better Foundation in Scripture and Tradition then Transubstantiation For otherwise he was not partial in believing one and rejecting the other and if he did he never understood his Religion and then no wonder that he takes Sanctuary in a Church which requires no use of his understanding B. But to return to the main Point I must tell you I do not think them equally grounded on Scripture Reason or Tradition and indeed you may remember that was the old Point in dispute with us A. b Well Sir to shew you your Error I shall begin with the several Particulars in their Order and so first as to the Tradition of Transubstantiation Now 't is evident That has been deliver'd with less interruption than that of the Holy Trinity That Mystery was question'd in the very Infancy of the Church nay not only so but the Arians prevail'd much against it about the beginning of the Fourth Age. On the other side Transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet a long time and when it came to debate there was no such opposition as that of Arius to call in question the Authority of its Tradition the Church receiv'd it unanimously and in that sense continu'd till rash Reason attempted to fathom the unlimited Miracles and Mysteries of God. h Here is a great mixture of confidence and fallacy Confidence is asserting what is false that Transubstantiation has been delivered with less interruption than that of the Holy Trinity for none of the Ancient Fathers make the least mention of it neither the name nor the thing was known for many hunder'd years after Christ. He himself modestly grants that the Fathers are not half so express in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as they are in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity And when he grants half you may safely conclude they say nothing of it but the fallacy consists in attributing this silence of the Fathers about Transubstantiation to the unquestionableness of the Tradition when it was wholly owing to the Ignorance of the Doctrine It was not opposed in those days because they never heard of Transubstantiation not because it was universally believed which is a reason indeed why it should not be opposed but not why it should never be mentioned Whereas from that opposition Arius and his followers made to the Doctrine of the Trinity in the beginning of the Fourth Century and that great alarum it gave immediately to the Christian Church it is evident that it was the received Faith at and before that time for otherwise Arius would not have opposed it nor Catholick Bishops so Zealously have defended it B. But the Fathers are not half so express in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation as they are in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity A. That 's true and there 's very good Reason for it Transubstantiation has not been a Doctrine so long in dispute and 't is not customary for Men to argue unquestionable Truths And whereas you may think that Transubstantiation has of late receiv'd such shrewd Repulses by your Books I 'le assure you you forget how much the true Catholick Zeal destroys the Seeds of Heresies Do you think that so many Bishops not only of the Eastern but of the Western Church also could be Arians and yet suppose that that Opinion wanted i as Plausible a pretence of Tradition Certainly if you consider that you cannot think to establish the Doctrine of the Trinity by Tradition more than Transubstantiation especially considering the strong Footsteps of that Sect even in the Fathers now extant I would cite you some of them but that they are not so much to my main Design and indeed my aim is Brevity i Arius did not set up upon Tradition but upon a pretence of Scripture and Reason and if Arianism had had so good a pretence to Tradition it is strange it should have been thought so new and surpizing a Doctrine at that time It was never heard of before Arius and that is proof enough that it was no Tradition of the Church though afterwards they endeavoured to force some expressions in the Writings of the Antient Fathers as well as of the Scriptures to countenance that Heresie B. Well Sir 't is true we cannot so well plead Tradition to what you have urg'd and especially when I call to mind k that Arianism was confirm'd by a General Council But we alledge an higher ground we stand upon the Authority of the Scriptures and indeed that is the true Thuchtone of all Doctrine k I hope he does not mean the Council of Nice which was the first General Council and assembled on purpose to Establish the Catholick Faith in this point and to condemn Arius Aâ—d does the Church of Rome own any for a General Council which confirmed Arianism The Council of Syrmium indeed where Liberius Bishop of Rome Subcribeâ— the Arian Confession may bid fair for it if a Council of Eastern and Western Bishops confirmed by the Pope may pass for a General Council but what then becomes of the Infallibility of Popes and Councils and Tradition This is a desperate Man who will not spare the Church of Rome her self nor General Councils if they stand in his way rather than allow any Tradition for the Doctrine of the Trinity A. 