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. Ã 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
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 Transuâ—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
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 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. 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.
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
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
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 Jehovâ—â— 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
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
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-â—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