my Point Pr. I leave you to try your Skill upon them The first shall be from the Proofs of the Truth of Christ's Incarnation and I hope this will not hold against the Trinity And those Arguments which they brought to prove Christ Incarnate do overthrow Transubstantiation effectually So that either we must make the Fathers to reason very ill against Hereticks or if their Arguments be good it was impossible they should believe Transubstantiation For can you suppose that any can believe it who should not barely assert but make the force of an Argument to lie in this that the Substance of the Bread doth not remain after Consecration And this I now prove not from any slight inconsiderable Authors but from some of the greatest Men in the Church in their time I begin with St. Chrysostom whose Epistle to Coesarius is at last brought to light by a learned Person of the Roman Communion who makes no question of the Sincerity of it and faith The Latin Translation which only he could find entire was about five hundred years old but he hath so confirm'd it by the Greek Fragments of it quoted by Ancient Greek Authors that there can be no suspicion left concerning it P. What means all this ado before you come to the Point Pr. Because this Epistle hath been formerly so confidently denied to be St. Chrysostom's and such care was lately taken to suppress it P. But what will you do with it now you have it Pr. I will tell you presently This Epistle was written by him for the satisfaction of Caesarius a Monk who was in danger of being seduced by the Apollinarists P. What have we to do with the Apollinarists Do you think all hard words are akin and so the affinity rises between Apollinarists and Transubstantiation Pr. You shall find it comes nearer the matter than you imagined For those Hereticks denied the Truth of the Human Nature of Christ after the Union and said that the Properties of it did then belong to the Divine Nature as appears by that very Epistle P. And what of all this Do we deny the truth of Christ's Human Nature Pr. No but I pray observe the force of his Parallel He is proving that each Nature in Christ contains its Properties for saith he as before Consecration we call it Bread but after it by Divine Grace sanctifying it through the Prayer of the Priest it is no longer called Bread but the Body of our Lord altho the nature of Bread remains in it and it doth not become two Bodies but one Body of Christ so here the Divine Nature being joyned to the Human they both make one Son and one Person P. And what do you infer from hence Pr. Nothing more but that the Nature of Bread doth as certainly remain after Consecration as the Nature of Christ doth after the Union P. Hold a little For the Author of the single Sheet saith That the Fathers by Nature and Substance do often mean no more than the natural Qualities or visible Appearances of Things And why may not St. Chrysostom mean so here Pr. I say it is impossible he should For all the Dispute was about the Substance and not about the Qualities as appears by that very Epistle for those Hereticks granted that Christ had all the Properties of a Body left still they do not deny that Christ could suffer but they said the Properties of a Body after the Union belonged to the Divine Nature the Human Nature being swallowed up by the Union And therefore St. Chrysostom by Nature must understand Substance and not Qualities or else he doth by no means prove that which he aimed at So that St. Chrysostom doth manifestly assert the Substance of the Bread to remain after Consecration P. But doth not St. Chrysostom suppose then that upon Consecration The Bread is united to the Divinity as the Human Nature is to the Divine else what Parallel could he make Pr. I will deal freely with you by declaring that not St. Chrysostom only but many others of the Fathers did own the Bread after Consecration to be made the real Body of Christ but not in your Sense by changing the Substance of the Elements into that Body of Christ which is in Heaven but by a Mystical Union caused by the Holy Spirit whereby the Bread becomes the Body of Christ as that was which was conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin. But this is quite another thing from Transubstantiation and the Church of England owns that after Consecration The Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ. P. But altho this be not Transubstantiation it may be something as hard to believe or understand Pr. By no means For all the difficulties relating to the taking away the Substance of the Bread and the Properties of Christ's Body are removed by this Hypothesis P. Let us then keep to our Point but methinks this is but a slender appearance yet St. Chrysostom stands alone for all that I see Pr. Have but a little Patience and you shall see more of his mind presently But I must first tell you that the Eutychians afterwards were condemned in the Council of Chalcedon for following this Doctrine of Apollinaris and that Council defines that the differences of the two Natures in Christ were not destroyed by the Union but that their Properties were preserved distinct and concur to one Person And against these the other Fathers disputed just as St. Chrysostom had done before against the Apollinarists Theodoret brings the same Instance and he affirms expresly That the Nature of the Elements is not changed that they do not lose their proper Nature but remain in their former Substance Figure and Form and may be seen and touched as before Still this is not to prove any Accidental Qualities but the very Substance of Christ's Body to remain P. But was not Theodoret a Man of suspected Faith in â—he Church and therefore no great matter can be made of his Testimony Pr. Yield it then to us and see if we do not clear Theodoret but your own learned Men never question him as to this matter at least and the ancient Church hath vindicated his Reputation And he saith no more than St. Chrysostom before him and others of great Esteem â—fter him P. Who were they Pr. What say you to a Pope whom you account Head of the Church Pope Gelasius writing against the same Hereticks produces the same Example and he expresly saith The Substance of the Bread and Wine doth not cease P. I thought I should find you tripping Here you put a Fob-head of the Church upon us For the Author of the single Sheet saith this was another Gelasius as is prov'd at large by Bellarmin Pr. In truth I am ashamed of the Ignorance of such small Authors who will be medling with things they understand not For this Writer since Bellarmin's time hath been evidently proved from Testimonies of
