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
Shape because of this No we compare these with the necessary Attributes of God and from thence see a necessity of interpreting these Expressions in a Sense agreeable to the Divine Nature So if other Expressions of Scripture seem to affirm that of a Body which is inconsistent with the Nature of it as that it is not visible or may be in many Places at once there is some Reason for me to understand them in a Sense agreeable to the Essential Properties of a Body 4. There is a difference between our not apprehending the manner how a thing is and the apprehending the impossibility of the thing it self And this is the meaning of the distinction of Things above our Reason and contrary to our Reason If the Question be how the same individual Nature can be communicated to three distinct Persons We may justly answer we cannot apprehend the manner of it no more than we can the Divine Immensity or an Infinite Amplitude without Extension But if any go about to prove there is an impossibility in the thing he must prove that the Divine Nature can communicate it self no otherwise than a finite individual Nature can For all acknowledg the same common Nature may be communicated to three Persons and so the whole Controversie rests on this single Point as to Reason whether the Divine Nature and Persons are to be judged and measured as Human Nature and Persons are And in this I think we have the advantage in point of Reason of the Anti-trinitarians themselves although they pretend never so much to it P. Good night Sir I perceive you are in for an hour and I have not so much time to spare to hear such long Preachments For my part talk of Sense and Reason as long as you will I am for the Catholick Church Pr. And truly she is mightily obliged to you for oppoposing her Authority to Sense and Reason P. Call it what you will I am for the Churches Authority and the talk of Sense and Reason is but Canting without that Pr. The matter is then come to a fine pass I thought Canting had rather been that which was spoken against Sense or Reason But I pray Sir what say you to what I have been discoursing P. To tell you truth I did not mind it for as soon as I heard whither you were going I clapt fast hold of the Church as a Man would do of a Mast in a Storm and resolved not to let go my hold Pr. What! altho you should sink together with it P. If I do the Church must answer for it for I must sink or swim with it Pr. What Comfort will that be to you when you are called to an account for your self But if you stick here it is to no purpose to talk any more with you P. I think so too But now we are in methinks we should not give over thus especially since I began this Dialogue about the Trinity and Transubstantiation Pr. If you do we know the Reason of it But I am resolved to push this matter now as far as it will go and either to convince you of your Mistake or at least to make you give it over wholly P. But if I must go on in my Parallel I will proceed in my own way I mentioned three things Scripture Reason and Tradition And I will begin with Tradition Pr. This is somewhat an uncouth Method but I must be content to follow your Conduct P. No Sir the Method is very natural for in Mysteries above Reason the safest way is to trust Tradition And none can give so good account of that as the Church Pr. Take your own way but I perceive Tradition with you is the Sense of the present Church which is as hard to conceive as that a Nunc stans should be an eternal Succession P. As to comparing Tradition I say that the Mystery of the Trinity was questioned in the very Infancy of the Church and the Arians prevail'd much against it in the beginning of the fourth Age but Transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet for a long time and when it came into debate there was no such opposition as that of Arius to call in question the Authority of its Tradition the Church received it unanimously and in that Sense continued till rash Reason attempted to fathom the unlimited Miracles and Mysteries of God. Pr. I stand amazed at the boldness of this Assertion But I find your present Writers are very little vers'd in Antiquity which makes them offer things concerning the Ancient Church especially as to Transubstantiation which those who had been modest and learned would have been ashamed of P. I hope I may make use of them to justify my self tho you slight them I mean the Consensus Veterum the Nubes Testium and the single Sheet about Transubstantiation Pr. Take them all and as many more as you please I am sure you can never prove Transubstantiation to have been and the Trinity not to have been the constant Belief of the Primitive Church P. Let me manage my own Argument first Pr. All the Reason in the World. P. My Argument is That the Doctrine of the Trinity met with far more Opposition than Transubstantiation did Pr. Good Reason for it because it was never heard of then You may as well say the Tradition of the Circulation of the Blood lay very quiet from the days of Hippocrates to the time of Parisanus Who was there that opposed things before they were thought of P. That is your great Mistake for Transubstantiation was very well known but they did not happen to speak so much of it because it was not opposed Pr. But how is it possible for you to know it was so well known if they spake not of it P. I did not say they did not speak of it but not so much or not half so express because it is not customary for Men to argue unquestionable Truths Pr. But still how shall it be known that the Church received this Doctrine unanimously if they do not speak expresly of it But since you offer at no Proof of your Assertion I will make a fair offer to you and undertake to prove That the Fathers spake expresly against it P. How is that Expresly against it God forbid Pr. Make of it what you please and answer what you can I begin with my Proofs P. Nay then we are in for all Night I am now full of business and cannot hearken to tedious Proofs out of the Fathers which have been canvassed a hundred times Pr. I will be as short as I can and I promise you not to transcribe any that have hitherto written nor to urge you with any spurious Writer or lame Citation at second or third hand and I shall produce nothing but what I have read considered and weighed in the Authors themselves P. Since it must be so let me hear your doubty Arguments which I cannot as well turn against the Trinity For that is
