in the one being intrinsecal and substantial the other extrinsecal and accidental And that Hypostasis is the same with the Divine Nature and yet is most closely united with the Human Nature which is so different from the Divine so that it is incomprehensible by us how in that Union the Natures are not confounded or the Hypostasis divided Pr. Suppose now we grant all this that there is an incomprehensible Mystery in the Incarnation what follows from thence Have I not hitherto owned that there must be something incomprehensible by us in what relates to the Divine Nature And it is the less wonder it is so in the Incarnation wherein an Union is implied between an Infinite and Finite Nature when the Union of the Soul and Body though both Finite is above our Comprehension though we our selves consist of Souls and Bodies so united But what Consequence is it if we are not able to explain this that then we must admit that the same Body may be not meerly in two but in ten thousand places at the the same time i. e. If we cannot explain the Hypostatical Union then all manner of Absurdities must go down with us that relate to things of a very different Nature from it P. I am glad to find you are set at last and that now you have a Difficulty before you which you can never get through Pr. Be not too confident I have only hitherto denied the Consequence as to the Difficulties of Transubstantiation But it is possible that setting aside the Confusion of School-Terms I may be able to give a far more intelligible and reasonable Account of the Incarnation it self than you can ever do of Transubstantiation P. First shew that it is possible and then explain the manner of it Pr. But let us in the first place agree what we mean by it P. By the Incarnation I mean the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature so as to make one Person in Christ. Pr. If this be not possible it must either be 1. Because two Natures different from each other cannot be united to make one Person The contrary whereof appears in the union of Soul and Body to the Person of a Man. Or 2. because it is impossible that an Infinite Nature should be united to a Finite P. How can there be an Union possible between two Beings infinitely distant from each other Pr. Not in that respect wherein the Distance is Infinite but if there be nothing destructive to either Nature in such an Union and the Infinite Nature do condescend to it why may it not be so united to an Intelligent Finite Being as to make one Person together with it For in respect of Union the Distance is not so great between Finite and Infinite as between Body and Spirit P. The Distance is Infinite in one Case but not in the other Pr. I do not speak of them with Respect to Perfections but to Union and an infinite Distance in that must imply an absolute Repugnancy which you can never prove For since Body and Spirit may be united to make one Person an Infinite Spirit may be united to a Finite Nature P. But the manner of the Hypostatical Union is impossible to be conceived Pr. Let the thing be granted possible and the difficulty of conceiving the manner may be as great in the Union of Soul and Body Will you undertake to explain that to me and yet I hope you believe it But let us hear your Difficulties again which you object from Bellarmine P. That there should be but one Hypostasis in two Natures and that in the Union the Natures should not be confounded nor the Hypostasis divided Pr. All these Difficulties arise from the sense of the word Hypostasis Which originally signifies a Real Being and not such which depends only on Fancy and Imagination from thence its signification was enlarged not only to things real in opposition to meer Appearances and Creatures of the Mind but to such a thing which did subsist of it self and had not its subsistence in another as Accidents had So that an Hypostasis was a real Substance which had subsistence in it self But such are of two kinds as the Greek Fathers observe 1. Such as are real Substances in themselves but yet are capable of being joined with another to make up a Person thus the Soul and Body have two different Hypostases and make up but one Person of a Man. 2. It is taken for a compleat individual Subsistence which is not joined with any other as a Part and so Hypostasis is the same with a Person which is nothing else but a compleat intelligent individual Hypostasis And in this sense there can be but one Hypostasis in Christ i. e. one Person tho there be two Natures P. But our Divines say that the Humane Nature after the Union hath no Hypostasis it being swallowed up by the Divine Pr. I know they do but if they mean that the Humane Nature after the Union loses that subsistence which is proper to the Humane Nature it is impossible for them to avoid the Eutychian Heresy condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but if they mean no more than that there is a true Nature but no Person save only that which results from both Natures they then agree with the Sense of the Church which condemned the Eutychians For as much as the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches differ'd in themselves they were both built on the same Ground viz. that there could be no true Nature but there must be a Person and that two Natures could not make one Person From whence Nestorius asserted there were two Persons in Christ and Eutyches denied that there were two Natures P. What doth all this signify but that the Authority of the Church must determine whether there be two Natures or two Persons in Christ Pr. It seems then the whole Business wherein the General Councils were so warmly concerned was only to make an Ecclesiastical Dictionary and to appoint what words are to be used and what not Do you think then there were no such real Heresies as Nestorianism and Eutychianism but only they happened to take the words Nature and Person in another sense than the Church would have Men use them P. I trust the Church for all these things Pr. Then if the Church would have you affirm two Persons and one Nature or two Natures and one Person it were all one to you P. Why not since the Church must determine Pr. What if you had been to dispute with Nestorius and Eutyches P. I would have told them they must submit to the Church about the use of words Pr. And they would have laughed at you for your pains For the Controversy was really about the Truth of Christ's Incarnation as the Fathers proved and the Councils determined which in Consequence was rejected by both of them as I will evidently prove if you have any longer Patience P. I beg your pardon Sir I
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
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
