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
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
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
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
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 thaâ— 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
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 Pâ—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
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.