Antiquity such as Fulgentius and John the second to have been Pope Gelasius and that by some of the most learned Persons of the Roman Communion such as Cardinal Du Perron Petavius Sirmondus and others P. Have you any more that talk at this rate Pr. Yes What think you of a Patriarch of Antioch who useth the same Similitude for the same purpose and he affirms that the sensible Substance still continues in the Eucharist tho it hath Divine Grace joyned with it And I pray now tell me seriously did the Tradition of Transubstantiation lie unquestion'd and quiet all this while when we have three Patriarchs of Constantinople Rome and Antioch expresly against it and one of them owned by your Selves to be Head of the Church and held by many to be Infallible especially when he teaches the Church which he doth if ever when he declares against Hereticks P. I know not what to say unless by Nature and Substance they meant Qualities and Properties Pr. I have evidently proved that could not be their meaning P. But I am told Monsieur Arnaud in his elaborate Defence against Claude goes that way and he saith The Eutychians and Apollinarists did not absolutely deny any Substance to remain in Christ's Body but not so as to be endued with such Properties as ours have Pr. I grant this is the main of his Defence but I confess Monsieur Arnaud hath not so much Authority with me as a General Council which declared the contrary viz. That the Eutychians were condemned for not holding two Substances or Natures in Christ after the Union And Domnus Antiochenus who first laid open the Eutychian Heresie saith It lay in making a mixture and confusion of both Natures in Christ and so making the Divinity passible and to the same purpose others There were some who charged both Apollinaris and Eutyches with holding that Christ brought his Body from Heaven and that it was not con-substantial with ours but Apollinaris himself in the Fragments preserved by Leontius not only denies it but pronounces an Anathema against those that hold it And Vitalis of Antioch a great Disciple of his in discourse with Epiphanius utterly denied a Coelestial Body in Christ. Vincentius Lerinensis saith his Heresie lay in denying two distinct Substances in Christ. St. Augustin saith he held but one Substance after the Union so that he must deny any Substance of a Body to remain after the Union which he asserted to be wholly swallowed up and the Properties to continue Which was another kind of Transubstantiation for no more of the Substance of Christ's Body was supposed to remain after the Union than there is supposed to be in the Elements after Consecration But in both Cases the Properties and Qualities were the same still And it is observable that in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon Eutyches rejected it as a Calumny cast upon him that he should hold that Christ brought a Body from Heaven But the Eutychian Doctrine lay in taking away the Substance of the Body and making the Divinity the sole Substance but with the Accidents and Properties of the Body And for this they produced the Words of Saint John The Word was made Flesh which they urged with the same Confidence that you now do This is my Body And when they were urged with Difficulties they made the very same recourse to God's Omnipotency and the Letter of Scripture and made the same Declamations against the use of Reason that you do and withal they would not have the Human Nature to be annihilated but to be changed into the Divine just as your Authors do about the Substance of the Bread. So that it is hard to imagin a more exact Parallel to Transubstantiation than there is in this Doctrine and consequently there can be no more evident Proof of it than the Fathers making use of the Instance of the Eucharist to shew 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
Interpretation for them Pr. No such matter It is the proper and genuine Sense of their Words as will appear from hence 1. They assert the very same as to the Chrism and Baptism which they do as to the Eucharist 2. That which they say our Senses cannot reach is something of a spiritual Nature and not a Body And here the Case is extremely different from the Judgment of Sense as to a material Substance And if you please I will evidently prove from the Fathers that that wherein they excluded the Judgment of Sense in the Eucharist was something wholly Spiritual and Immaterial P. No no we have been long enough upon the Fathers unless their Evidence were more certain one way or other For my part I believe on the account of Divine Revelation in this matter This is my Body here I stick and the Fathers agreed with us herein that Christ's words are not to be taken in a figurative Sense Pr. The contrary hath been so plainly proved in a late excellent Discourse of Transubstantiation that I wonder none of your Party have yet undertaken to answer it but they write on as if no such Treatise had appear'd I shall therefore wave all the Proofs that are there produced till some tolerable Answer be given to them P. Methinks you have taken a great Liberty of talking about the Fathers as tho they were all on your side but our late Authors assure us to the contrary and I hope I may now make use of them to shew that Transubstantiation was the Faith of the Ancient Church Pr. With all my heart I even long to hear what they can say in a matter I think so clear on our side P. Well Sir I begin with the Consensus Veterum written by one that professed himself a Minister of the Church of England Pr. Make what you can of him now you have him but I will meddle with no personal Things I desire to hear his Arguments P. What say you to R. Selomo interpreting the 72. Psal. v. 16. Of Wafers in the days of the Messias to R. Moses Haddarsan on Gen. 39. 