1. That they do attribute Circumscription to Christ's Body in Heaven so as to exclude the possibility of its being upon Earth 2. That they deny any such thing as the supernatural Existence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit P. What do you mean I am quite tired already and now you are turning up the other Glass Pr. Since you will be dabling in these Controversies you must not think to escape so easily I have been not a little offended at the Insolence of some late Pamphlets upon this Argument and now I come to close Reasoning you would fain be gone P. I am in a little haste at present I pray come quickly to the Point Pr. As soon as you please What think you if a Man now should bring an Argument to prove a matter of Faith from hence That Christ's Body could not be in Heaven and Earth at once would this argument hold good Yet thus Vigilius Tapsitanus argues against those who denied two Natures in Christ for saith he The Body of Christ when it was on Earth was not in Heaven and now it is in Heaven it is not upon Earth and it is so far from being so that we expect him to come from Heaven in his Flesh whom we believe to be now present on Earth by his Divinity How can this hold if the Body of Christ can be in Heaven and Earth at the same time P. He speaks this of the Natural Presence of Christ's Body and not of the Sacramental Pr. The Argument is not drawn from the manner of the Presence but from the Nature of a Body that it could not be in Heaven and Earth at the same time And so St. Augustin said That Christ was every where present as God but confined to a certain place in Heaven according to the Measure of his true Body P. This is only to disprove the Ubiquity of Christ's Body and not his being in several places at the same time Pr. Then you yield it to be repugnant to the Nature of a Body to be every where present P. Yes Pr. But what if there be as great a repugnancy from St. Augustin's Argument for a Body to be present in several places at once P. I see no such thing Pr. No His Argument is from the Confinement of a true Body to a certain place And if it be in many places at once it is as far from being confined as if it took up all places And there are some greater Difficulties as to a Body's being distant from it self than in asserting its Ubiquity P. I perceive you are inclined to be a Lutheran Pr. No such matter For I think the Essential Properties of a Finite and Infinite Being are incommunicable to each other and I look on Ubiquity as one of them P. Then the same Argument will not hold as to Presence in several places for this is no Infinite Perfection Pr. You run from one Argument to another For these are two distinct ways of arguing and the Argument from the Repugnancy of it to the Nature of a Body doth as well hold against Ubiquity as that it is a Divine Perfection And St. Augustin in that excellent Epistle doth argue from the Essential Properties and Dimensions of Bodies and the difference of the Presence of a Spirit and a Body I pray read and consider that Epistle and you will think it impossible St. Augustin should believe Transubstantiation P. St. Augustin was a great Disputant and such are wont while they are eager upon one Point to forget another But St. Augustin elsewhere doth assert the Presence of Christ's real Body in the Sacrament Pr. Then the plain Consequence is that he contradicted himself P. But he doth not speak of a Sacramental Presence Pr. What again But St. Augustin makes this an essential difference between a Divine and Corporal Presence that the one doth not fill places by its Dimensions as the other doth so that Bodies cannot be in distant places at once What think you of this P. I pray go on Pr. What think you of the Manichees Doctrine who held that Christ was in the Sun and Moon when he suffered on the Cross Was this possible or not P. What would you draw from hence Pr. Nothing more but that St. Augustin disproved it because his Body could not be at the same time in the Sun and Moon and upon Earth P. As to the ordinary course of Nature St. Augustin's Argument holds but not as to the Miraculous Power of God. Pr. There is a difference between the ordinary Course of Nature and the unchangeable Order of Nature P. Let me hear this again for it is new Doctrine to us Pr. That 's strange Those things are by the ordinary Course of Nature which cannot be changed but by Divine Power but imply no Repugnancy for God to alter that Course but those are by the unchangeable Order of Nature which cannot be done without overthrowing the very Nature of the things and such things are impossible in themselves and therefore God himself cannot do them P. It seems then you set Bounds to God's Omnipotency Pr. Doth not the Scripture say there are some things impossible for God to do P. Yes such as are repugnant to his own Perfections as it is impossible for God to lye Pr. But are there no other things impossible to be done What think you of making the time past not to be past P. That is impossible in it self Pr. But is it not impossible for the same Body to be in two different times P. Yes Pr. Why not then in two or more different Places since a Body is as certainly confined as to Place as it is to Time P. You are run now into the Point of Reason when we were upon St. Augustin's Testimony Pr. But I say St. Augustin went upon this ground that it was repugnant to the Nature of a Body to be in more places than one at the same time And so likewise Cassian proves That when Christ was upon Earth he could not be in Heaven but in regard of his Divinity Is there not the same Repugnancy for a Body in Heaven to be upon Earth as for a Body upon Earth to be in Heaven P. These are new Questions which I have not met with in our Writers and therefore I shall take time to answer them But all these Testimonies proceed upon a Body considered under the Nature of a Body but in the Sacrament we consider Christ's Body as present after the manner of a Spirit Pr. That was the next thing I promised to prove from the Fathers that they knew of no such thing and therefore could not believe your Doctrine Have you observed what the Fathers say about the difference of Body and Spirit P. Not I but I have read our Authors who produce them for our Doctrine Pr. That is the perpetual fault of your Writers to attend more to the sound of their Words than to the force of their
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
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
is done to God only on the account of his incommunicable Perfections and therefore the Reason of Divine Worship cannot reach to any Creature P. Not without Gods Will and Pleasure But may not God advance a mere Creature to that Dignity as to require Divine Worship to be given to him by his fellow-creatures Pr. Wherein lies the nature of that which you call proper Divine Worship P. In a due esteem of God in our Minds as the first Cause and last End of his Creatures and such Acts as are agreeable thereto Pr. Then proper Divine Worship doth suppose an Esteem of God as infinitely above his Creatures and how then is it possible for us to give the same Worship to God and to a Creature For if the distance be infinite between God and his Creatures and we must judg of things as they are then we must in our minds suppose a Creature to be infinitely distant srom God and if we do so How is it possible to give the same Divine Worship in this sense to God and to any Creature P. And what now would you infer from hence Pr. Do not you see already viz. that God cannot be supposed to allow Divine Worship to be given to Christ if he were a mere Creature and therefore since such Divine Worship is required by the Christian Doctrine it follows that those expressions which speak of his being One with the Father cannot be figuratively understood P. But where is it that such Divine Worship is required to be given to Christ in Scripture For according to my Principles the Church is to set the bounds and measures of Divine Worship and to declare what Worship is due to God what to Christ what to Saints and Angels what to men upon Earth what to Images Sacraments c. And if we depart from this Rule I know not where we shall fix Pr. I pray tell me doth the difference between God and his Creatures depend on the will of the Church P. No. Pr. Is it then in the Churches Power to give that to a Creature which belongs only to God P. I think not Pr. Who then is to be judg what belongs to God and what not God or the Church P. God himself if he pleases Pr. Then our business is to search what his Will and Pleasure is in this matter by reading the Scriptures wherein his Will is contained And there we find it expressed That all men should hâ—nour the Son even as they honour the Father John 5. 