'T is true if you will follow the Catholick Church l and take the Scriptures literally you may discover the Mystery of the Holy Trinity in them but if you once yield to Figurative Allusions and Interpretations the Arians will be as much too hard for you as you imagin your selves to be for the Catholick Church m In short both Doctrines will be at a loss and both equally require the Authority of the Church to support them l If the Trinity can be prov'd by Scripture that is all we desire for I am sure Transubstantiation cannot and as for literal or figurative Expositions of Scripture neither of them must be always used but as the Subject Matter and Circumstances of the place require m I thought the Christian Church had been built upon the Faith of the Holy Trinity not that supported by the Authority of the Church unless the Church can support her own Foundation if there can be no Christian Church without Baptism in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost that is without professing the Faith and Worship of the ever blessed Trinity this Doctrine must be believ'd before there can be any Church on whose Authority we must believe it and therefore he has chose the unfittest Doctrine to build on Church Authority that he could have thought on B. O no surely the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is more express in Scriptures than so A. To satisfie you that what I say is Truth because I may represent the Parallel the clearer n I will personate an Arian that Sect so often condemn'd by the Ancient Church and you shall see his Plea against the Trinity is as fair as yours against Transubstantiation And because this is the main
An ANSWER To a late DIALOGUE Between a New Catholick Convert AND A PROTESTANT To prove the MYSTERY of the TRINITY to be as absurd a Doctrine as TRANSUBSTANTIATION By way of short Notes on the said Dialogue Licensed December 7th 1686. LONDON Printed for Thomas Bassett at the George near St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street 1687. A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A New Catholick Convert AND A PROTESTANT Concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation a THIS new Catholick Convert begins well for the first thing he learns is to believe the Trinity to be a groundless absurd and unreasonable Doctrine and then to believe whatever the Church teaches if it be not more absurd than the Doctrine of the Trinity this is a great Improvement of Faith which we Protestants can never attain to for we cannot perswade our Understandings or our Faith to digest Absurdities but let us hear their Dialogue A. You cannot imagine how much I am overjoy'd to see you I have been big with Discourse these three days for want of Utterance You may remember when we talk'd together last b we parted in a Dispute concerning Transubstantiation and the holy Trinity of their equal Reasonableness and Authority I must confess I was not at that time so thorowly arm'd with Reasons to shew you the Parallel But since I have given my self a little leisure to consider of it and I am perswaded I shall be able to give you Satisfaction b This is a little mistake if we may guess at their last Discourse by this Dialogue for the Design is not to prove That Transubstantiation and the holy Trinity have equal Reasonableness and Authority but that neither of them are reasonable or have any Authority Now though we may allow them to make as bold with Transubstantiation as they please yet we cannot but be sensible of that Dishonour which is done to common Christianity by exposing the most sacred and venerable Mystery of it to the Scorn and Derision of Infidels and Hereticks For sure they cannot think it any great credit to the Doctrine of the Trinity that it cannot be proved either by Tradition Scripture or Reason B. Sir you know I am always glad of any Opportunity to gain your good Company but especially upon so good an Occasion I 'le assure you I am not nor ever was an Enemy to Catholick Communion and if I had not too just a Cause I should never suffer my self in that which without reasonable Grounds might be call'd a wilful Schism A. I have no reason to doubt your Integrity and therefore shall not question that I shall only desire the liberty to press my old Argument c That you would rely on the Authority of the Church I must confess you have often question'd the doing of it but I am sure when you shall consider there are Mysteries as well as Doctrines in the Christian Religion and when you know that d Mysteries are not to be fathom'd by Natural Reason you must needs conclude that in some Cases your e safest way is to trust Tradition Now certainly no one can give us so good an account of That as the Church c This opens the Scene and shews the whole design of this Dialogue to bring men to rely on the Authority of the Church and it is worth the while to consider what a notable way this is The new Convert perswades his Protestant Friend to fling away Sense and Reason and Scripture and his own private Judgment and to rely wholly on the Authority of the Church for when these are out of the way we may believe the Church in any thing No saies the Protestant I can't believe that which is unreasonable and absurd whoever tells it me Convert Don't you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity Protest Yes very heartily Convert Why then Transubstantiation it self which you Protestants make such a noise about is not more unreasonable and has as good foundation in Tradition and Scripture as the Doctrine of