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
is done to God only on the account of his incommunicable Perfections and therefore the Reason of Divine Worship cannot reach to any Creature P. Not without Gods Will and Pleasure But may not God advance a mere Creature to that Dignity as to require Divine Worship to be given to him by his fellow-creatures Pr. Wherein lies the nature of that which you call proper Divine Worship P. In a due esteem of God in our Minds as the first Cause and last End of his Creatures and such Acts as are agreeable thereto Pr. Then proper Divine Worship doth suppose an Esteem of God as infinitely above his Creatures and how then is it possible for us to give the same Worship to God and to a Creature For if the distance be infinite between God and his Creatures and we must judg of things as they are then we must in our minds suppose a Creature to be infinitely distant srom God and if we do so How is it possible to give the same Divine Worship in this sense to God and to any Creature P. And what now would you infer from hence Pr. Do not you see already viz. that God cannot be supposed to allow Divine Worship to be given to Christ if he were a mere Creature and therefore since such Divine Worship is required by the Christian Doctrine it follows that those expressions which speak of his being One with the Father cannot be figuratively understood P. But where is it that such Divine Worship is required to be given to Christ in Scripture For according to my Principles the Church is to set the bounds and measures of Divine Worship and to declare what Worship is due to God what to Christ what to Saints and Angels what to men upon Earth what to Images Sacraments c. And if we depart from this Rule I know not where we shall fix Pr. I pray tell me doth the difference between God and his Creatures depend on the will of the Church P. No. Pr. Is it then in the Churches Power to give that to a Creature which belongs only to God P. I think not Pr. Who then is to be judg what belongs to God and what not God or the Church P. God himself if he pleases Pr. Then our business is to search what his Will and Pleasure is in this matter by reading the Scriptures wherein his Will is contained And there we find it expressed That all men should hâ—nour the Son even as they honour the Father John 5. 23. Let all the Angels of God worship him Heb. 1. 6. Blessing and honour and glory and power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lamb for ever and ever Revel 4. 13. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in earth c. Phil. 2. 9. If it were Gods great design by the Christian Doctrine to restore in the world a due sense of the infinite distance between God and his Creatures could any thing be more repugnant to it than in the same Doctrine to advance a creature to a participation of the same Divine Honour with himself So that in plain truth the Idolatry of the world lay only in a bad choice of the Creatures they were to worship and not in giving proper Divine Worship to a Creature for that Christianity it self not only allows but requires on supposition that Christ were God merely by Office and was originally a Creature as we are But I pray observe the force of the Apostles Argument speaking of the Gentile Idolatry he saith it lay in this That they did service unto them which by Nature are no Gods Gal. 4. 8. P. You know I must now personate the Anti-Trinitarian and he answers That by Nature no more is implied than truly and really i. e. God did not advance those Creatures among the Gentiles to that Worship and Honour which he hath done Christ. Pr. Then you make it lawful by the Gospel to believe Christ to be a mere Creature and at the same time to give him Divine Worship which supposes him not to be a Creature and so you must believe him to be a Creature and not to be a Creature at the same time P. How do you make that appear Pr. From your own words for you say proper Divine Worship lies in a due esteem of God in our minds as the first Cause and last End and in actions agreeable thereto then to give Divine Worship to God we must believe him to be above all Creatures as to his Nature and Being and theresore to give Christ Divine Worship must imply our believing him not to be a Creature and to be a Creature at the same time P. But the meaning of Divine Worship here must not then relate to Acts of the Mind but to outward Acts of Adoration in the Church Pr. Were the Gentiles guilty of Idolatry in that respect or not P. Yes but not those whom God requires to Worship in such a manner Pr. Then the Sin of Gentile-Idolatry lay only in giving Divine Worship to a Creature without Gods command which lessens it to that degree as to make Will-worship and Idolatry the same and to blame the Apostles for making such a dreadful Sin of it and disswading Christians so much from returning to the Practice of it For they had the priviledg of giving Divine Worship to a Creature by Gods command which others were damned for doing without a command which makes the