23. Let all the Angels of God worship him Heb. 1. 6. Blessing and honour and glory and power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lamb for ever and ever Revel 4. 13. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in earth c. Phil. 2. 9. If it were Gods great design by the Christian Doctrine to restore in the world a due sense of the infinite distance between God and his Creatures could any thing be more repugnant to it than in the same Doctrine to advance a creature to a participation of the same Divine Honour with himself So that in plain truth the Idolatry of the world lay only in a bad choice of the Creatures they were to worship and not in giving proper Divine Worship to a Creature for that Christianity it self not only allows but requires on supposition that Christ were God merely by Office and was originally a Creature as we are But I pray observe the force of the Apostles Argument speaking of the Gentile Idolatry he saith it lay in this That they did service unto them which by Nature are no Gods Gal. 4. 8. P. You know I must now personate the Anti-Trinitarian and he answers That by Nature no more is implied than truly and really i. e. God did not advance those Creatures among the Gentiles to that Worship and Honour which he hath done Christ. Pr. Then you make it lawful by the Gospel to believe Christ to be a mere Creature and at the same time to give him Divine Worship which supposes him not to be a Creature and so you must believe him to be a Creature and not to be a Creature at the same time P. How do you make that appear Pr. From your own words for you say proper Divine Worship lies in a due esteem of God in our minds as the first Cause and last End and in actions agreeable thereto then to give Divine Worship to God we must believe him to be above all Creatures as to his Nature and Being and theresore to give Christ Divine Worship must imply our believing him not to be a Creature and to be a Creature at the same time P. But the meaning of Divine Worship here must not then relate to Acts of the Mind but to outward Acts of Adoration in the Church Pr. Were the Gentiles guilty of Idolatry in that respect or not P. Yes but not those whom God requires to Worship in such a manner Pr. Then the Sin of Gentile-Idolatry lay only in giving Divine Worship to a Creature without Gods command which lessens it to that degree as to make Will-worship and Idolatry the same and to blame the Apostles for making such a dreadful Sin of it and disswading Christians so much from returning to the Practice of it For they had the priviledg of giving Divine Worship to a Creature by Gods command which others were damned for doing without a command which makes the Christian Religion not to appear so reasonable as the Anti-Trinitarians contend it is But here are four foul mistakes in point of Reason which they are guilty of 1. In making the Sin of Idolatry so Arbitrary a thing which depends not on the Nature of the Object which is worshipped but on the will and Pleasure of God. 2. In making the Gentiles guilty of a great Sin meerly in wanting a Divine command which was out of their Power 3. In making the Christian Religion to set up the Worship of a Creature when its design was to root out Idolatry 4. In making a Fictitious God or a Creature to be advanced to the Throne of God. Which I think is far more contradictious to Reason than a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the same Nature For nothing can be more absurd than to make that to be God which wants all the essential Attributes and Perfections of God as every Creature must do Such as Self-Existence Eternity Independency Immensity Omnipotency c. What a Contradiction is it to suppose a weak impotent depending confined created God And such every Creature must be in its Nature or else it is no Creature I do not at all wonder to find the Socinians after this to lessen the natural knowledg of God and his infinite Perfections both as to Power and Knowledg for it was their concernment to bring the Notion of God as low as possible that a Creature might be in the nearer Capacity of being made
no Creature could deserve Divine Worship and he deliver'd that as part of his own Doctrine and therefore those Words where he is said to make himself equal with God must be understood of Nature and not of Office. P. But St. John 17. 22. saith that Christ prayed to his Father for his Disciples That they may be one as we are one and that is not by Unity of Nature Pr. I grant it But our Saviour there speaks of a true but a lower kind of Unity or else the Socinians must think every Believer as capable of Divine Honour as Christ himself if they take those Words strictly That they may be one as we are one P. St. Paul saith He that planteth and he that watereth is one 1 Cor. 3. 8. Pr. Who doubts but there are other sorts of Unities besides that of Nature But doth this prove that there is no Unity of Nature between the Father and the Son If we have no better Arguments against Transubstantiation we will give over disputing P. I know you have other Arguments for the Trinity but they prove as little without the Authority of the Church as from those places where Christ is called God as Joh. 1. 1 2. Rom. 9. 5 c. Pr. And I think the Argument from those places very good and strong especially from John 1. 1 2 3. and it seems directly contrary to the whole design of Scripture to call any one God over all Blessed for evermore as Christ is called Rom. 9. 5. but he that is God by Natuce P. How do you prove that John 1. 1. relates to any thing beyond the beginning of the Gospel and that Christ the Word was before John the Baptists Preaching Pr. I desire any one to read the Text impartially and he will find the Socinian sense to be unnatural forced obscure and jejune proving a thing of no moment at that time but the Sense we give to be strong weighty consistent and of very great Consequence at that time when the Cerinthians denied the Divinity of Christ. The Sentences are short the Words lofty and significant the manner of beginning unusual so that any one would expect some great and extraordinary matter to be said in these few Verses but what a frustration were this if after all they intended no more than that altho John Baptist preached in publick before Christ yet that Christ was in being before that Which is a Sense so mean so remote from the occasion of his Writing as it is deliver'd by the Ancients that nothing but a miserable necessity could make Men of Wit and Subtilty to put such a Sense upon St. John's Words P. But they deny there was any such occasion of St. John's writing as the Cerinthians Heresy at that time Pr. I know Socinus doth so but he might as well have denied that there was any such Person as Cerinthus And I think the Cerinthian Heresy not only to have been the occasion of St. John's Writing but that the understanding of it gives the greatest and truest light to the Words of the Evangelist shewing the force and importance of them P. Wherein I pray did that Heresy consist Pr. I shall not meddle with other parts of it but only what relates to the present Subject and that lay in these things 1. That there was a Supreme and unknown Father who was before the Beginning and therefore they called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was the Fountain of all Emanations Iren. l. 1. c. 1. 