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
Table as a Sacrifice slain for us Thou swearest upon the holy Table where Christ lies slain When thou seest our Lord lying on the Table and the Priest praying and the by-standers purpled with his Blood. See the Love of Christ he doth not only suffer himself to be seen by those who desire it but to be touched and eaten and our Teeth to be fixed in his Flesh. Now these Expressions are on all sides granted to be literally absurd and impossible and therefore we must say of him as Bonaventure once said of S. Augustin Plus dicit sanctus minus vult intelligi We must make great allowance for such Expressions or you must hold a Capernaitical Sense And it is denied by your selves that Christ is actually slain upon the Altar and therefore you yield that such Expressions are to be figuratively understood 2. That he le ts fall many things in such Discourses which do give light to the rest As 1. That Flesh is improperly taken when applied to the Eucharist 2. He calls the Sacrament the Mystical Body and Blood of Christ. 3. That the eating of Christ's Flesh is not to be understood literally but spiritually 4. He opposes Christ's sacramental Presence and real corporal Presence to each other 5. He still exhorts the Communicants to look upwards towards Heaven And now if you lay these things together this Eloquent Father will not with all his Flights come near to Transubstantiation P. No! In one place he asserts the Substance of the Elements to be lost Pr. Thanks to the Latin Translators for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Criticks observe doth not signify to destroy but to refine and purify a Substance But I do not rely upon this for the plain answer is that S. Chrysostom doth not there speak of the Elements upon Consecration but what becomes of them after they are taken down into the Stomach St. Chrysostom thought it would lessen the Peoples Reverence and Devotion if they passed into the draught as Origen affirmed and therefore he started another Opinion viz. That as Wax when it is melted in the fire throws off no superfluities but it passes indiscernably away so the Elements or Mysteries as he calls them pass imperceptibly into the substance of the Body and so are consumed together with it Therefore saith he approach with Reverence not supposing that you receive the divine body from a Man but as with Tongs of Fire from the Seraphims Which the Author of the Consensus Veterum translates but Fire from the Tongues of Seraphims S. Chrysostom's Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Sense is that the divine Body i. e. the Eucharist after Consecration being by the divine Spirit made the divine Body as in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy there is a particular Prayer for the Holy Ghost to come and so make the Bread to be the divine Body or the holy Body of Christ is to be taken not with our Mouths which can only receive the Elements but after a divine manner as with Tongs of fire from Seraphims by which he expresses the spiritual acts of Faith and Devotion as most agreeable to that divine Spirit which makes the Elements to become the holy Body of Christ. But that St. Chrysostom did truly and firmly believe the Substance of the Bread to remain after Consecration I have already proved from his Epistle to Coesarius P. I pray let us not go backward having so much ground to run over still Pr. I am content if you will produce only those who speak of the change of Substance and not such as only mention the Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration which I have already told you was the Language of the Church and therefore all those Testimonies are of no force in this matter P. Then I must quit the greatest part of what remains as Optatus Gaudentius S. Jerom and others but I have some still left which will set you hard What say you then to Gregory Nyssen who saith the sanctified bread is changed into the body of the Word of God. And he takes off your Answer of a mystical Body for he puts the Question How the same Body can daily be distributed to the faithful throughout the World it remaining whole and entire in it self Pr. Gregory Nyssen was a Man of Fancy and he shewed it in that Catechetical Discourse However Fronto Ducoeus thought it a notable place to prove Transubstantiation which I wonder at if he attended to the Design of it which was to shew that as our Bodies by eating became subject to Corruption so by eating they become capable of Immortality and this he saith Must be by receiving an immortal Body into our B dies such as the Body of Christ was But then saith he how could that body which is to remain whole in it self be distributed to all the faithful over the whole Earth He answers by saying That our Bodies do consist of Bread and Wine which are their proper Nourishment and Christ's Body being like ours that was so too which by the Uniâ—n with the Word of God was changed into a Divine Dignity But what is this to the Eucharist you may say He goes on therefore so I believe the sanctified Bread by the power of the Word of God to be changed into the Body of God the Word Not into that Individual Body but after the same manner by a Presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God the Word in it and that this was his meaning doth evidently appear by what follows For saith he that Body viz. to which he was Incarnate was sanctified by the Inhabitation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dwelling in the Flesh therefore as the Bread was then changed into a Divine Dignity in the Body so it is now and the Bread is changed into the Body of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of Jesus Christ as it was said by the Word This is my Body And so by receiving this Divine Body into our bodies they are made capable of Immortality And this is the true Account of Gregory Nyssen's meaning which if it prove any thing proves an Impanation rather than Transubstantiation P. But Hilary's Testimony cannot be so avoided who saith That we as truly eat Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament as he was truly Incarnate and that we are to judg of this not by carnal Reason but by the Words of Christ who said My Flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed Pr. I do not deny this to be Hilary's Sense But yet this proves nothing like to Transubstantiation For it amounts to no more than a Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament and you can make no Argument from hence unless you can prove that the Body of Christ cannot be present unless the Substance of the Bread be destroy'd which is more than can be done or than Hilary imagined All that he aimed