1. and on Psal. 136. 25 to R. Cahana on Gen. 49. 1. who was long before the Nativity of Christ R. Johai on Numb 28. 2. and to R. Judas who was many years before Christ came Pr. Can you hold your Countenance when you repeat these things But any thing must pass from a New Convert What think you of R. Cahana and R. Judas who lived so long before our Saviour when we know that the Jews have no Writings preserved near to our Saviour's time besides the Bible and some say the Paraphrasts upon it I would have been glad to have seen these Testimonies taken from their Original Authors and not from Galatinus who is known to have been a notorious Plagiary as to the main of his Book and of little or no Credit as to the rest But it is ridieulous to produce the Testimonies of Jewish Rabbins for Transubstantiation when it is so well known that it is one of their greatest objections against Christianity as taught in the Roman Church as may be seen in Joseph Albo and others But what is all this to the Testimony of the Christian Fathers P. Will not you let a Man shew a little Jewish Learning upon occasion But if you have a mind to the Fathers you shall have enough of them for I have a large Catalogue of them to produce from the Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and the single Sheet which generally agree Pr. With Coccius or Bellarmin you mean but before you produce them I pray tell me what you intend to prove by them P. The Doctrine of our Church Pr. As to what P. What have we been about all this while Pr. Transubstantiation Will you prove that P. Why do you suspect me before I begin Pr. I have some Reason for it Let us first agree what we mean by it Do you mean the same which the Church of Rome doth by it in the Council of Trent P. What can we mean else Pr. Let us first see what that is The Council of Trent declares That the same Body of Christ which is in Heaven is really truly and substantially present in the Eucharist after Consecration under the Species of Bread and Wine And the Roman Catechism saith It is the very Body which was born of the Virgin and sits at the right hand of God. 2. That the Bread and Wine after Consecration lose their proper Substances and are changed into that very Substance of the Body of Christ. And an Anathema is denounced against those who affirm the contrary Now if you please proceed to your Proofs P. I begin with the Ancient Liturgies of St. Peter St. James and St. Matthew Pr. Are you in earnest P. Why what is the matter Pr. Do not you know that these are rejected as Supposititious by your own Writers And a very late and learned Dr. of the Sorbon hath given full and clear Evidences of it P. Suppose they are Yet they may be of Antiquity enough to give some competent Testimony as to Tradition Pr. No such matter For he proves St. Peter 's Liturgy to be later than the Sacramentary of St. Gregory and so can prove nothing for the first 600 years and the Aethiopick Liturgy or St. Matthew's he shews to be very late That of St. James he thinks to have been some time before the Five General Councils but by no means to have been St. James's P. What think you of the Acts of St. Andrew and what he saith therein about eating the Flesh of Christ Pr. I think he saith nothing to the purpose But I am ashamed to find one who hath so long been a Minister in this Church so extreamly ignorant as to bring these for good Authorities which are rejected with scorn by all Men of Learning and Ingenuity among you P. I am afraid you grow angry Pr. I confess Ignorance and Confidence together are very provoking things especially when a Man in years pretends to leave our Church on such pitiful Grounds P. But he doth produce better Authorities Pr. If he doth they are not to his purpose P. That must be tried What say you to Ignatius I hope you allow his Epistles Pr. I see no reason to the contrary But what saith he P. He saith That some Hereticks then would not receive the Eucharist and Oblations because they will not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Christ. And this is produced by both Authors Pr. The Persons Ignatius speaks of were such as denied Christ to have any true Body and therefore did forbear the Eucharist because it was said to be his Body And in what ever Sense it were taken it still supposed that which they denied viz. that he had a true Body For if it were figuratively understood it was as contrary to their Doctrine as if it were literally For a Figure must
