest light to the Words of the Evangelist , shewing the force and importance of them . P. Wherein I pray , did that Heresy consist ? Pr. I shall not meddle with other parts of it , but only what relates to the present Subject ; and that lay in these things . ( 1. ) That there was a Supreme and unknown Father , who was before the Beginning , and therefore they called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , who was the Fountain of all Emanations . Iren. l. 1. c. 1. 19. ( 2. ) That the World was not made by him , but by a Power at a distance from him , called Demiurgus , Iren. l. 1. c. 25. And in the Egyptian School where Cerinthus was educated , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word , was one of the intermediate Emanations between the Father , and the Demiurgus , Iren. l. 1. c. 23. ( 3. ) That this World was in a state of Darkness and Confusion , as to the supreme Father of all ; only some few had some beams of Light from him , by which they knew him . ( 4. ) That Jesus was a mere Man , born as other Men are , of Joseph and Mary , but of extraordinary Goodness , Wisdom , and Sanctity . ( 5. ) That the Supreme Father at his Baptism did send down a Divine Power upon him , in the shape of a Dove , which enabled him to declare the unknown Father , and to work Miracles , which returned to its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Fulness above , when Jesus suffer'd . This is a short Scheme of that Heresy , as delivered by the ancient Fathers . And now let any one compare St. Johns Words with it ; and he will find his design was to countermine this Heresy by two things . ( 1. ) That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word , was Eternal . For the Cerinthians said , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in the beginning , but made a great space of time between the eternal Being of the Father , and the Emanation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , wherein he was in perfect Silence , as Irenoeus expresses it ( l. 1. c. 1. ) And so in the beginning , doth imply the Eternity of the Word . But that is not all , for he saith , it was with God , and was God , and was the Demiurgus , or the Maker of the World , and the Revealer of God to Mankind , Joh. 1. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10. And so there was no place for those several Emanations between God and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Demiurgus , as the Cerinthians said . ( 2. ) That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word , was Incarnate , which he affirms , v. 14. And the Word was made Flesh , and dwelt among us , &c. and was the only begotten Son of the Father ; and so he not only cuts off the other Emanations , but declares that Jesus was far from being a mere Man. And to this purpose he brings in the Testimony of John Baptist , v. 15. and applies what he had said to the Person of Jesus Christ , v. 17. Now this being St. Johns design , his Words afford a Demonstration to us of the Union of the Divine and Human Nature in Christ , when he saith , The Word was made Flesh. P. But doth not the Scripture in other places imply that there is a subordination in Christ to his Father , which is not consistent with such an Equality of Nature ; see Heb. 1. 8 , 9. 1 Cor. 8. 4 , 5. — 15. 27 , 28. Rev. 3. 12. Pr. The first place is a proof for the Divinity of Christ ; for the Words are ; But unto the Son , he saith , Thy Throne , O God , is for ever and ever , &c. It is true , in the next verse , it is said with respect to his Office , Therefore God , even thy God hath anointed thee , &c. But we do not deny that Christ was anointed as Mediator , and in that respect , God was his God ; but doth this prove that he that is Mediator , cannot have a Divine Nature in Conjunction with the Human ? The second Place , I suppose , is mistaken , 1 Cor. 8. not 4. and 5. but 6 verse , But unto us , there is but one God the Father , of whom are all things , and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ , by whom are all things , and we by him . And this is one of the strongest holds of the Socinians . But two Considerations will take off the seeming force of it . ( 1. ) That the Apostle in his disputes with the Gentile Idolaters , concerning whom he speaks , v. 4 , 5. doth utterly deny any Divinity in the Beings they worshipped instead of God , when he saith , An Idol is nothing in the world , and that there is none other God but one . He knew very well that they worshipped many , v. 5. As there be Gods many , and Lords many among them ; but unto us ( Christians ) there is but one God , and one Lord : i. e. we have but one Supreme God , to whom we give Divine Worship ; and instead of the multitude of Mediators , we have but one Mediator ; and so his design is in opposition to their many Gods , to assert the Unity of the Divine Nature , ( not so as to exclude a distinction of Persons , but thereby to exclude other Gods as the proper Object of Worship ) , and the Unity of a Mediator , in opposition to their many Lords . ( 2. ) That if this place excludes Christ from the Unity of Nature with God , it doth exclude him from being the Object of Divine Worship ; for it saith , That there is no other God , but One ; therefore no Creature can be made God : And to us there is but One God , the Father ; therefore the Son cannot be God. If therefore the name Lord be taken in opposition to God , then Christ cannot be God in any sense ; for we must have but One God : but the plain meaning of the Apostle was , That by one Lord he meant one Mediator , by whom alone we have , in this new frame of things by the Gospel , access unto God the Father . The third place , 1 Cor. 15. 27 , 28. speaks plainly of Christs Kingdom , as Mediator . The fourth place , Rev. 3. 12. where Christ speaks several times of my God , proves no more than his words on the Cross , My God , my God , why hast thou forsaken me : For surely Christ might own a particular Relation to God , and Interest in him , as he was in human Nature , without overthrowing the Divine Nature in him . P. But he owns , That though he is to be our Judg , he knows not the time , Mark 13. 32. Which seems inconsistent with the Divine Nature , which knoweth all things . Pr. The Son there spoken of , was Christ , as endued with a human Soul , when he was upon earth ; which could not understand a secret so much out of the reach of mans understanding , without immediate Revelation . But it was not necessary by virtue of the Union of both Natures , that the Divine Nature should communicate to the human Soul of Christ all Divine Mysteries : but as the human Body was notwithstanding subject to Passions and Infirmities incident to it , so the human Soul might continue ignorant of the Day of Judgment in this state ; both to let us know how great that secret is , and that Christ had the proper capacity of a human Soul , which could not extend to such things without Divine Revelation . P. There is one Argument more , which seems to prove Christs Divinity , and doth not ; viz. The making of all things visible and invisible , being attributed to him , John 1. 3. Heb. 1. 10. Col. 1. 16 , 17 , 18 , 19. Pr. Now I confess this doth more than seem to me to be a very strong Argument ; and that for this Reason , the Apostle saith , The invisible things of him from the creation of the world , are clearly seen , being understood by the things which are made , even his Eternal Power and Godhead , Rom. 1. 