Christian Religion not to appear so reasonable as the Anti-Trinitarians contend it is But here are four foul mistakes in point of Reason which they are guilty of 1. In making the Sin of Idolatry so Arbitrary a thing which depends not on the Nature of the Object which is worshipped but on the will and Pleasure of God. 2. In making the Gentiles guilty of a great Sin meerly in wanting a Divine command which was out of their Power 3. In making the Christian Religion to set up the Worship of a Creature when its design was to root out Idolatry 4. In making a Fictitious God or a Creature to be advanced to the Throne of God. Which I think is far more contradictious to Reason than a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the same Nature For nothing can be more absurd than to make that to be God which wants all the essential Attributes and Perfections of God as every Creature must do Such as Self-Existence Eternity Independency Immensity Omnipotency c. What a Contradiction is it to suppose a weak impotent depending confined created God And such every Creature must be in its Nature or else it is no Creature I do not at all wonder to find the Socinians after this to lessen the natural knowledg of God and his infinite Perfections both as to Power and Knowledg for it was their concernment to bring the Notion of God as low as possible that a Creature might be in the nearer Capacity of being made
Interpretation for them Pr. No such matter It is the proper and genuine Sense of their Words as will appear from hence 1. They assert the very same as to the Chrism and Baptism which they do as to the Eucharist 2. That which they say our Senses cannot reach is something of a spiritual Nature and not a Body And here the Case is extremely different from the Judgment of Sense as to a material Substance And if you please I will evidently prove from the Fathers that that wherein they excluded the Judgment of Sense in the Eucharist was something wholly Spiritual and Immaterial P. No no we have been long enough upon the Fathers unless their Evidence were more certain one way or other For my part I believe on the account of Divine Revelation in this matter This is my Body here I stick and the Fathers agreed with us herein that Christ's words are not to be taken in a figurative Sense Pr. The contrary hath been so plainly proved in a late excellent Discourse of Transubstantiation that I wonder none of your Party have yet undertaken to answer it but they write on as if no such Treatise had appear'd I shall therefore wave all the Proofs that are there produced till some tolerable Answer be given to them P. Methinks you have taken a great Liberty of talking about the Fathers as tho they were all on your side but our late Authors assure us to the contrary and I hope I may now make use of them to shew that Transubstantiation was the Faith of the Ancient Church Pr. With all my heart I even long to hear what they can say in a matter I think so clear on our side P. Well Sir I begin with the Consensus Veterum written by one that professed himself a Minister of the Church of England Pr. Make what you can of him now you have him but I will meddle with no personal Things I desire to hear his Arguments P. What say you to R. Selomo interpreting the 72. Psal. v. 16. Of Wafers in the days of the Messias to R. Moses Haddarsan on Gen. 39. 1. and on Psal. 136. 25 to R. Cahana on Gen. 49. 1. who was long before the Nativity of Christ R. Johai on Numb 28. 2. and to R. Judas who was many years before Christ came Pr. Can you hold your Countenance when you repeat these things But any thing must pass from a New Convert What think you of R. Cahana and R. Judas who lived so long before our Saviour when we know that the Jews have no Writings preserved near to our Saviour's time besides the Bible and some say the Paraphrasts upon it I would have been glad to have seen these Testimonies taken from their Original Authors and not from Galatinus who is known to have been a notorious Plagiary as to the main of his Book and of little or no Credit as to the rest But it is ridieulous to produce the Testimonies of Jewish Rabbins for Transubstantiation when it is so well known that it is one of their greatest objections against Christianity as taught in the Roman Church as may be seen in Joseph Albo and others But what is all this to the Testimony of the Christian Fathers P. Will not you let a Man shew a little Jewish Learning upon occasion But if you have a mind to the Fathers you shall have enough of them for I have a large Catalogue of them to produce from the Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and the single Sheet which generally agree Pr. With Coccius or Bellarmin you mean but before you produce them I pray tell me what you intend to prove by them P. The Doctrine of our Church Pr. As to what P. What have we been about all this while Pr. Transubstantiation Will you prove that P. Why do you suspect me before I begin Pr. I have some Reason for it Let us first agree what we mean by it Do you mean the same which the Church of Rome doth by it in the Council of Trent P. What can we mean else Pr. Let us first see what that is The Council of Trent declares That the same Body of Christ which is in Heaven is really truly and substantially present in the Eucharist after Consecration under the Species of Bread and Wine And the Roman Catechism saith It is the very Body which was born of the Virgin and sits at the right hand of God. 2. That the Bread and Wine after Consecration lose their proper Substances and are changed into that very Substance of the Body of Christ. And an Anathema is denounced against those who affirm the contrary Now if you please proceed to your Proofs P. I begin with the Ancient Liturgies of St. