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
God. But those who consider and know what God is and what he must be if he be God will find far greater difficulty in making Man to be God than in believing God to be made Man. For This implies no greater difficulty than meerly as to our Conception how an infinite Being can be so united to a finite as to become one Person which implies no repugnancy but only some thing above our Capacity to comprehend And we confess our selves puzled in the manner of conceiving how a finite Spitit which can pass through a Body can be so united to it as to make a Man by that Union yet we all acknowledg the Truth of this But to suppose a Creature capable of being made God is to overthrow the essential difference between God and his Creatures and the infinite Distance between them Which is of very pernicious Consequence as to the great ends of the Christian Religion which were to reform the World and to restore the Distinction between God and his Creatures which by the prevalency of Idolatry was almost lost in the World The Supreme God being hardly discerned in such a croud of created and fictitious Gods. And this very Argument is enough to turn my Stomack against Socinianism or Arianism P. I had thought all Men of sense among you had been Socinians I have often heard them charged with being so Pr. You see how grosly you are deceived notwithstanding your pretence to Infallibility I do not pretend to any deep reach but I see reason enough to be no Socinian P. Let us return to our Matter in hand What say you to those Texts which are said to be inconsistent with the literal Sense of those before mention'd which relate to the Unity between Father and Son Pr. What Texts do you mean P. What say you to Joh. 10. from the 30. to the 39 Pr. I wonder what it is produced for P. It is said Joh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one now it is highly unreasonable to interpret these words literally because of those which follow Pr. How doth that appear For v. 31. it is said That the Jews took up stones to stone him Which shews that they look'd on him as speaking Blasphemy But what Blasphemy was it for Christ to declare an Unity of Consent between him and his Father which in Truth is nothing but doing his Father's Will Therefore it is plain that the Jews did apprehend more in those Words of our Saviour And they explain themselves v. 33. what they understood by them Because that thou being a Man makest thy self God. Which shews that they thought not an Unity of Consent but of Nature was meant P. But Christ's answer shews that he speaks only of a God by Office and not by Nature v. 34. Jesus answered them Is it not written in your Law I said ye are Gods Pr. I pray go on and see how Christ argues v. 35 36. If he called them Gods unto whom the Word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of him whom the Father hath sent into the World Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God P. This only shews that Christ had greater Reason to be called God but not that he was so by Nature Pr. I pray go on still v. 37 38. If I do not the Works of my Father believe me not But if I do tho ye believe not me believe the Works that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him P. Is it not said elsewhere That he that keepeth his Commandments dwelleth in him and he in him 1 Joh. 3. 24. Would you hence infer an Unity of Nature between Christ and Believers Pr. I do not lay the weight on the Phrase but as it is the Conclusion of the Dispute between Christ and the Jews And it ought to be observed that this was the end of the third Conference between Christ and the Jews upon this Argument The first was John 5. and then from Christ's saying The Father worketh hitherto and I work v. 17. the Jews infer'd v. 18. That he made himself equal with God. In the second Conference John 8. he said Before Abraham was I am v. 58. And then the Jews took up stones to cast at him After this followed this third Conference John. 10. and this runs again into the same point That he being a Man made himself God. And these Conferences were all publick in or near the Temple and this last was in Solomons Porch John 10. 23. a Place of great resort and near the place where the Sanhedrim sate who were the Judges in the Case of Blasphemy Now the force of my Argument from hence lies in these things 1. That Christ certainly knew that the Jews did think by his Discourse That he made himself equal with God. 2. That if it were not true it was notorious Blasphemy and so esteemed by the Jews 3. That such a mistake ought to have been presently corrected and in the plainest manner as we find it was done by St. Paul when the men of Lystra said The Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men for he ran in presently among them and said We are men of like passions with you Acts 14. 11 15. It is impossible for me to think that if Christ had known himself to be a meer man he would have suffered the Jews to have run away with such a mistake as this without giving them the clearest and plainest information whereas in all his Answers he vindicates himself and endeavours rather to fasten those Impressions upon them as appears by this conclusion of the last Conference That ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him Doth this look like correcting a dangerous mistake in the Jews And is it not rather a justification of that sense which they took his words in And in the first Conference John 5. Our Saviour is so far from doing as St. Paul did that he challenges Divine Honour as due to himself That all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father v. 23. From whence it follows that Christ must be charged as one who being a meer man did affect Divine Honour or else that being God as well as Man he looked on it as justly due to him I pray tell me what sense do your Friends the Socinians make of those words of St. Paul Phil. 2. 6 7. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no Reputation c. P. The sense they give is this that he did not make a shew or Ostentation of his own Greatness but studiously concealed it and therein shewed his great Humility Pr. But is there any Greatness like that of Divine Honour and yet this he challenged to himself P. But he knew what the Father designed him for and so spake those things by way of Prediction Pr. He knew
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
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
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
at was to prove a real Union between Christ and his People That Christ was in them more than by meer consent and to prove this he lays hold of those words of our Saviour My Flesh is meat indeed c. But the substantial Change of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body signifies nothing to his purpose and Bellarmin never so much as mentions Hilary in his proofs of Transubstantiation but only for the real Presence But I must add something more viz. that Hilary was one of the first who drew any Argument from the literal Sense of John 6. I do not say who did by way of Accommodation apply them to the Sacrament which others might do before him But yet there are some of the eldest Fathers who do wholly exclude a literal Sense as Tertullian look'd on it As an Absurdity that Christ should be thought truly to give his Flesh to eat Quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset And Origen saith It is a killing Letter if those Words be literally understood But this is to run into another debate whereas our Business is about Transubstantiation If you have any more let us now examine their Testimonies P. What say you then to St. Ambrose who speaks home to the Business for he makes the Change to be above Nature and into the Body of Christ born of the Virgin There are long Citations out of him but in these words lies the whole strength of them Pr. I answer several things for clearing of his meaning 1. That St. Ambrose doth parallel the Change in the Eucharist with that in Baptism and to prove Regeneration therein he argues from the miraculous Conception of Christ in the Womb of the Virgin but in Baptism no body supposes the Substance of the Water to be taken away and therefore it cannot hold as to the other from the Supernatural Change which may be only with respect to such a Divine Influence which it had not before Consecration 2. He doth purposely talk obscurely and mystically about this matter as the Fathers were wont to do to those who were to be admitted to these Mysteries Sometimes one would think he meant that the Elements are changed into Christ's Individual Body born of the Virgin and yet presently after he distinguishes between the true Flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried and the Sacrament of his Flesh. If this were the same what need any distinction And that this Sacramentum Carnis is meant of the Eucharist is plain by what follows for he cites Christ's words This is my Body 3. He best explains his own meaning when he saith not long after That the body of Christ in the Sacrament is a Spiritual body or a body produced by the Divine Spirit and so he parallels it with that spiritual Food which the Israelites did eat in the Wilderness And no man will say that the Substance of the Manna was then lost And since your Authors make the same St. Ambrose to have written the Book De Sacramentis there is a notable passage therein which helps to explain this for there he saith expresly Non iste Panis est qui vadit in Corpus sed ille Panis Vitoe Eternoe qui animoe nostroe Substantiam fulcit It is not the Bread which passes into the Body but the Bread of Eternal Life which strengthens the Substance of our Soul. Where he not only calls it Bread after Consecration which goes to our Nourishment but he distinguishes it from the Bread of Eternal Life which supports the Soul which must be understood of Divine Grace and not of any Bodily Substance P. I perceive you will not leave us one Father of the whole number Pr. Not one And I hope this gives an incomparable Advantage to the Doctrine of the Trinity in point of Tradition above Transubstantiation when I have not only proved that the greatest of the Fathers expresly denied it but that there is not one in the whole number who affirmed it For altho there were some difference in the way of explaining how the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ yet not one of them hitherto produced doth give any countenance to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation which the Council of Trent declared to have been the constant belief of the Church in all Ages which is so far from being true that there is as little ground to believe that as Transubstantiation it self And so much as to this Debate concerning the comparing the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation in point of Tradition if you have any thing to say further as to Scripture and Reason I shall be ready to give you Satisfaction the next Opportunity FINIS BOOKS lately Printed for W. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book Intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto Third Edition An Answer to a Discourse Intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants 4to Second Edition An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply 4to The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry in which the Bishop of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 4to The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation demonstrated 4to A Letter to the Superiours whether Bishops or Priests which Approve or License the Popish Books in England particularly to those of the Jesuits Order concerning Lewis Sabran a Jesuit A Preservative against Popery being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants how to Dispute with Romish Priests The First Part. The Fourth Edition The Second Part of the Preservative against Popery shewing how contrary Popery is to the True Ends of the Christian Religion Fitted for the Instruction of Unlearned Protestants The Second Edition A Vindication of both Parts of the Preservative against Popery in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran Jesuit A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity aed Communion of the Catholick Church wherein most of the Controversies relating to the Church are briefly and plainly stated The First Part. 4to These Four last by William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Imprimatur Guil. Needham
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
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