20. Was this Argument of the Apostle good or not ? P. No doubt it was . Pr. Then the Creation of the World is an Invincible Proof of the true God. P. What follows ? Pr. Then if the making of all things be attributed to Christ , he must be true God ; but this is plain in the New Testament , in which the making of all things is as clearly attributed to the Son , as it is to the Father ; All things saith St. John , were made by him , and without him was not any thing made , that was made , John 1. 3. For by him were all things created , saith St. Paul , that are in heaven , and that are in earth , visible and invisible , whether they be thrones , or dominions , or principalities , or powers , all things were created by him , and for him , Col. 1. 16. Thou , Lord , in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the earth , and the heavens are the work of thy hands , Heb. 1. 10. Now compare these expressions with those wherein the Creation is attributed to the Father , The world is said to be made by bim , Rom. 1. 20. That he hath created all things , Rev. 4. 11. That of him , and for him , and to him , are all things , Rom. 11. 36. And let any impartial mind discern the difference . Therefore we have as much Reason from Scripture to believe Christ to be God , as we have from the Creation of things to believe a God. P. But you do not take notice of the different expressions in Scripture , concerning the Father and the Son ; All things are said to be of the Father , and by the Son , 1 Cor. 8. 6. And that the Father created all things by Jesus Christ , Eph. 3. 9. which proves no more , than that the Son was Gods Instrument in the Creation . Pr. What do you mean by Gods Instrument in the Creation ? Do you think one Creature can create another ? How then can the Creation prove an Infinite Power ? If you believe the Instrument uncreated , then you must assert him to be true God by Nature ; and then we have all we desire . P. But the Socinians do not like this Answer of the Arians , and therefore they interpret these places , of the state of things under the Gospel , and not of the Creation of the World. Pr. They have not one jot mended the matter ; for , ( 1. ) Where the new Creation is spoken of , some circumstances are added , which limit the sense to it , as when St. Paul saith , We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works that we shoul walk in them . Eph. 2. 10. VVho could possibly understand this of the old Creation ? And so , If any man be in Christ Jesus , he is a new Creature , 2 Cor. 5. 17. But in the other places the same Expressions are used , which are attributed to the old Creation , without limitation from circumstances , or from the Context and occasion of them . ( 2. ) There are some things said to be created by Christ Jesus , which cannot relate to the new Creation ; for by him were all things created , that are in heaven , and that are in earth , visible and invisible , whether they be thrones , or dominions , or principalities or Powers . Col. 1. 16. How are these created by Preaching the Gospel , when they are uncapable of the proper means of it , which are the Doctrine of the remission of Sins upon Repentance , and the Renewing and Sanctifiing Grace of God ? P. But St. Paul doth not mention the Heaven and Earth , but only intellectual Beings , Angels , and Men , and therefore he speaks of the new Creation . Pr. A mighty Argument indeed ! Do not all things comprehend the Heaven and Earth ? And the particular enumeration of Angels by several denominations , shews that he speaks of another Creation distinct from that by the Gospel preached to the VVorld ; for the Apostles were Christs Instruments in this new Creation , which they could not be to the Invisible Powers above . P. We have now gone through the true and only Grounds of the Doctrine of the Trinity . Pr. You are extreamly mistaken . For we have other grounds besides these , although these may be sufficient . P. Name one more . Pr. I will name several , which you cannot disallow . P. What are they ? Pr. The several Heads of Arguments made use of by Cardinal Bellarmin , to prove the Divinity of Christ : Who alone is a convincing Evidence of the vast disparity between the Proofs of this Doctrine , and of Transubstantiation from Scripture . For , 1. He proves Christ's Divinity from those places of the Old Testament , which are expounded in the New ; being in the Old Testament , spoken of the true God ; and in the New applied to Christ. As Numb . 21. 5 , 6. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 9. Exod. 20. 2. with Jude 5. Psal. 68. 18. with Eph. 4. 8 , 9. Psal. 97. 7. & 102. 25 , 26. with Heb. 1. 6 , 10 , 11. Isa. 6. 1 , 3. with John 12. 41. and Revel . 4. 8. Isa. 8. 14. with Luke 2. 34. and Rom. 9. 33. Isa. 40. 3. with Mat. 3. 3. Mark 1. 3. Luke 1. 76. John 1. 23. — Isa. 45. 23. with Rom. 14. 11. — Isa. 44. 6. with Revel . 1. 8 , 17. Mal. 3. 1. with Mat. 11. 10. 2. From the Places of the Old Testament , which attribute to Christ those things which belong to God ; as Power and Adoration , Psal. 2. 7 , 8 , 12. Being the first and last , Isa. 48. 1. 12 , 16. Working Miracles , Isa. 35. 5. Being the God of Israel , Isa. 52. 5 , 6. The only God , Isa. 45. 5 , 6. The Lord of Hosts , Zach. 2. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. Jehovah , Zach. 3. 2. Pouring out of the Spirit , Zach. 12. 10. 3. From the Places of the New Testament , which attribute Divinity to Christ. As when he is called , the Son of the Living God , Mat. 16. 16. The only begotten Son of God , John 3. 16. His own Son , Rom. 8. 32. His true Son , 1 Joh. 5. 20. His dear Son , Col. 1. 13. His Son above all others , Heb. 1. 5. The express Image of his Person , Heb. 1. 3. Making himself equal with God , John 5. 18. Being one with the Father , Joh. 10. 30. Lord and God , John 20. 28. God blessed for ever , Rom. 9. 5. Who thought it no robbery to be equal with God , Phil. 2. 6. One with the Father and Spirit , 1 John 5. 7. The true God , 1 John 5. 20. 4. From the proper Names of God , Isa. 9. 6. John 20. 28. Acts 20. 28. Rom. 9. 5. Revel . 4. 8. 1 John 3. 16. The name Jehov●● , Jer. 23. 5 , 8. Isa. 40. 3. The Lord , by which the LXX render Jehovah , Mat. 21. 3. Joh. 13. 13. The most High , Psal. 87. 5. A Name above every Name , Phil. 2. 9. The Invisible One , 1 Tim. 1. 17 , & 6. 16. The God of Glory , Act. 7. 2. 1 Cor. 2. 8. Psal. 24. 7 , 8 , 9. King of Kings and Lord of Lords , 1 Tim. 6. 15. Revel . 17. 14. & 19. 16. The one Lord , 1 Cor. 8. 6. The true God , John 5. 20. The only Lord , Jud. 4. The great God and our Saviour , Titus 2. 13. 5. From the proper Attributes of God ; as Eternity , Prov. 8. 22 , 23. Mic. 5 , 2. Joh. 1. 1 , — 17. 5. Immensity , John 3. 13. Mat. 18. 20. Omnipotency , Rev. 1. 8. — 4. 8. — 11. 17. Wisdom , Colos. 2. 3. Joh. 21. 17. Majesty and Adoration , Heb. 1. 6. Mal. 3. 1. Invocation , Joh. 14. 13. Acts 7. 59. & 9. 14. 2 Cor. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 1. 3. 2 Joh. 3. 6. From the proper Works of God : as not only Creation , ( of which already ) but Conservation , Heb. 1. 3. Colos. 1. 17. Salvation , Matth. 1. 21. Foretelling future Events , Joh. 13. 19. 1 Pet. 1. 11. Rev. 2. 23. Working Miracles by his own Power , Mark. 4. 39. and giving Power to others to work them , Mat. 10. 