conceive that a Being should be from it self is at least as hard as how one and the same Individual Nature should be communicated to three distinct Persons nay it is somewhat harder since we see something like this in other Beings but we can see no manner of Resemblance of a thing that hath its Being wholly from it self 2. We must allow God to be Omnipresent or else we must suppose him so confined and limited to a certain place as to be excluded from any other and if he can Act in all Places he must either be present in them or his Power must be larger than his Being which is Infinite but after this we have not a Power to conceive how a Being should be present in the whole World and not to be extended and if it be extended how it should be uncapable of being divided into Parts which is certainly repugnant to the Divine Nature I therefore produce these two Instances to let the Antitrinitarians see that what they object in Point of Reason as to the Incomprehensibility of the Mystery of the Trinity will in consequence overthrow the Divine Nature But as there is the highest Reason to believe there is a God tho we cannot comprehend his Perfections so there may be great Reason to believe the Doctrine of the Trinity tho we cannot comprehend the manner of it P. I had thought you intended to explain the Mystery of it and now you tell us it is Incomprehensible Pr. It is a good step to our believing it to make it plain that the Difficulty of our Conception ought not to hinder our Faith. And I have made some advance towards the explication of it by shewing that since Mankind are agreed about the difference between Nature and Person the whole Difficulty comes to this that the same common Nature in Mankind makes three Persons but that it is the same Individual Nature in all the Persons of the Trinity And now let us consider the Infinite Perfection and Simplicity of the Divine Nature and we shall think it unreasonable that it should be so bounded as to the manner of its Communication as the Nature of Man is Every Individual Man hath not only Individual Properties but an Individual Nature i. e. the common Nature of Man limited by some unaccountable Principle that doth make him different from all other Men having the same Nature with himself The Difficulty then doth not lie in a Community of Nature and a Distinction of Persons for that is granted among Men but in the Unity of Nature with the difference of Persons And supposing the Divine Nature to be infinite in its Perfection I do not see how it is capable of being bounded as the common Nature of Man in Individuals is and if it be not capable of being bounded and limited it must diffuse it self into all the Persons in the same individual manner and so this Doctrine of the Trinity is not repugnant to Reason P. But what say you to the Athanasian Creed is not that repugnant to humane Reason Pr. I think not but that it is a just Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity rightly understood P. I see now you are upon hard Points you will stick at nothing and Transubstantiation it self will down with you anon Pr. I doubt that but at present we are upon the Athanasian Creed And I desire but one Principle to clear it which follows from what is said already viz. That what is affirmed of the Divine Nature as such must be common to all three Persons but whatever is affirmed of the several Persons as such must be peculiar to themselves Now this is a clear Principle of Reason and hath no appearance of absurdity in it And from hence the Athanasian Creed will easily be cleared For Eternity Incomprehensibility Omnipotency belonging to the Divine Nature as such we ought to say That they are not three Eternals three Incomprehensibles three Almighties but One Eternal One Incomprehensible One Almighty Because the Attributes belonging to the Persons by reason of the Divine Nature and the Attributes being really the same with it the Nature is the proper Subject of them which being but One we are not to distinguish them as to Essential Attributes but only as to Personal Relations and Properties P. But if the Three Persons be Coëternal how is it possible to conceive there should not be three Eternals Pr. This seems the hardest Expression in the whole Creed but it is to be interpreted by the Scope and Design of it Which is that the Essential Attributes are not to be distinguished though the Persons be And so Eternity is not taken as a Personal Attribute but as Essential and so they are not three Eternals but one Eternal And the great Design of the Creed was to shew that the Christian Church did not believe such a Trinity as consisted of three Persons unequal and different in Nature and Substance and Duration P. But what say you to the damning all those who do not believe it in the beginning and end of it Pr. This is off from our Business But to let you see I will not avoid the Difficulties you offer I will give an Answer even to this The meaning is not that every one is damned who doth not conceive aright of the Difference of Nature and Person in the Trinity or of the Essential and Personal Attributes but that those who set up in opposition to it the worship of a meer Creature as God or the worship of more Gods than one or who wilfully reject this Article of the Christian Faith when it is duly proposed to them are guilty of a damning Sin. For even the disbelief of Christianity it self is not supposed to be the Cause of Mens Damnation but where the Doctrine of the Gospel hath been proposed in a way of Credibility If when this Doctrine of the Trinity is proposed to Mens Minds they will not consider it nor weigh the Arguments on both sides impartially but with scorn and contempt reject it and endeavour to bring reproach upon Christianity for the sake of it and disturb the Peace of the Church about it such cannot be said to receive or believe it faithfully and by such Sins they do run the hazard of perishing everlastingly P. I see you have a mind to smooth every thing relating to the Trinity I wish you would do the same about Transubstantiation But yet you have not answer'd the other great Difficulty in Point of Reason viz. That those things which agree or disagree in a third must agree or disagree one with the other And therefore if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then the Father must be Son and Holy Ghost and the Son and Holy Ghost must be the Father If not then they are really the same and really distinct the same as to Essence distinct as to Persons and so they are the same and not the same which is a Contradiction Pr. And