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
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
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