1. What think you now of the Proofs of the Trinity in Scripture ? Do you think Bellarmin could produce any thing like this for Transubstantiation ? No ; so far from it , that where he sets himself in a whole Chapter to prove it from Scripture , he produces a First without a Second . The first Argument , saith he , is taken from Christ's Words , This is my Body . Very well ! but where is the Second ? For no more could be produced , but this one single Passage , about which he spends his whole Chapter , and then betakes himself presently to the Fathers . P. But one plain and clear place is sufficient , if we be certain of the sense of that one ; for we are as much bound to believe God when we are sure he speaks it once , as an hundred times . Pr. We have been all this while comparing these two Doctrines as to Scripture , and now you see the disproportion so very great , as to number and variety , you say , one is as good as an hundred ; but that one had need to be wonderfully clear , which this is very far from , since many of your own Writers do confess Transubstantiation cannot be drawn from it ; as Bellarmin himself owns , and he affirms it not to be improbable , that no place of Scripture is so clear and express for Transubstantiation , but learned and acute Men may doubt whether it can be drawn from it , setting aside the Churches Declaration . But neither Bellarmin , nor any one who attends to the force of the former Proofs of the Divinity of Christ , can say , that any reasonable Man can doubt of it ; and that he must at last resolve all into the Church's Authority . P. Have not learned and acute Men doubted of the Divinity of Christ , as of Transubstantiation ? And therefore in that respect they are both alike . Pr. We do not insist upon Men's bare doubting , but on the Reason of their doubting . And when but one single Place is produced , which is yeilded not to be sufficient of it self to prove the Doctrine ; there is much more cause of doubting , than where such multitudes of Places are produced ; and no doubt is made by those who favour Transubstantiation , but that they do fully prove the Divinity of Christ. P. It seems then we must come to Reason at last . And for my part , I must tell you , I I think that Parallel much the easiest . For , that three distinct Persons should be in one individual Nature , and that the most pure and simple Being , seems to me to be more absurd than Transubstantiation . Pr. Let us set aside the comparing Absurdities at present , and only examin in point of Reason , the great Absurdity of three Persons being in one Individual Divine Nature . P. I did hardly believe you would have the courage to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity in point of Reason ; but I see you are a bold Man , and will venture farther than wiser Men. Pr. It may be others have not had the leisure or curiosity to examine a Mystery believed to be so much out of the reach of our Understanding ; or have confounded themselves and others so much with School-●erms , as to leave the matter rather more obscure than it was before . But I shall endeavour to make things as clear as they will bear . And that which I insist upon is , that the Absurdities are not to appearance so great as those of Transubstantiation . And therefore I desire you to produce those which appear the most dreadful . P. I shall reduce all to these two , which comprehend the rest . 1. How there can be three Persons and but one God. 2. How these can agree in a third , and not agree among themselves . For the first , it seems very absurd , that there should be three Persons really distinct , whereof every one is God , and yet there should not be three Gods ; for nothing is more contradictions than to make three not to be three , or three to be but one . Pr. I hope now you will give me leave to make an Answer to your Difficulty , as distinct as possible . We do not say , that three Persons are but one Person , or that one Nature is three Natures ; but that there are three Persons in one Nature . If therefore one Individual Nature be communicable to three Persons , there is no appearance of Absurdity in this Doctrine . And on the other side , it will be impossible there should be three Gods , where there is one and the same Individual Nature ; for three Gods must have three several Divine Natures , since it is the Divine Essence which makes a God. But to make this more plain , Do you make any difference between Nature and Person ? P. Yes . Pr. Wherein lies it ? P. Excuse me , Sir , for you have undertaken to explain these things . Pr. I will begin with Person . Which Name was originally taken among the Romans from some remarkable distinction of one from another ; either by some outward appearance , as a Vizard or Habit , or some particular Quality or Disposition . And from hence it came to be applied to those inward Properties , whereby one Intelligent Being is distinguished from another ; and from those Properties , to the Person who had them . Thus Person is used even by Tully himself , at least twenty times in his Books of Rhetorick : and the old Civil Law speaks of Personal Rights and Personal Actions . So that the Criticks , such as Valla , and others , had no cause to find fault with Boethius , for applying the Notion of a Person , to an intelligent Being subsisting by it self , ( and so the Soul is no Person in Men , but the Man consisting of Soul and Body ) having some incommunicable Properties belonging to him . Therefore I cannot but wonder at the niceness of some late Men , who would have the Names of Person , and Hypostasis , and Trinity , to be laid aside ; since themselves confess Boëthius his definition of a Person to be true enough ; but they say , it belongs to the Creatures , and not to God , for it would make three Gods. Which is to suppose , without proving it , that the Divine Nature can communicate it self after no other manner than a created Nature can . This is now to be more strictly enquired into . And it is very well observed by Boëthius , de Trin. l. 1. Principium pluralitatis alteritas est : That Diversity is the Reason of Plurality : And therefore in the Trinity , so far as they are different , they are three , i. e. in regard of Personal Properties and Relations ; but so far as they agree , they are but O N E , that is , as to the Divine Nature . It is very true , that according to Arithmetick , Three cannot be One , nor One Three ; but we must distinguish between the bare Numeration , and the Things numbred . The repetition of three Units , certainly makes three distinct Numbers ; but it doth not make three Persons to be three Natures . And therefore as to the Things themselves , we must go from the bare Numbers to consider their Nature . Where-ever there is a real distinction , we may multiply the Number , tho the Subject be but One. As suppose we say the Soul hath three Faculties , Understanding , Will and Memory ; we may , without the least absurdity say , there are Three and One ; and those three not confounded with each other , and yet there is but One Soul. P. But the Socinians object , that there is a difference between three Properties , and three distinct Persons ; because a Person is an Individual Being ; and so three Persons must be three Individual Beings ; and therefore as there is but one Divine Being , there can be but one Person . Pr. This is the main strength of the Cause ; to which I answer , That altho a Person be an Individual Being , yet it implies two Things in it ; ( 1. ) Something common with others of the same Nature ; as three Men have one and the same Nature , tho they be three Persons . ( 2. ) Something peculiar and incommunicate to any other ; so that John cannot be Peter , nor Peter , James . P. But what is it which makes one not to be the other , when they have the same common Nature ? Pr. You ask a hard Question , viz. about the Principle of Individuation ; but if it be so hard to resolve it , as to created Beings , there is certainly far less Reason for us to be unsatisfied , if it appear difficult to clear the Difference of Nature and Person in an infinite Being . Yet all Mankind are agreed in the Thing , viz. That there is a Community of the same Nature , and a real Distinction of Persons among Men , tho they cannot tell what that is which discriminates the Humane Nature in John , from the same Humane Nature in Peter and James . And it is observable , that as Beings arise in Perfection above each other , it is still so much harder to assign that which is called the Principle of Individuation . In gross and material Beings we can discern a number of Accidents , or peculiar Modes and Properties , which distinguish them from each other ; but it is much harder to assign it in Spiritual and Intellectual Beings , whose Natures and Differences lie not so open to our Understandings . If so be then it appears more difficult in an infinite and incomprehensible Being , what Cause have we to wonder at it ? But we must always make a difference between what we have reason to believe , and what we have a power to conceive . Altho we have all the Reason in the World to believe that there is a God , i. e. a Being Infinite in all Perfections ; yet we must yield that his Essential Attributes are above our comprehension . As for Instance ; ( 1. ) We must believe God to be Eternal , or we cannot believe him to be God. For , if he once were not , it is impossible he should ever be . And therefore we conclude necessary Existence to be an Essential Attribute of the Divine Nature . But then , how to conceive that a Being should be from it self , is at least as hard , as how one and the same Individual Nature should be communicated to three distinct Persons ; nay , it is somewhat harder , since we see something like this in other Beings ; but we can see no manner of Resemblance of a thing that hath its Being wholly from it self . ( 2. ) We must allow God to be Omnipresent , or else we must suppose him so confined and limited to a certain place , as to be excluded from any other ; and if he can Act in all Places , he must either be present in them , or his Power must be larger than his Being , which is Infinite ; but after this , we have not a Power to conceive how a Being should be present in the whole World , and not to be extended ; and if it be extended , how it should be uncapable of being divided into Parts ; which is certainly repugnant to the Divine Nature . I therefore produce these two Instances , to let the Antitrinitarians see , that what they object in Point of Reason as to the Incomprehensibility of the Mystery of the Trinity , will in consequence overthrow the Divine Nature . But as there is the highest Reason to believe there is a God , tho we cannot comprehend his Perfections ; so there may be great Reason to believe the Doctrine of the Trinity , tho we cannot comprehend the manner of it . P. I had thought you intended to explain the Mystery of it , and now you tell us it is Incomprehensible . Pr. It is a good step to our believing it , to make it plain , that the Difficulty of our Conception ought not to hinder our Faith. And I have made some advance towards the explication of it , by shewing , that since Mankind are agreed about the difference between Nature and Person , the whole Difficulty comes to this , that the same common Nature in Mankind makes three Persons ; but that it is the same Individual Nature in all the Persons of the Trinity . And now let us consider the Infinite Perfection and Simplicity of the Divine Nature ; and we shall think it unreasonable that it should be so bounded as to the manner of its Communication , as the Nature of Man is . Every Individual Man hath not only Individual Properties , but an Individual Nature , i. e. the common Nature of Man , limited by some unaccountable Principle , that doth make him different from all other Men having the same Nature with himself . The Difficulty then doth not lie in a Community of Nature , and a Distinction of Persons , for that is granted among Men , but in the Unity of Nature with the difference of Persons . And supposing the Divine Nature to be infinite in its Perfection , I do not see how it is capable of being bounded , as the common Nature of Man in Individuals is ; and if it be not capable of being bounded and limited , it must diffuse it self into all the Persons in the same individual manner ; and so this Doctrine of the Trinity is not repugnant to Reason . P. But what say you to the Athanasian Creed ; is not that repugnant to humane Reason ? Pr. I think not ; but that it is a just Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity rightly understood . P. I see now you are upon hard Points , you will stick at nothing , and Transubstantiation it self will down with you anon . Pr. I doubt that ; but at present we are upon the Athanasian Creed . And I desire but one Principle to clear it , which follows from what is said already , viz. That what is affirmed of the Divine Nature , as such , must be common to all three Persons ; but whatever is affirmed of the several Persons , as such , must be peculiar to themselves . Now this is a clear Principle of Reason , and hath no appearance of absurdity in it . And from hence the Athanasian Creed will easily be cleared . For Eternity , Incomprehensibility , Omnipotency , belonging to the Divine Nature , as such , we ought to say , That they are not three Eternals , three Incomprehensibles , three Almighties , but One Eternal , One Incomprehensible , One Almighty . Because the Attributes belonging to the Persons , by reason of the Divine Nature , and the Attributes being really the same with it , the Nature is the proper Subject of them ; which being but One , we are not to distinguish them as to Essential Attributes , but only as to Personal Relations and Properties . P. But if the Three Persons be Coëternal , how is it possible to conceive there should not be three Eternals ? Pr. This seems the hardest Expression in the whole Creed ; but it is to be interpreted by the Scope and Design of it : Which is , that the Essential Attributes are not to be distinguished , though the Persons be . And so Eternity is not taken as a Personal Attribute , but as Essential ; and so they are not three Eternals , but one Eternal . And the great Design of the Creed was , to shew , that the Christian Church did not believe such a Trinity as consisted of three Persons , unequal and different in Nature , and Substance , and Duration . P. But what say you to the damning all those who do not believe it , in the beginning and end of it ? Pr. This is off from our Business . But to let you see I will not avoid the Difficulties you offer , I will give an Answer even to this . The meaning is not , that every one is damned who doth not conceive aright of the Difference of Nature and Person in the Trinity , or of the Essential and Personal Attributes ; but that those who set up in opposition to it the worship of a meer Creature as God , or the worship of more Gods than one , or who wilfully reject this Article of the Christian Faith , when it is duly proposed to them , are guilty of a damning Sin. For even the disbelief of Christianity it self , is not supposed to be the Cause of Mens Damnation , but where the Doctrine of the Gospel hath been proposed in a way of Credibility . If when this Doctrine of the Trinity is proposed to Mens Minds , they will not consider it , nor weigh the Arguments on both sides impartially , but with scorn and contempt reject it , and endeavour to bring