at was to prove a real Union between Christ and his People That Christ was in them more than by meer consent and to prove this he lays hold of those words of our Saviour My Flesh is meat indeed c. But the substantial Change of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body signifies nothing to his purpose and Bellarmin never so much as mentions Hilary in his proofs of Transubstantiation but only for the real Presence But I must add something more viz. that Hilary was one of the first who drew any Argument from the literal Sense of John 6. I do not say who did by way of Accommodation apply them to the Sacrament which others might do before him But yet there are some of the eldest Fathers who do wholly exclude a literal Sense as Tertullian look'd on it As an Absurdity that Christ should be thought truly to give his Flesh to eat Quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset And Origen saith It is a killing Letter if those Words be literally understood But this is to run into another debate whereas our Business is about Transubstantiation If you have any more let us now examine their Testimonies P. What say you then to St. Ambrose who speaks home to the Business for he makes the Change to be above Nature and into the Body of Christ born of the Virgin There are long Citations out of him but in these words lies the whole strength of them Pr. I answer several things for clearing of his meaning 1. That St. Ambrose doth parallel the Change in the Eucharist with that in Baptism and to prove Regeneration therein he argues from the miraculous Conception of Christ in the Womb of the Virgin but in Baptism no body supposes the Substance of the Water to be taken away and therefore it cannot hold as to the other from the Supernatural Change which may be only with respect to such a Divine Influence which it had not before Consecration 2. He doth purposely talk obscurely and mystically about this matter as the Fathers were wont to do to those who were to be admitted to these Mysteries Sometimes one would think he meant that the Elements are changed into Christ's Individual Body born of the Virgin and yet presently after he distinguishes between the true Flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried and the Sacrament of his Flesh. If this were the same what need any distinction And that this Sacramentum Carnis is meant of the Eucharist is plain by what follows for he cites Christ's words This is my Body 3. He best explains his own meaning when he saith not long after That the body of Christ in the Sacrament is a Spiritual body or a body produced by the Divine Spirit and so he parallels it with that spiritual Food which the Israelites did eat in the Wilderness And no man will say that the Substance of the Manna was then lost And since your Authors make the same St. Ambrose to have written the Book De Sacramentis there is a notable passage therein which helps to explain this for there he saith expresly Non iste Panis est qui vadit in Corpus sed ille Panis Vitoe Eternoe qui animoe nostroe Substantiam fulcit It is not the Bread which passes into the Body but the Bread of Eternal Life which strengthens the Substance of our Soul. Where he not only calls it Bread after Consecration which goes to our Nourishment but he distinguishes it from the Bread of Eternal Life which supports the Soul which must be understood of Divine Grace and not of any Bodily Substance P. I perceive you will not leave us one Father of the whole number Pr. Not one And I hope this gives an incomparable Advantage to the Doctrine of the Trinity in point of Tradition above Transubstantiation when I have not only proved that the greatest of the Fathers expresly denied it but that there is not one in the whole number who affirmed it For altho there were some difference in the way of explaining how the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ yet not one of them hitherto produced doth give any countenance to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation which the Council of Trent declared to have been the constant belief of the Church in all Ages which is so far from being true that there is as little ground to believe that as Transubstantiation it self And so much as to this Debate concerning the comparing the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation in point of Tradition if you have any thing to say further as to Scripture and Reason I shall be ready to give you Satisfaction the next Opportunity FINIS BOOKS lately Printed for W. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book Intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto Third Edition An Answer to a Discourse Intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants 4to Second Edition An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply 4to The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry in which the Bishop of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 4to The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation demonstrated 4to A Letter to the Superiours whether Bishops or Priests which Approve or License the Popish Books in England particularly to those of the Jesuits Order concerning Lewis Sabran a Jesuit A Preservative against Popery being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants how to Dispute with Romish Priests The First Part. The Fourth Edition The Second Part of the Preservative against Popery shewing how contrary Popery is to the True Ends of the Christian Religion Fitted for the Instruction of Unlearned Protestants The Second Edition A Vindication of both Parts of the Preservative against Popery in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran Jesuit A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity aed Communion of the Catholick Church wherein most of the Controversies relating to the Church are briefly and plainly stated The First Part. 4to These Four last by William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Imprimatur Guil. Needham
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
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.