19. 2. That the World was not made by him but by a Power at a distance from him called Demiurgus Iren. l. 1. c. 25. And in the Egyptian School where Cerinthus was educated the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word was one of the intermediate Emanations between the Father and the Demiurgus Iren. l. 1. c. 23. 3. That this World was in a state of Darkness and Confusion as to the supreme Father of all only some few had some beams of Light from him by which they knew him 4. That Jesus was a mere Man born as other Men are of Joseph and Mary but of extraordinary Goodness Wisdom and Sanctity 5. That the Supreme Father at his Baptism did send down a Divine Power upon him in the shape of a Dove which enabled him to declare the unknown Father and to work Miracles which returned to its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Fulness above when Jesus suffer'd This is a short Scheme of that Heresy as delivered by the ancient Fathers And now let any one compare St. Johns Words with it and he will find his design was to countermine this Heresy by two things 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word was Eternal For the Cerinthians said the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in the beginning but made a great space of time between the eternal Being of the Father and the Emanation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he was in perfect Silence as Irenoeus expresses it l. 1. c. 1. And so in the beginning doth imply the Eternity of the Word But that is not all for he saith it was with God and was God and was the Demiurgus or the Maker of the World and the Revealer of God to Mankind Joh. 1. 1 2 3 4 5 9 10. And so there was no place for those several Emanations between God and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Demiurgus as the Cerinthians said 2. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was Incarnate which he affirms v. 14. And the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us c. and was the only begotten Son of the Father and so he not only cuts off the other Emanations but declares that Jesus was far from being a mere Man. And to this purpose he brings in the Testimony of John Baptist v. 15. and applies what he had said to the Person of Jesus Christ v. 17. Now this being St. Johns design his Words afford a Demonstration to us of the Union of the Divine and Human Nature in Christ when he saith The Word was made Flesh. P. But doth not the Scripture in other places imply that there is a subordination in Christ to his Father which is not consistent with such an Equality of Nature see Heb. 1. 8 9. 1 Cor. 8. 4 5. 15. 27 28. Rev. 3. 12. Pr. The first place is a proof for the Divinity of Christ for the Words are But unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever c. It is true in the next verse it is said with respect to his Office Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee c. But we do not deny that Christ was anointed as Mediator and in that respect God was his God but doth this prove that he that is Mediator cannot have a Divine Nature in Conjunction with the Human The second Place I suppose is mistaken 1 Cor. 8. not 4. and 5. but 6 verse But unto us there is but one God the Father of whom
are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him And this is one of the strongest holds of the Socinians But two Considerations will take off the seeming force of it 1. That the Apostle in his disputes with the Gentile Idolaters concerning whom he speaks v. 4 5. doth utterly deny any Divinity in the Beings they worshipped instead of God when he saith An Idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one He knew very well that they worshipped many v. 5. As there be Gods many and Lords many among them but unto us Christians there is but one God and one Lord i. e. we have but one Supreme God to whom we give Divine Worship and instead of the multitude of Mediators we have but one Mediator and so his design is in opposition to their many Gods to assert the Unity of the Divine Nature not so as to exclude a distinction of Persons but thereby to exclude other Gods as the proper Object of Worship and the Unity of a Mediator in opposition to their many Lords 2. That if this place excludes Christ from the Unity of Nature with God it doth exclude him from being the Object of Divine Worship for it saith That there is no other God but One therefore no Creature can be made God And to us there is but One God the Father therefore the Son cannot be God. If therefore the name Lord be taken in opposition to God then Christ cannot be God in any sense for we must have but One God but the plain meaning of the Apostle was That by one Lord he meant one Mediator by whom alone we have in this new frame of things by the Gospel access unto God the Father The third place 1 Cor. 15. 27 28. speaks plainly of Christs Kingdom as Mediator The fourth place Rev. 3. 12. where Christ speaks several times of my God proves no more than his words on the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me For surely Christ might own a particular Relation to God and Interest in him as he was in human Nature without overthrowing the Divine Nature in him P. But he owns That though he is to be our Judg he knows not the time Mark 13. 32. Which seems inconsistent with the Divine Nature which knoweth all things Pr. The Son there spoken of was Christ as endued with a human Soul when he was upon earth which could not understand a secret so much out of the reach of mans understanding without immediate Revelation But it was not necessary by virtue of the Union of both Natures that the Divine Nature should communicate to the human Soul of Christ all Divine Mysteries but as the human Body was notwithstanding subject to Passions and Infirmities incident to it so the human Soul might continue ignorant of the Day of Judgment in this state both to let us know how great that secret is and that Christ had the proper capacity of a human Soul which could not extend to such things without Divine Revelation P. There is one Argument more which seems to prove Christs Divinity and doth not viz. The making of all things visible and invisible being attributed to him John 1. 3. Heb. 1. 10. Col. 1. 16 17 18 19. Pr. Now I confess this doth more than seem to me to be a very strong Argument and that for this Reason the Apostle saith The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things which are made even his Eternal Power and Godhead Rom. 1. 