reproach upon Christianity for the sake of it , and disturb the Peace of the Church about it ; such cannot be said to receive or believe it faithfully , and by such Sins they do run the hazard of perishing everlastingly . P. I see you have a mind to smooth every thing relating to the Trinity , I wish you would do the same about Transubstantiation . But yet you have not answer'd the other great Difficulty in Point of Reason , viz. That those things which agree or disagree in a third , must agree or disagree one with the other . And therefore if the Father be God , the Son God , and the Holy Ghost God ; then the Father must be Son and Holy Ghost , and the Son and Holy Ghost must be the Father . If not , then they are really the same , and really distinct ; the same as to Essence , distinct as to Persons ; and so they are the same , and not the same , which is a Contradiction . Pr. And now I think you have drawn out the most refined Spirits of Socinianism , to make the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation parallel , because you say , it implies a Contradiction ; which is the nearest Parallel you have yet offered at . But this terrible Argument is grounded on the same Supposition , viz. That the Divine Essence is no more capable of communicating it self to three distinct Persons , than any created Being is . The Reason of that Axiom being , that created Things , by reason of their finite Nature , cannot diffuse or communicate themselves to more than one ; and therefore those which agree in a Third , must agree together ; but supposing it possible that the same finite Nature could extend it self to several Individuals , it would be presently answered , the Axiom did hold only , where they did adequately and reciprocally agree , and not where they did agree only in Essence , but differ'd in the manner of Subsistence . For where a different manner of Subsistence is supposed possible , in the same Individual Nature , the Agreement in that cannot take away that Difference which is consistent with it ; which we attribute to the unlimitedness and perfection of the Divine Nature . P. But you can bring no other Instance but the thing in Question ; and therefore this is a Petitio Principii , or taking that for granted which is in Dispute . Pr. I do not think it to be so , where the Reason is assigned from the peculiar Properties of the Divine Nature , to which there can be no parallel . And I think it very unreasonable in the Socinians , to send us to created Beings for the Rules and Measures of our Judgment concerning a Being acknowledged to be Infinite . P. Are not the Divine Persons Infinite , as well as the Divine Nature ? and therefore as created Persons do take in the whole Nature , so infinite Persons will do the infinite Nature . Pr. No question , but the Persons are infinite in regard of the Nature which is so ; but if an infinite Nature be communicable to more Persons than One , every such Person cannot appropriate the whole Nature to it self . P. If the difference be on the account of Infinity , then there must be an infinite number of Persons in the Divine Essence . Pr. I answer , that infiniteness of Number is no Perfection ; and as to the number of Persons , we follow not our own Conjectures , nor the Authority of the Church ; but Divine Revelation , which hath assured us , that there is but one God , and yet there are three that are one . Which depends not meerly on the place of St. John , but the Form of Baptism is remarkable to this purpose , which joyns together the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost ; without any other distinction besides that of Order and Relation . And it is against the fundamental design of Christianity , to joyn any Created Beings together with God in so solemn an Act of Religion . And St. Paul joyns them together in his Benediction : The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ , and the Love of God , and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all . Amen . 2 Cor. 12. 14. From whence the Christian Church hath always believed a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature . P. You have taken a great deal of pains to clear the Doctrine of the Trinity from any absurdity in point of Reason , why should you not do as much now as to Transubstantiation ? Pr. In plain truth , because I cannot ; for here lies a vast difference between them . In the Trinity we consider'd an Infinite Being , to which no bounds can be set without destroying its Nature ; but in Transubstantiation , we suppose a true finite Body , which hath its natural bounds and limits to one certain Place , and yet you will and must suppose this Body to be equally present in many thousand distant Places at the same time ; which implies so great a Repugnancy to the very Nature of a Body , that I can by no means give my Assent to it . P. Alas ! Is this it which chokes your Reason , so that you cannot swallow the Doctrine of the Church in this matter ? You do not consider , that tho we allow nothing Infinite in the Body it self ; yet we suppose an Infinite Power to be imploy'd about it : and an Infinite Power may produce things above our Comprehensions , about Bodies in themselves finite . Pr. This is the utmost your Cause will bear ; but I pray tell me , Is there any such thing as a Repugnancy in the Nature of things or not ? i. e. Are there not some things which are endued with such Properties , that if you alter them , you destroy their very Nature ; as , to suppose an indivisible Line , a Triangle without Lines , a Body without Dimensions ? P. Hold a little ; a Body must have Dimensions belonging to it , but it is not necessary it should have those Dimensions where-ever it is present . For it may be present in one Place as a Body , and in another after the manner of a Spirit . Pr. You might as well have said , a Body may be consider'd two ways ; as it is a Body , and as it is not a Body : for there can be no Body , where there are no Dimensions proper to it . P. See how you are mistaken ; for it is 〈…〉 the Dimensions which seem to hinder a Body being in 〈◊〉 places at once , but its Unity ; as Bellarmin well observe● . Pr. I say both of them 〈◊〉 . For 〈◊〉 Body can no more be without it● Dimensions , than a Line without Divisibility . P. I grant , that naturally it cannot , but by Divine Power it may . Pr. Will you make the Power of God to change the Essential Properties of things , while the things themselves remain in their true Nature ? You may as well say , that naturally Man is a Reasonable Creature ; but by Divine Power he may be a true Man , and yet want the Faculty of Reasoning : That naturally two and two make four , but God can make two and two to be joyned together in a supernatural manner , so as that four shall not result from them ; that tho , naturally speaking , white-washing a Wall makes it look white , yet by an extraordinary Power , there may be the presence of all things which make a Wall white , yet it shall not do so ; just so it is to make a Body present , and yet to have no Dimensions of a Body . Is there any real difference between the Nature of a Body and Spirit ? Wherein lies it ? Is it not as repugnant for a Body to be after the manner of a Spirit , as for a Body and Spirit to be the same ? P. All this proceeds upon not considering the difference between the Essential Extension of a Body , and that which is quantitative , and hath relation to Place . Pr. The Essential Extension of a Body without Quantity , is Non-sense , and a Contradiction . For it is to make a Body extended and not extended , at the same time . I pray tell me what you mean by a Body , as it is opposed to a Spirit ? P. I mean as all Mankind do , such a Substance which consists of Parts extended and divisible . Pr. Then being extended and divisible , are the natural and essential Properties of a Body . And therefore , to suppose a Body not to be extended and divisible , is to suppose it not to be a Body , which is a plain Contradiction . P. You are to distinguish between the Intrinsecal Quantity , which is an inseparable Property of a Body , and the Extrinsecal Relation it hath to a Place . Pr. Intrinsecal Quantity without Relation to Place , is intrinsecal Non-sense . For , how is it possible for extended Parts to have no Relation to Place ? P. By Relation to Place , I mean , when the Parts of a Body answer to the Parts of a Place : but by Intrinsecal Quantity , I mean , that there is the real order and proportion of Parts in the Body it self , but it doth not fill up the Place . Pr. Then you do suppose the Body of Christ in the Eucharist , to have all the distinct Parts of a Body , with their due Order and Proportion , but to be in the Sacrament after an indivisible manner . P. Why not ? Pr. Do you think it possible for the real and entire Body of a Man to be crouded into the compass of a Wafer , with all the difference of its Parts , so that no true Part of the Body be missing ? P. Yes , by Divine Power . Pr. Do you think a far less thing possible than that , viz. that a Man's Head , and Shoulders , and Arms , should be contained entire and distinct under the Nail of his little Finger ? P. Why not ? Pr. Then why may not the greatest Body be within the least ? Why may not an Elephant be caught in a Mouse-trap , and a Rhinoceros be put into a Snuff-box ? For either there is a Repugnancy in the Nature of the thing , for a greater Body to be within a less , or there is not ; if not , then these mentioned Instances are possible ; if there be , then the supposition of Divine Power can give no relief , unless you suppose , that God can do things repugnant in themselves , i. e. that he can do things which cannot be done . But I pray tell me , if the very Body of Christ be by Transubstantiation in the Wafer , with all its Parts in their due order , then the Head must be distant from the Feet , and all other Organs in their proper places ; but this cannot possibly be supposed , where there is no measure of distance as Place is , and the whole Body is in a point . P. I say again , there is the just order of Parts considered in themselves , but not with respect to Place . Pr. Then it is impossible there should be any distance ; without which it is impossible there should be the order of Parts in a Human Body . Thus , there is a Repugnancy in the very supposition of Christ's Body being in the Wafer , tho there were but one single Wafer ; but when to this we add , that it is equally thus present in thousands of Wafers at what distance of Place soever , the Absurdities do increase and multiply so fast upon us , that it is hardly possible to imagin any thing concerning a Body , which doth imply more than this doth . As that one and the same Body should be indivisibly present in many places , where it must be divided from it self , by so many Bodies interposing : so that it is impossible to apprehend how two Bodies can be divided from one another more effectually , than such a Body must be from it self , if it be present in many places at once . P. I pray stop here ; for reckon up as many Absurdities as you will , they are all but the Effects of Carnal Reason , and we must captivate our Understanding to the Obedience of Faith. Pr. Then it is to no purpose to argue any farther , on the point of Reason ; and I thought you designed this for one part of your Parallel . P. So I did ; and I still say , there are things as hard to make out about the Trinity , which you have not yet taken notice of . Pr. I pray let us hear them , that we may put an end to this Discourse . P. What say you then to one and the same Nature being in three distinct Persons , which Bellarmin saith , is more wonderful , than that one Body should be in many Places ; because the Nature is identified with the Persons , but the Body is not so with the Places in which it is present . If therefore the same Nature be not divided from it self in the Persons of the Trinity , how much more easily may one Body be present in several places , and not be divided from it self ? Pr. It is strange neither Bellarmin nor you should discern the difference . For the reason why a Body must be divided from it self , being in several places , is , because it is finite ; and there being no Penetration of Dimensions in Bodies , the interposing of other Bodies must needs divide the same Body in distant places ; but the Reason why the same Divine Nature may be in several Persons , is , because it is Infinite ; and therefore nothing can bound or discontinue it . P. You have talked much of Contradictions ; Is there any greater about Transubstantiation , than that of Eternal Generation of the Son in the Mystery of the Trinity ? for , if it be not proper Generation , then you cannot infer from it , that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father ; if it be , then it must be a proceeding from not being to being , and so an Eternal Generation is a Contradiction . Pr. It is a Rule in common Reason , That all Attributes must be understood according to the Nature of the Subjects . And therefore , if the Subject here spoken of , be of such a Nature , as to be uncapable of proceeding from not being to being , then whatever is affirmed of it , must be so understood , as not to destroy its Nature . The Term of Generation alone is not , it may be , sufficient to prove the Son Co-essential with the Father , because it might have been used improperly and metaphorically . But when from the Scripture , it otherwise appears that the Son of God being the Word , was in the beginning with God , and was God , John 1. 1. and we soon after find him called the only begotten of the Father , Ver. 14. and the only begotten Son , Ver. 18. we have reason to infer from hence his Eternal Generation . Which must not be understood in such a mean sense as is agreeable to Creatures , but as it is consistent with the Essential Attributes of God , of which necessary Existence is one . So that by Eternal Generation , no more can be meant , than such an Emanation of the Son from the Father , as doth suppose them to have the same Nature and Co-existence : which is best represented by the Rays of the Sun coming from the Fountain of Light , if they were permanent , and not successive . P. What say you then to the Mystery of the Incarnation ? Is it not more wonderful , as Bellarmin observes , that there should be one Hypostasis in two Natures , than one Body in two Places ? since the Union is greater between the Hypostasis and the Natures , than between the Body and the Places it is in ; the one being intrinsecal and substantial , the other extrinsecal and accidental . And that Hypostasis is the same with the Divine Nature , and yet is most closely united with the Human Nature , which is so different from the Divine ; so that it is incomprehensible by us , how in that Union the Natures are not confounded , or the Hypostasis divided . Pr. Suppose now we grant all this , that there is an incomprehensible Mystery in the Incarnation , what follows from thence ? Have I not hitherto owned , that there must be something incomprehensible by us , in what relates to the Divine Nature ? And it is the less