the Trinity Protest Say you so my Friend then why must I believe the Trinity Conv. Because the Church teaches it and for the same reason you must believe Transubstantiation Protest Hold there Sir what if I will believe neither then I hope I need not rely upon the Authority of the Church Conv. But you confess you must believe the Trinity Protest Yes if it be founded on Scripture and Tradition and do not contradict the Reason of Mankind as I have thought hitherto but if you can perswade me otherwise I will believe it no longer unless you can tell me for what reason I must believe that which I have no reason to believe Wretched men who care not what becomes of Christian Religion if they can but establish the Authority of their Church nay care not how much they dishonour the Church itself for it is no great Commendation of Church-Authority in matters of Faith that the only use of it is to make men believe without Reason or in contradiction to it For it seems were the Christian Faith reasonable there were no need of relying on the Churches Authority at least they would want one of the best Arguments to prove it d There are some Mysteries above Reason none contrary to it as Transubstantiation is e The universal Tradition of the Church in conjunction with Scripture I grant is a very good Foundation for our Faith but what shall we do when there is no certain Tradition as he proves there is not for the Doctrine of the Trinity for though we should allow that the safest way is to receive these Traditions from the Church yet we cannot receive them from her if she have them not and she cannot have them if there be none and we must conclude there are none if they be not visible For the Churches word whatever Authority it have is not Tradition B. But Sir to be short What relation has this to the present Parallel of the Trinity and Transubstantiation The Authority of the Church is another Point as disputable as That A. Very much For as f These two Doctrines have equal ground from Scripture Reason and Tradition so ' is there the same Obligation of your receiving one as well as the other And indeed I have since wonder'd at my own Profession g while a Protestant to think how blind and partial I was But I must confess because we are in a Dispute it is better laying by such aggravating Circumstances and indeed I cannot but be sensible what Prejudices such Discourses always make and therefore I shall speak nothing more of that nature f That is none at all as he attempts to prove and if the Trinity have no better then Transubstantiation it has none and then let him show how we are obliged to believe either as I observed before g For what for not believing Transubstantiation as well as the Trinity Did he then while a Protestant believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be as unreasonable and to have no
Parallel I shall be somewhat the longer that I may give you the greater satisfaction n An excellent part for a Roman Catholick to act We read that the Devil sometimes transforms himself into an Angel of Light but never that an Angel of Light transformed himself into a Devil To Dispute seriously and in good earnest against the Scripture Proofs of the Trinity as he here does though with no great understanding I should think little better then Blasphemy it is what would have never been endured in the Primitive Church and which I think no Christians of any Communion ought to endure for this is not the concernment of any particular Church but of common Christianity But though he can Personate an Arian so well he should consider how he can dispute against him He yields him all the Scripture Proofs for the Trinity as not sufficient without the Authority of the Church the Arian thanks him for giving the Scripture on his side and is contented he should make the best he can of his Church Authority and so continues an Arian still B. I shall be very glad to hear what you can speak to the matter A. o First then I say 'T is highly unreasonable to interpret that Text 1 John 5. 7. That there be Three in Heaven that bear record and those Three are One as likewise John 10. 30. I and my Father are One literally for if we do we not only oppose Sense and Reason but we make Construction directly against the very Scripture John 10. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38. and John 17. 21 22 23. 1 Cor. 3. 8. And what can be urg'd more against us in respect of Transubstantiation B. Very right Sir that Interpretation carries a forcible Reasonableness but the Doctrine of the Trinity do's not wholly depend upon those Two Proofs A. Right it do's not but I can give you further Demonstration in this Parellel A principal Ground of the Trinity is because the Son is so often call'd God in Scripture as John 1. 1 2. Rom. 9. 5. c. Now if we did not comply with the Catholick Church and make a Literal Construction in this Case likewise how strangely should we be confounded by those Texts 1 where this Godhead in Christ is declar'd to be no more than Lordship and subordinate to the Father as Heb. 1. 8. 9. 1 Cor. 8. 4 5. 1 Cor. 15. 27 28. Rev. 3. 12. and John 10. 35 36. B. But Sir our Saviour forgave Sins too A. That 's true but 2 only by a deputed Authority You see when the Sons of Zebbedee petition'd him he could not grant the final Accomplishment of our Spiritual Warfare that was the Father's Prerogative Matth. 