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
more be without a Subject than Water without Moisture or Fire without Heat or a Stone without Hardness which are so joined together that they cannot be separated Methodius confutes Origen's Fancy about the Soul having the Shape of a Body without the Substance because the Shape and the Body cannot be separated from each other St. Augustin proves the Immortality of the Soul from hence because meer Accidents can never be separated from the Body so as the mind is by abstraction And in another place he asserts it to be a monstrous absurd Doctrine to suppose that whose Nature is to be in a Subject to be capable of subsisting without it Claudianus Mamertus proves That the Soul could not be in the Body as its Subject for then it could not subsist when the Body is destroy'd P. I hope you have now done with this Third Argument Pr. Yes and I shall wait your own time for an Answer I go on to a Fourth And that is from the Evidence of Sense asserted and allowed by the Fathers with respect to the Body of Christ. P. I expected this before now For as the Author of the Single Sheet observes This is the Cock-Argument of one of the Lights of your Church and it so far resembles the Light that like it it makes a glaring shew but go to grasp it and you find nothing in your hand Pr. Then it 's plain our Senses are deceived P. Not as to Transubstantiation for he believes more of his Senses than we do for his Eyes tell him there is the Colour of Bread and he assents to them his Tongue that it has the Taste of Bread and he agrees to it and so for his Smelling and Feeling But then he hath a notable fetch in his Conclusion viz. That his Ears tell him from the Words spoken by Christ himself that it is the Body of Christ and he believes these too Is not here one Sense more than you believe And yet you would persuade the World that we do not believe our Senses Pr. This is admirable Stuff but it must be tenderly dealt with For I pray what doth he mean when he saith he believes from Christ's own Words that it is the Body of Christ What is this It Is it the Accidents he speaks of before Are those Accidents then the Body of Christ Is it the Substance of Bread But that is not discerned by the Senses he saith and if it were will he say that the Substance of Bread is the Body of Christ If neither of these then his believing It is the Body of Christ signifies nothing for there can be no sense of it P. However he shews That we who believe Transubstantiation do not renounce our Senses as you commonly reproach us For we believe all that our Senses represent to us which is only the outward appearance For as he well observes If your Eyes see the Substance of things they are most extraordinary ones and better than ours For our parts we see no farther than the Colour or Figure c. of things which are only Accidents and the entire Object of that Sense Pr. Is there no difference between the Perception of Sense and the Evidence of Sense We grant that the Perception of our Senses goes no farther than to the outward Accidents but that Perception affords such an Evidence by which the Mind doth pass Judgment upon the thing represented by the outward Sense I pray tell me have you any certainty there is such a thing as a material Substance in the World P. Yes Pr. Whence comes the certainty of the Substance since your Senses cannot discover it Do we live among nothing but Accidents Or can we know nothing beyond them P. I grant we may know in general that there are such things as Substances in the World. Pr. But can we not know the difference of one Substance from another by our Senses As for instance can we not know a Man from a Horse or an Elephant from a Mouse or a piece of Bread from a Church Or do we only know there are such and such Accidents belong to every one of these but our Senses are not so extraprdinary to discover the Substances under them I pray answer me one Question Did you ever keep Lent P. What a strange Question is this Did you not tell me you would avoid Impertinencies Pr. This is none I assure you P. Then I answer I think my self obliged to keep it Pr. Then you thought your self bound to abstain from Flesh and to eat Fish. P. What of all that Pr. Was it the Substance of Flesh you abstained from or only the Accidents of it P. The Substance Pr. And did you know the difference between the Substance of Flesh and Fish by your Tast P. Yes Pr. Then you have an extraordinary Tast which goes to the very Substance P. But this is off from our Business which was about the Fathers and not our own Judgment about the Evidence of Sense Pr. I am ready for you upon that Argument And I only desire to know whether you think the Evidence of Sense sufficient as to the true Body of Christ where it is supposed to be present P. By no means For then we could not believe it to be present where we cannot perceive it Pr. But the Fathers did assert the Evidence of Sense to be sufficient as to the true Body of Christ so Irenoeus Tertullian Epiphanius Hilary and St. Augustin I will produce their Words at length if you desire them P. It will be but lost labour since we deny not as Cardinal Bellarmin well saith The Evidence of Sense to be a good positive Evidence but not a negative i. e. that it is a Body which is handled and felt and seen but not that it is no Body which is not Pr. Very well And I pray then what becomes of your single Sheet man who so confidently denies Sense to be good positive Evidence as to a real Body but only as to the outward appearance P. You mistake him for he saith We are to believe our Senses where they are not indisposed and no Divine Revelation intervenes which we believe there doth in this Case and therefore unless the Fathers speak of the Sacrament we have no reason to regard their Testimonies in this matter But we have stronger Evidence against you from the Fathers for they say we are not to rely on the Evidence of Sense as to the Sacrament So St. Cyril St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose Pr. I am glad you offer any thing which deserves to be considered But have you already forgot Bellarmin's Rule That Sense may be a good positive Evidence but not a negative i. e. it may discover what is present as a Body but not what is not and cannot be so present viz. the Invisible Grace which goes along with it and as to this the Fathers might well say we are not to trust our Sense P. This is making an
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
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
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
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