wonder it is so in the Incarnation , wherein an Union is implied between an Infinite and Finite Nature ; when the Union of the Soul and Body , though both Finite , is above our Comprehension , though we our selves consist of Souls and Bodies so united ? But what Consequence is it , if we are not able to explain this , that then we must admit that the same Body may be not meerly in two , but in ten thousand places at the the same time ? i. e. If we cannot explain the Hypostatical Union , then all manner of Absurdities must go down with us , that relate to things of a very different Nature from it . P. I am glad to find you are set at last , and that now you have a Difficulty before you which you can never get through . Pr. Be not too confident ; I have only hitherto denied the Consequence as to the Difficulties of Transubstantiation . But it is possible , that setting aside the Confusion of School-Terms , I may be able to give a far more intelligible and reasonable Account of the Incarnation it self , than you can ever do of Transubstantiation . P. First shew that it is possible , and then explain the manner of it . Pr. But let us in the first place agree what we mean by it . P. By the Incarnation , I mean , the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature , so as to make one Person in Christ. Pr. If this be not possible , it must either be , 1. Because two Natures different from each other , cannot be united to make one Person : The contrary whereof appears in the union of Soul and Body to the Person of a Man. Or , 2. because it is impossible that an Infinite Nature should be united to a Finite . P. How can there be an Union possible , between two Beings infinitely distant from each other ? Pr. Not in that respect wherein the Distance is Infinite ; but if there be nothing destructive to either Nature in such an Union , and the Infinite Nature do condescend to it , why may it not be so united to an Intelligent Finite Being , as to make one Person together with it ? For in respect of Union , the Distance is not so great between Finite and Infinite , as between Body and Spirit . P. The Distance is Infinite in one Case , but not in the other . Pr. I do not speak of them , with Respect to Perfections , but to Union ; and an infinite Distance in that must imply an absolute Repugnancy , which you can never prove : For , since Body and Spirit may be united to make one Person , an Infinite Spirit may be united to a Finite Nature . P. But the manner of the Hypostatical Union is impossible to be conceived . Pr. Let the thing be granted possible , and the difficulty of conceiving the manner may be as great in the Union of Soul and Body . Will you undertake to explain that to me ? and yet I hope you believe it . But , let us hear your Difficulties again , which you object from Bellarmine . P. That there should be but one Hypostasis in two Natures ; and that in the Union the Natures should not be confounded , nor the Hypostasis divided . Pr. All these Difficulties arise from the sense of the word Hypostasis . Which originally signifies a Real Being , and not such which depends only on Fancy and Imagination ; from thence its signification was enlarged , not only to things real , ( in opposition to meer Appearances , and Creatures of the Mind ) but to such a thing which did subsist of it self , and had not its subsistence in another , as Accidents had . So that an Hypostasis was a real Substance which had subsistence in it self . But such are of two kinds , as the Greek Fathers observe . ( 1. ) Such as are real Substances in themselves , but yet are capable of being joined with another , to make up a Person ; thus the Soul and Body have two different Hypostases , and make up but one Person of a Man. ( 2. ) It is taken , for a compleat individual Subsistence , which is not joined with any other as a Part ; and so Hypostasis is the same with a Person , which is nothing else but a compleat , intelligent , individual Hypostasis . And in this sense there can be but one Hypostasis in Christ , i. e. one Person , tho there be two Natures . P. But our Divines say , that the Humane Nature after the Union hath no Hypostasis , it being swallowed up by the Divine . Pr. I know they do ; but if they mean that the Humane Nature , after the Union , loses that subsistence which is proper to the Humane Nature , it is impossible for them to avoid the Eutychian Heresy , condemned by the Council of Chalcedon ; but if they mean no more than that there is a true Nature , but no Person , save only that which results from both Natures ; they then agree with the Sense of the Church , which condemned the Eutychians . For as much as the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches differ'd in themselves , they were both built on the same Ground , viz. that there could be no true Nature , but there must be a Person ; and that two Natures could not make one Person . From whence Nestorius asserted there were two Persons in Christ ; and Eutyches denied that there were two Natures . P. What doth all this signify , but that the Authority of the Church must determine whether there be two Natures , or two Persons in Christ ? Pr. It seems then , the whole Business wherein the General Councils were so warmly concerned , was only to make an Ecclesiastical Dictionary , and to appoint what words are to be used , and what not . Do you think then , there were no such real Heresies as Nestorianism and Eutychianism , but only they happened to take the words Nature and Person in another sense than the Church would have Men use them ? P. I trust the Church for all these things . Pr. Then if the Church would have you affirm two Persons and one Nature , or two Natures and one Person , it were all one to you . P. Why not ? since the Church must determine . Pr. What if you had been to dispute with Nestorius and Eutyches ? P. I would have told them , they must submit to the Church about the use of words . Pr. And they would have laughed at you for your pains : For the Controversy was really about the Truth of Christ's Incarnation , ( as the Fathers proved , and the Councils determined ) which in Consequence was rejected by both of them ; as I will evidently prove , if you have any longer Patience . P. I beg your pardon , Sir , I have heard enough of all Conscience already . Pr. I think so too , to make you ashamed of your Parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity , and Transubstantiation . And methinks , for the sake of our common Christianity , you should no more venture upon such bold and unreasonable Comparisons . Do you in earnest think , it is all one , whether Men do believe a God , or Providence , or Heaven , or Hell , or the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ , if they do not believe Transubstantiation ? We have heard much of late about Old and New Popery ; but if this be the way of Representing New Popery , by exposing the common Articles of Faith ; it will set the Minds of all good Christians farther from it than ever . For upon the very same Grounds , we may expect another Parallel between the belief of a God and Transubstantiation ; the effect of which will be , the exposing of all Religion . This is a very destructive and mischievous Method of Proceeding ; but our comfort is , that it is very unreasonable ; as I hope , hath fully appeared by this Discourse . FINIS . Errata omitted in the former Dialogue . PAge 10. line 25 , dele not . 18. l. 2 , dele not . 14. Marg. l. 8. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . In this Dialogue . PAge 4. line 5. read viz. the Sacrament . 5. l. 19. for done , r. due . 8. l. 30. for fictitious , r. factitious . 23. l. 22. r. doubted as well . Books Printed for William Rogers . THe Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented ; in Answer to a Book intituled , A Papist Mis-represented and Represented , &c. Quarto . An Answer to a Discourse intituled , Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery ; being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants : and containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux , late Bishop of Condom , his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , in the Articles of Invocation of Saints , and the Worship of Images , occasioned by that Discourse . Quarto . An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Difference between the Representer and Answerer . Quarto . A View of the whole Controversy between the Representer and the Answerer , with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply ; in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists . Quarto . A Discourse against Transubstantiation , in Octavo . price 3d. Sermons and Discourses , some of which never before printed ; the third Volume . By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury . 80. A Manuel for a Christian Soldier . Written by Erasmus , and Translated into English. Twelves . The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation , compared as to Scripture , Reason , and Tradition . In a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist . The first Part. Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation , in the Books called Consensus Veterum , & Nubes Testium , &c. Quarto . The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared , as to Scripture , Reason , and Tradition . In a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist . The second Part. Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason , and Transubstantiation repugnant to both . Quarto . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A61550-e340 Sicut enim antequam sanctificatur panis , panem nominamus , divinâ autem illum sanctificante Grati● , mediante Sacerdote , liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis , dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione , etiamsi natura Panis in ipso permansit , & non duo Corpora , sed unum Corpus Filii praedicatur , sic & hic divina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Graec. Exemplar . Ep Bigot . ) id est inundante Corporis Natura unum Filium , unam Personam utraque haec fecerunt . Papist Misrepresented , and Represented , 2 Part. ch . 3. p. 23. Concil . Chalced . Act. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Dial. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Dial. 2. Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis & Sanguinis Domini divina res est , propter quod & per eadem divinae efficimur consortes Naturae , & tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura Panis & Vini . Gelas. in Biblioth . Patr. To. 4. Pag. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ephraem . Antioch . ap . Phot. Cod. 229. Tom. 3. 1. 5. c. 1 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. Ap. Facund . 1. 8. c. 5. Ap. Canis . Antiq . Lection . To. 4. p. 112 , 114 , 127. Epiph. haer . 77. Vincent . Common . Aug. de Haeres . c. 55. Concil . Chal. . ced . Act. 1. Theodor. Dial. 1. & 2. Nam quando in Terra fuit , non erat ubique in Coelo . Et nunc quia in Coelo est , non est ubique in Terra , & in tantum non est , ut secundum ipsam ( Carnem ) Christum spectemus esse venturum de Coelo● quem secundum verbum nobiscum esse credimus in terra . Cont. Eutych . l. 4. n. 14. Et ubique totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum — & in loco aliquo Coeli propter veri Corporis modum . Ad Dardan . Non enim Corpora sunt quorum amplior sit in tribus quam in singulis magnitudo , nec loca suis molibus tenent , ut distantibus spatiis simul esse non possint . Ad Dardan . Secundum praesentiam verò coporalem simul & in Sole & in Luna & in Cruce esse non posset . C. Faust. l. 20. c. 11. Et cum in Terra loquitur in Coelo utique nisi per Dei Infinitatem esse non possit . De Incarn . l. 4. c. 6. Sive ista crassiora , sivesubtiliora , sed tamen Corpora , quorum nullum potest esse ubique totum , quoniam per innumerabiles partes aliud alibi habeat necesse est . Et quantumcunque sit Corpus , seu quantulumcunque corpusculum , loci occupet spatium , eundemque locum sic impleat , ut in nullâ ejus parte sit totum . Ad Volusian , Quanquam si hoc demas Corporibus , quantum mea opinio est , neque sentiri possunt , neque omnino Corpora esse rectè existimarem . De Quant . Animae , c. 4. Quod per loci spatium aliqua longitudine , latitudine , altitudine ita sistitur vel movetur , ut majore sui parte majorem locum occupet , & breviore breviorem , minusque sit in parte quam in toto . Ad Hieron . Ep. 166. Non omnino potest esse aliquod Corpus , sive Coeleste , sive Terrestre , sive Aereum , sive humidum , quod non minus sit in parte quam in toto , neque ullo modo possit in loco hujus partis simul habere aliam partem , sed aliud hic , aliud alibi habens per quaelibet spatia locorum distantia & dividua , vel potius ut ita dicam , sectili more distenditur . C. Epist. Manich. c. 16. Omne Corpus locale est , & omne locale Corpus est . 63. Quaest. c. 35. Corpus quodlibet per localia spatia porrectum est . 83. Quaest. c. 51. Orat. 34. & in Ep ad Cledon . Dial. 2. de Trin. Claud. Mamert . de Statu Animae , l. 1. c. 5 , 17 , 18. l. 3. c. 14. Apud Euseb. de Praep. Evangel . l. 7. c. 22. Basil. Epist. 43. Isidor . Epist. l. 2. Ep. 72. Greg. Nyssen . in Hexaem . p. 13 De Hom. Opificio . c. 24. Aug. Ep. ad Dardanum . cont . Julian . l. 5. c. 9. Isid. Origin . l. 2. c. 26. Boeth . de Praedic . Damascen Dial. c. 1. Alcuin . Dial. c. 5 , 12. Iren. l. 2. c. 14. Apud . Phot. Cod. 234. Aug. de Immort . Anim. c. 10. Soliloq . l. 2. c. 13. De Statu Animo . l. 3. c. 3. Iren. l. 3. 20. 5. 7. Tertul. deCarne Christi , c. 5. Advers . Marc. l. 4. c. 43. l 3. c. 8 , 11. Epiphan . haer . 42 , 64. Hilar. in Psal. 137. Aug. c. Faust. l. 29. c. 2. l. 14. c. 10. 83. Quaest. c. 14. Serm. 238. De Euch. l. 1. c. 14. Cyril . Mystag . 3 , & 4 , 5. Catech. 3. Chrysost. in Matt. hom 83. Ambros. de his qui initiantur , c. 9. Consensus Veterum , p. 21 , 22 , 23. Consens . Vet. p. 27. Nouvelle Biblioth . des Antienes Ecclesiastiques par Ellies du Pin. 1686. P. 22. P. 23. Consens . p. 30. Consens . Veter p. 30. Nubes Testium , p. 109. Tertull. c. Marcion . l. 4 , c. 40. Apol. 2. P. 31. Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Iren. l. 5. c. 11. Con. Marcion . l. 4. c. 40. Con. Marcion . l. 3. c. 19. l. 5. c. 8. De Resur . c. 8. Strom. 4. Hom. 5. in divers . loc . Comment . in Matth. 15. Cypr. de lapsis . Epist. 63. N. 6. Nubes Testium . p. 120. &c. Consens . Vet. p. 54 , &c. Disp. 53. Sect. 4 De Euch. l. 1. c. 2. Hom. 83. in Mat. Hom. 51. in Mat. In Heb. Hom. 14. In Rom. Hom. 8. Ad Pop. Antioch . Hom. 15. De Sacerd. l. 3. In Joh. Hom. 45. Hom. in Gal. c. 5. Hom. de Resur . To. 5. Hom. 46. in Joh. Hom. 28. in 1. Ep. ad Corinth . Hom. 24. in 1. ad Corinth . Hom. 22. in Hebr. Hom. de Poenit . To. 6. P. 56. Eucholog . p. 77. Greg. Nyssen . Orat. Catech. 37. Nubes Testium , p. 124. Tertul de Resur . carn . c. 37. Orig. hom . 7. in Levit. Ambros. de his qui initiantur , c. 9. C. 3. De Sacram. l. 5. c. 4. Notes for div A61550-e21120 Rom. 1. 21 , 23 , 24. 1 Cor. 10. 7 , 14. 1 Joh. 5. 21. Bell. de Christo . l. 1. c. 4 , &c. Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c 19. Cap. 23.