20. Was this Argument of the Apostle good or not P. No doubt it was Pr. Then the Creation of the World is an Invincible Proof of the true God. P. What follows Pr. Then if the making of all things be attributed to Christ he must be true God but this is plain in the New Testament in which the making of all things is as clearly attributed to the Son as it is to the Father All things saith St. John were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made John 1. 3. For by him were all things created saith St. Paul that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by him and for him Col. 1. 16. Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands Heb. 1. 10. Now compare these expressions with those wherein the Creation is attributed to the Father The world is said to be made by bim Rom. 1. 20. That he hath created all things Rev. 4. 11. That of him and for him and to him are all things Rom. 11. 36. And let any impartial mind discern the difference Therefore we have as much Reason from Scripture to believe Christ to be God as we have from the Creation of things to believe a God. P. But you do not take notice of the different expressions in Scripture concerning the Father and the Son All things are said to be of the Father and by the Son 1 Cor. 8. 6. And that the Father created all things by Jesus Christ Eph. 3. 9. which proves no more than that the Son was Gods Instrument in the Creation Pr. What do you mean by Gods Instrument in the Creation Do you think one Creature can create another How then can the Creation prove an Infinite Power If you believe the Instrument uncreated then you must assert him to be true God by Nature and then we have all we desire P. But the Socinians do not like this Answer of the Arians and therefore they interpret these places of the state of things under the Gospel and not of the Creation of the World. Pr. They have not one jot mended the matter for 1. Where the new Creation is spoken of some circumstances are added which limit the sense to it as when St. Paul saith We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works that we shoul walk in them Eph. 2. 10. VVho could possibly understand this of the old Creation And so If any man be in Christ Jesus he is a new Creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. But in the other places the same Expressions are used which are attributed to the old Creation without limitation from circumstances or from the Context and occasion of them 2. There are some things said to be created by Christ Jesus which cannot relate to the new Creation for by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or Powers Col. 1. 16. How are these created by Preaching the Gospel when they are uncapable of the proper means of it which are the Doctrine of the remission of Sins upon Repentance and the Renewing and Sanctifiing Grace of God P. But St. Paul doth not
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
the courage to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity in point of Reason but I see you are a bold Man and will venture farther than wiser Men. Pr. It may be others have not had the leisure or curiosity to examine a Mystery believed to be so much out of the reach of our Understanding or have confounded themselves and others so much with School-â—erms as to leave the matter rather more obscure than it was before But I shall endeavour to make things as clear as they will bear And that which I insist upon is that the Absurdities are not to appearance so great as those of Transubstantiation And therefore I desire you to produce those which appear the most dreadful P. I shall reduce all to these two which comprehend the rest 1. How there can be three Persons and but one God. 2. How these can agree in a third and not agree among themselves For the first it seems very absurd that there should be three Persons really distinct whereof every one is God and yet there should not be three Gods for nothing is more contradictions than to make three not to be three or three to be but one Pr. I hope now you will give me leave to make an Answer to your Difficulty as distinct as possible We do not say that three Persons are but one Person or that one Nature is three Natures but that there are three Persons in one Nature If therefore one Individual Nature be communicable to three Persons there is no appearance of Absurdity in this Doctrine And on the other side it will be impossible there should be three Gods where there is one and the same Individual Nature for three Gods must have three several Divine Natures since it is the Divine Essence which makes a God. But to make this more plain Do you make any difference between Nature and Person P. Yes Pr. Wherein lies it P. Excuse me Sir for you have undertaken to explain these things Pr. I will begin with Person Which Name was originally taken among the Romans from some remarkable distinction of one from another either by some outward appearance as a Vizard or Habit or some particular Quality or Disposition And from hence it came to be applied to those inward Properties whereby one Intelligent Being is distinguished from another and from those Properties to the Person who had them Thus Person is used even by Tully himself at least twenty times in his Books of Rhetorick and the old Civil Law speaks of Personal Rights and Personal Actions So that the Criticks such as Valla and others had no cause to find fault with Boethius for applying the Notion of a Person to an intelligent Being subsisting by it self and so the Soul is no Person in Men but the Man consisting of Soul and Body having some incommunicable Properties belonging to him Therefore I cannot but wonder at the niceness of some late Men who would have the Names of Person and Hypostasis and Trinity to be laid aside since themselves confess Boëthius his definition of a Person to be true enough but they say it belongs to the Creatures and not to God for it would make three Gods. Which is to suppose without proving it that the Divine Nature can communicate it self after no other manner than a created Nature can This is now to be more strictly enquired into And it is very well observed by Boëthius de Trin. l. 1. Principium pluralitatis alteritas est That Diversity is the Reason of Plurality And therefore in the Trinity so far as they are different they are three i. e. in regard of Personal Properties and Relations but so far as they agree they are but O N E that is as to the Divine Nature It is very true that according to Arithmetick Three cannot be One nor One Three but we must distinguish between the bare Numeration and the Things numbred The repetition of three Units certainly makes three distinct Numbers but it doth not make three Persons to be three Natures And therefore as to the Things themselves we must go from the bare Numbers to consider their Nature Where-ever there is a real distinction we may multiply the Number tho the Subject be but One. As suppose we say the Soul hath three Faculties Understanding Will and Memory we may without the least absurdity say there are Three and One and those three not confounded with each other and yet there is but One Soul. P. But the Socinians object that there is a difference between three Properties and three distinct