2c 23. And tho' he is to be our Judge yet he knows not the time Mark. 13. 31. 1 Tim. 6. 15. B. I must confess these things a little surprize me but however I cannot think these neither the only Grounds that support that Mystery of the Trinity A. No you are in the right there is one strong Proof more the making of all things visible and invisible is attributed to the Son and that expresly John. 1. 3 Heb. 1. 10 and particularly Col. 1. 16 17 18 19. But yet for all that if we do not adhere with the Catholick Church to the Literal Interpretation we are at a loss there too For first 't is plain by the rest of Scripture 3 that the Son is not our only Maker as appears by our Creation attributed to the Father and then if we compare those Texts to Heb. 1. 2 9 10. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Eph. 3. 9. Eph. 4. 5 6. 1 Cor. 15. 27 28. we cannot reasonably attribute more to the Son than his being God's Instrument in the Creation B. But are these the true and only Grounds of the Doctrine of that Holy Mystery A. Yes verily for 4 that we are Baptiz'd in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is no Argument That were as reasonable if understood of Christ and the Holy Ghost as our Spiritual Governours as under the supposal of their being Co-equal with the Father 1 Cor. 10. 2. 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. o I do not think this a proper place nor a just occasion to enter into the dispute of the Trinity What he here alledges has been answered a hundred times over both by the ancient Fathers and Modern Writers both Romanist and Protestants and if he dare say when he has taken off his Arian Vizard that they are not well and sufficiently answered I will be bound to defend Catholick Christianity against this new kind of Liberian Roman Catholick But it would move the Indignation of any good Christian though a Roman-Catholick to see so Sacred a Mystery made the Subject of Wit and Criticism and little better then Drollery 1 that Christ cannot be God because he is Lord as if he could not be God and Lord too that he is not the Second Person in the Trinity because he is not the first and therefore as a Son especially as a Mediator subordinate to his Father 2 That he forgives Sins only as Priests do by a deputed Authority 3 That he did not make the World because the Father made it and therefore he is but Gods Instrument in the Creation as if in Creation which is the immediate effect of Divine and Almighty Power there could be any created Instrument 4 That we may be Baptized into the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost as Spiritual Governours when the Ancient Church thought this Form of Baptism to be the Foundation of the Creed and there is no other difference expressed in the Form between Baptising in the Name of the Father and of the Son and Holy Ghost but the order of Persons B. But surely Sir the Arians should have other Grounds to establish their Opinions besides those or else your Parellel with Transubstantiation will not be so demonstrable as you conceive Pray inform me a little further I have a mighty desire to understand a little better their Fundamental Principles A. To satisfie you I shall p First They alledge Christ represented under the Law altogether as an Angel for Eminency call'd the Angel of the Presence Isa. 63.9 Eccl. 5.6 Gen. 48.16 Num. 20.16 Exod. 23.20 21 22. refer'd to 1 Cor. 10. 4 5 9. Further they collect him to be a created Being from Col. 1.15 Rev. 3.14 Psal. 118.23 Isa. 45.8 Ecclus. 1.4 9. Ecclus. 24.9 Saâ— 6.22 23. q And they interpret that Scripture Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee by Acts 13.33 and 2 Pet. 1.17 As to r the Hâ—ly Ghost they prove a vast distance between him aâ—d the Son by John 16.12 13 14 15. and John 15.26 Besides they say he is no where call'd God and urge for the probability of their Opinion Rev. 12.9 Rev. 20.8 2 Cor. 4.4 For as there is an universal tempting Evil Power so we may reasonably conclude there may be a Good Assisting Power without any necessity of his
being God. And further where-ever in the Scriptures there is made any mention of the Three Persons there is always declar'd an express Gradation as 1 Cor. 12.3 4 5. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Gift and Communion from the Fellowship of the Holy Ghost Grace and Administration from the Lordship and Kingship of Christ and Love and Operation from the Father the Supreme God the Original Fountain according to Ephes. 4.4 5 6. p That Christ is called in the Old Testament the Angel of the presence I grant but affirm also that the Angel of the presence was no created Angel but the Lord Jehovah who spake to Moses in the Bush as the Ancient Fathers grant q To be the first born of every Creature does not prove that he is a Creature but that he was begotten of God before any Creatures were made that is before the Creation of the World and that signifies an Eternal Generation for nothing was before the Creation of the World but that which is Eternal and uncreated as is sufficiently intimated in this very Text 1 Col. 16.17 18. and then it is no injury to the Eternal Generation of Christ though we grant that he was begotten again at his Resurrection from the Dead r As for the Holy Spirit he is indeed called the Spirit of Christ and is said to be sent by Christ as he is by his Father but this proves only that he is the Third Person in the Trinity and in the Aeconomy of Mans Salvation acts as a Vicarious power to Christ the Redeemer But his very Office to Inspire and Sanctifie and dwell in the whole Christian Church and every Christian proves him to be God not only because the Christian Church and Christians are his Temple but because no Created Spirit can dwell in all Christians For what this Convert alledges of an universal tempting evil power is no better than Manichism or to assert an evil God. For an universal power is God and did one Devil tempt and possâ—ss all bad Men as one and the same Holy Spirit dwells in all good Men he would bâ— an omnipresent and infinite Devil which is what the Manichees call an evil God and sure this is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which is a sign that our Author is but a new Convert B. I must confess Sir these Opinions seem to make it necessary for us in that Doctrine too to trust to the Authority of the Catholick Church and I shall take time to consider a little upon them But pray Sir what say you to the Reasons of the two Doctrines A. Really s Sir I must tell you I think that Parellel much the easiest 'T is strange new Arithmetick to a man to tell him Three distinct Persons are one and the same Individual Nature and then to call such a one the most Pure and Simple Being and that especially when they are declar'd to have various Intellectual Powers as appears by John 16.12 13 14 15. and Mark 13.31 1 Tim. 6.15 Acts 1.7 For my part I cannot tell well how the Prejudice of Education could possibly digest a thing so unreasonable were it not a Divine Mystery I am sure t to my carnal Reason there may be as well Three Hundred Persons in the Godhead as Three and I know not what can be said of Transubstantiation that is seemingly more absurd than That B. I must confess Sir I have had strange confus'd and surprizing Thoughts of it my self but I always apprehended the Christian Church a sufficient Guide A. If you did Sir pray consider who that Catholick Mother is you so obey'd and as you have receiv'd the Trinity so receive a Doctrine equally as reasonable and deliver'd by Her Transubstantiation I know the Ingenuousness of your Temper and you promis'd me at first not to be a wilful Schismatick and therefore I have hopes my Reasons and your Consideration will be sufficient to reduce you to Catholick Communion B. Sir I shall consider of it but as yet you only talk'd to me at large I shall desire one Favour of you before we part Pray state the Parallel a little shorter I shall the better remember it A. Well Sir I shall First the Tradition of one Doctrine cannot be stronger than another where both have been at least equally question'd Secondly 'T is as reasonable to take This is my Body literally as it is to take these Texts I and my Father are one God over all blessed for ever and By him all things were made without reference to other Scriptures and a Figurative Interpretation And lastly I think to human Reason 't is as equally unreasonable and as seemingly repugnant to say One is Three as it is to say a Body is not what it appears B. Very well I shall desire no more of you now I 'le only takea little time to consider and then you shall know my mind more freely A. Farewel and God give you his Holy Spirit to instruct you s And now we are come to the main Point Whether the Doctrine of the Trinity be as absurd and contradictious as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which God forbid it should be I am sure the Arithmetick is very good for Three Persons and one Nature is no bad Arithmetick To say that there are Three Persons and but One Person and but One Nature and yet Three Natures had been no good Arithmetick but a plain Contradiction that Three are One and One Three in the same respect which God himself cannot make true but Three Persons and One Nature is no Contradiction how incomprehensible soever it may be He has made it a Contradiction indeed by saying That Three distinct Persons are one and the same Individual Nature but whoever before said that the Person is the Nature or that the Divine Nature is an individual Nature or a Nature appropriated to one Person which is the signification of an individual Nature I suppose he had heard somewhere of individua Trinitas and this he mistook for an individual Nature These are indeed Contradictions and new invented Heresies but this is not the Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity t We cannot indeed comprehend how Three distinct Persons should subsist in one Nature for we see no example of it in Nature for in finite Creatures one finite Nature is confined to one Person but a finite Nature I hope is no rule for an infinite Nature and therefore an infinite Nature may be common to more Persons than one though a finite Nature cannot and it may be it is as intelligible how Three distinct Persons may subsist in one infinite Nature as how three distinct Faculties can be in the same finite Soul by which Comparison the Ancients explain'd the Doctrine of the Trinity The Omnipresence Omniscience Omnipotence Eternity of God are as much above our Comprehension as a Plurality of Persons in the Deity and if men will but allow that God is incomprehensible this can be no Objection against the Doctrine of the Trinity