Persons because a Person is an Individual Being and so three Persons must be three Individual Beings and therefore as there is but one Divine Being there can be but one Person Pr. This is the main strength of the Cause to which I answer That altho a Person be an Individual Being yet it implies two Things in it 1. Something common with others of the same Nature as three Men have one and the same Nature tho they be three Persons 2. Something peculiar and incommunicate to any other so that John cannot be Peter nor Peter James P. But what is it which makes one not to be the other when they have the same common Nature Pr. You ask a hard Question viz. about the Principle of Individuation but if it be so hard to resolve it as to created Beings there is certainly far less Reason for us to be unsatisfied if it appear difficult to clear the Difference of Nature and Person in an infinite Being Yet all Mankind are agreed in the Thing viz. That there is a Community of the same Nature and a real Distinction of Persons among Men tho they cannot tell what that is which discriminates the Humane Nature in John from the same Humane Nature in Peter and James And it is observable that as Beings arise in Perfection above each other it is still so much harder to assign that which is called the Principle of Individuation In gross and material Beings we can discern a number of Accidents or peculiar Modes and Properties which distinguish them from each other but it is much harder to assign it in Spiritual and Intellectual Beings whose Natures and Differences lie not so open to our Understandings If so be then it appears more difficult in an infinite and incomprehensible Being what Cause have we to wonder at it But we must always make a difference between what we have reason to believe and what we have a power to conceive Altho we have all the Reason in the World to believe that there is a God i. e. a Being Infinite in all Perfections yet we must yield that his Essential Attributes are above our comprehension As for Instance 1. We must believe God to be Eternal or we cannot believe him to be God. For if he once were not it is impossible he should ever be And therefore we conclude necessary Existence to be an Essential Attribute of the Divine Nature But then how to
conceive that a Being should be from it self is at least as hard as how one and the same Individual Nature should be communicated to three distinct Persons nay it is somewhat harder since we see something like this in other Beings but we can see no manner of Resemblance of a thing that hath its Being wholly from it self 2. We must allow God to be Omnipresent or else we must suppose him so confined and limited to a certain place as to be excluded from any other and if he can Act in all Places he must either be present in them or his Power must be larger than his Being which is Infinite but after this we have not a Power to conceive how a Being should be present in the whole World and not to be extended and if it be extended how it should be uncapable of being divided into Parts which is certainly repugnant to the Divine Nature I therefore produce these two Instances to let the Antitrinitarians see that what they object in Point of Reason as to the Incomprehensibility of the Mystery of the Trinity will in consequence overthrow the Divine Nature But as there is the highest Reason to believe there is a God tho we cannot comprehend his Perfections so there may be great Reason to believe the Doctrine of the Trinity tho we cannot comprehend the manner of it P. I had thought you intended to explain the Mystery of it and now you tell us it is Incomprehensible Pr. It is a good step to our believing it to make it plain that the Difficulty of our Conception ought not to hinder our Faith. And I have made some advance towards the explication of it by shewing that since Mankind are agreed about the difference between Nature and Person the whole Difficulty comes to this that the same common Nature in Mankind makes three Persons but that it is the same Individual Nature in all the Persons of the Trinity And now let us consider the Infinite Perfection and Simplicity of the Divine Nature and we shall think it unreasonable that it should be so bounded as to the manner of its Communication as the Nature of Man is Every Individual Man hath not only Individual Properties but an Individual Nature i. e. the common Nature of Man limited by some unaccountable Principle that doth make him different from all other Men having the same Nature with himself The Difficulty then doth not lie in a Community of Nature and a Distinction of Persons for that is granted among Men but in the Unity of Nature with the difference of Persons And supposing the Divine Nature to be infinite in its Perfection I do not see how it is capable of being bounded as the common Nature of Man in Individuals is and if it be not capable of being bounded and limited it must diffuse it self into all the Persons in the same individual manner and so this Doctrine of the Trinity is not repugnant to Reason P. But what say you to the Athanasian Creed is not that repugnant to humane Reason Pr. I think not but that it is a just Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity rightly understood P. I see now you are upon hard Points you will stick at nothing and Transubstantiation it self will down with you anon Pr. I doubt that but at present we are upon the Athanasian Creed And I desire but one Principle to clear it which follows from what is said already viz. That what is affirmed of the Divine Nature as such must be common to all three Persons but whatever is affirmed of the several Persons as such must be peculiar to themselves Now this is a clear Principle of Reason and hath no appearance of absurdity in it And from hence the Athanasian Creed will easily be cleared For Eternity Incomprehensibility Omnipotency belonging to the Divine Nature as such we ought to say That they are not three Eternals three Incomprehensibles three Almighties but One Eternal One Incomprehensible One Almighty Because the Attributes belonging to the Persons by reason of the Divine Nature and the Attributes being really the same with it the Nature is the proper Subject of them which being but One we are not to distinguish them as to Essential Attributes but only as to Personal Relations and Properties P. But if the Three Persons be Coëternal how is it possible to conceive there should not be three Eternals Pr. This seems the hardest Expression in the whole Creed but it is to be interpreted by the Scope and Design of it Which is that the Essential Attributes are not to be distinguished though the Persons be And so Eternity is not taken as a Personal Attribute but as Essential and so they are not three Eternals but one Eternal And the great Design of the Creed was to shew that the Christian Church did not believe such a Trinity as consisted of three Persons unequal and different in Nature and Substance and Duration P. But what say you to the damning all those who do not believe it in the beginning and end of it Pr. This is off from our Business But to let you see I will not avoid the Difficulties you offer I will give an Answer even to this The meaning is not that every one is damned who doth not conceive aright of the Difference of Nature and Person in the Trinity or of the Essential and Personal Attributes but that those who set up in opposition to it the worship of a meer Creature as God or the worship of more Gods than one or who wilfully reject this Article of the Christian Faith when it is duly proposed to them are guilty of a damning Sin. For even the disbelief of Christianity it self is not supposed to be the Cause of Mens Damnation but where the Doctrine of the Gospel hath been proposed in a way of Credibility If when this Doctrine of the Trinity is proposed to Mens Minds they will not consider it nor weigh the Arguments on both sides impartially but with scorn and contempt reject it and endeavour to bring reproach upon Christianity for the sake of it and disturb the Peace of the Church about it such cannot be said to receive or believe it faithfully and by such Sins they do run the hazard of perishing everlastingly P. I see you have a mind to smooth every thing relating to the Trinity I wish you would do the same about Transubstantiation But yet you have not answer'd the other great Difficulty in Point of Reason viz. That those things which agree or disagree in a third must agree or disagree one with the other And therefore if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then the Father must be Son and Holy Ghost and the Son and Holy Ghost must be the Father If not then they are really the same and really distinct the same as to Essence distinct as to Persons and so they are the same and not the same which is a Contradiction Pr. And
now I think you have drawn out the most refined Spirits of Socinianism to make the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation parallel because you say it implies a Contradiction which is the nearest Parallel you have yet offered at But this terrible Argument is grounded on the same Supposition viz. That the Divine Essence is no more capable of communicating it self to three distinct Persons than any created Being is The Reason of that Axiom being that created Things by reason of their finite Nature cannot diffuse or communicate themselves to more than one and therefore those which agree in a Third must agree together but supposing it possible that the same finite Nature could extend it self to several Individuals it would be presently answered the Axiom did hold only where they did adequately and reciprocally agree and not where they did agree only in Essence but differ'd in the manner of Subsistence For where a different manner of Subsistence is supposed possible in the same Individual Nature the Agreement in that cannot take away that Difference which is consistent with it which we attribute to the unlimitedness and perfection of the Divine Nature P. But you can bring no other Instance but the thing in Question and therefore this is a Petitio Principii or taking that for granted which is in Dispute Pr. I do not think it to be so where the Reason is assigned from the peculiar Properties of the Divine Nature to which there can be no parallel And I think it very unreasonable in the Socinians to send us to created Beings for the Rules and Measures of our Judgment concerning a Being acknowledged to be Infinite P. Are not the Divine Persons Infinite as well as the Divine Nature and therefore as created Persons do take in the whole Nature so infinite Persons will do the infinite Nature Pr. No question but the Persons are infinite in regard of the Nature which is so but if an infinite Nature be communicable to more Persons than One every such Person cannot appropriate the whole Nature to it self P. If the difference be on the account of Infinity then there must be an infinite number of Persons in the Divine Essence Pr. I answer that infiniteness of Number is no Perfection and as to the number of Persons we follow not our own Conjectures nor the Authority of the Church but Divine Revelation which hath assured us that there is but one God and yet there are three that are one Which depends not meerly on the place of St. John but the Form of Baptism is remarkable to this purpose which joyns together the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost without any other distinction besides that of Order and Relation And it is against the fundamental design of Christianity to joyn any Created Beings together with God in so solemn an Act of Religion And St. Paul joyns them together in his Benediction The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love of God and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all Amen 2 Cor. 12. 14. From whence the Christian Church hath always believed a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature P. You have taken a great deal of pains to clear the Doctrine of the Trinity from any absurdity in point of Reason why should you not do as much now as to Transubstantiation Pr. In plain truth because I cannot for here lies a vast difference between them In the Trinity we consider'd an Infinite Being to which no bounds can be set without destroying its Nature but in Transubstantiation we suppose a true finite Body which hath its natural bounds and limits to one certain Place and yet you will and must suppose this Body to be equally present in many thousand distant Places at the same time which implies so great a Repugnancy to the very Nature of a Body that I can by no means give my Assent to it P. Alas Is this it which chokes your Reason so that you cannot swallow the Doctrine of the Church in this matter You do not consider that tho we allow nothing Infinite in the Body it self yet we suppose an Infinite Power to be imploy'd about it and an Infinite Power may produce things above our Comprehensions about Bodies in themselves finite Pr. This is the utmost your Cause will bear but I pray tell me Is there any such thing as a Repugnancy in the Nature of things or not i. e. Are there not some things which are endued with such Properties that if you alter them you destroy their very Nature as to suppose an indivisible Line a Triangle without Lines a Body without Dimensions P. Hold a little a Body must have Dimensions belonging to it but it is not necessary it should have those Dimensions where-ever it is present For it may be present in one Place as a Body and in another after the manner of a Spirit Pr. You might as well have said a Body may be consider'd two ways as it is a Body and as it is not a Body for there can be no Body where there are no Dimensions proper to it P. See how you are mistaken for it is 〈…〉 the Dimensions which seem to hinder a Body being in 〈◊〉 places at once but its Unity as Bellarmin well observe◠Pr. I say both of them 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 Body can no more be without it◠Dimensions than a Line without Divisibility P. I grant that naturally it cannot but by Divine Power it may Pr. Will you make the Power of God to change the Essential Properties of things while the things themselves remain in their true Nature You may as well say that naturally Man is a Reasonable Creature but by Divine Power he may be a true Man and yet want the Faculty of Reasoning That naturally two and two make four but God can make two and two to be joyned together in a supernatural manner so as that four shall not result from them that tho naturally speaking white-washing a Wall makes it look white yet by an extraordinary Power there may be the presence of all things which make a Wall white yet it shall not do so just so it is to make a Body present and yet to have no Dimensions of a Body Is there any real difference between the Nature of a Body and Spirit Wherein lies it Is it not as repugnant for a Body to be after the manner of a Spirit as for a Body and Spirit to be the same P. All this proceeds upon not considering the difference between the Essential Extension of a Body and that which is quantitative and hath relation to Place Pr. The Essential Extension of a Body without Quantity is Non-sense and a Contradiction For it is to make a Body extended and not extended at the same time I pray tell me what you mean by a Body as it is opposed to a Spirit P. I mean as all Mankind do such a Substance which consists of Parts extended and divisible
Pr. Then being extended and divisible are the natural and essential Properties of a Body And therefore to suppose a Body not to be extended and divisible is to suppose it not to be a Body which is a plain Contradiction P. You are to distinguish between the Intrinsecal Quantity which is an inseparable Property of a Body and the Extrinsecal Relation it hath to a Place Pr. Intrinsecal Quantity without Relation to Place is intrinsecal Non-sense For how is it possible for extended Parts to have no Relation to Place P. By Relation to Place I mean when the Parts of a Body answer to the Parts of a Place but by Intrinsecal Quantity I mean that there is the real order and proportion of Parts in the Body it self but it doth not fill up the Place Pr. Then you do suppose the Body of Christ in the Eucharist to have all the distinct Parts of a Body with their due Order and Proportion but to be in the Sacrament after an indivisible manner P. Why not Pr. Do you think it possible for the real and entire Body of a Man to be crouded into the compass of a Wafer with all the difference of its Parts so that no true Part of the Body be missing P. Yes by Divine Power Pr. Do you think a far less thing possible than that viz. that a Man's Head and Shoulders and Arms should be contained entire and distinct under the Nail of his little Finger P. Why not Pr. Then why may not the greatest Body be within the least Why may not an Elephant be caught in a Mouse-trap and a Rhinoceros be put into a Snuff-box For either there is a Repugnancy in the Nature of the thing for a greater Body to be within a less or there is not if not then these mentioned Instances are possible if there be then the supposition of Divine Power can give no relief unless you suppose that God can do things repugnant in themselves i. e. that he can do things which cannot be done But I pray tell me if the very Body of Christ be by Transubstantiation in the Wafer with all its Parts in their due order then the Head must be distant from the Feet and all other Organs in their proper places but this cannot possibly be supposed where there is no measure of distance as Place is and the whole Body is in a point P. I say again there is the just order of Parts considered in themselves but not with respect to Place Pr. Then it is impossible there should be any distance without which it is impossible there should be the order of Parts in a Human Body Thus there is a Repugnancy in the very supposition of Christ's Body being in the Wafer tho there were but one single Wafer but when to this we add that it is equally thus present in thousands of Wafers at what distance of Place soever the Absurdities do increase and multiply so fast upon us that it is hardly possible to imagin any thing concerning a Body which doth imply more than this doth As that one and the same Body should be indivisibly present in many places where it must be divided from it self by so many Bodies interposing so that it is impossible to apprehend how two Bodies can be divided from one another more effectually than such a Body must be from it self if it be present in many places at once P. I pray stop here for reckon up as many Absurdities as you will they are all but the Effects of Carnal Reason and we must captivate our Understanding to the Obedience of Faith. Pr. Then it is to no purpose to argue any farther on the point of Reason and I thought you designed this for one part of your Parallel P. So I did and I still say there are things as hard to make out about the Trinity which you have not yet taken notice of Pr. I pray let us hear them that we may put an end to this Discourse P. What say you then to one and the same Nature being in three distinct Persons which Bellarmin saith is more wonderful than that one Body should be in many Places because the Nature is identified with the Persons but the Body is not so with the Places in which it is present If therefore the same Nature be not divided from it self in the Persons of the Trinity how much more easily may one Body be present in several places and not be divided from it self Pr. It is strange neither Bellarmin nor you should discern the difference For the reason why a Body must be divided from it self being in several places is because it is finite and there being no Penetration of Dimensions in Bodies the interposing of other Bodies must needs divide the same Body in distant places but the Reason why the same Divine Nature may be in several Persons is because it is Infinite and therefore nothing can bound or discontinue it P. You have talked much of Contradictions Is there any greater about Transubstantiation than that of Eternal Generation of the Son in the Mystery of the Trinity for if it be not proper Generation then you cannot infer from it that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father if it be then it must be a proceeding from not being to being and so an Eternal Generation is a Contradiction Pr. It is a Rule in common Reason That all Attributes must be understood according to the Nature of the Subjects And therefore if the Subject here spoken of be of such a Nature as to be uncapable of proceeding from not being to being then whatever is affirmed of it must be so understood as not to destroy its Nature The Term of Generation alone is not it may be sufficient to prove the Son Co-essential with the Father because it might have been used improperly and metaphorically But when from the Scripture it otherwise appears that the Son of God being the Word was in the beginning with God and was God John 1. 1. and we soon after find him called the only begotten of the Father Ver. 14. and the only begotten Son Ver. 18. we have reason to infer from hence his Eternal Generation Which must not be understood in such a mean sense as is agreeable to Creatures but as it is consistent with the Essential Attributes of God of which necessary Existence is one So that by Eternal Generation no more can be meant than such an Emanation of the Son from the Father as doth suppose them to have the same Nature and Co-existence which is best represented by the Rays of the Sun coming from the Fountain of Light if they were permanent and not successive P. What say you then to the Mystery of the Incarnation Is it not more wonderful as Bellarmin observes that there should be one Hypostasis in two Natures than one Body in two Places since the Union is greater between the Hypostasis and the Natures than between the Body and the Places it is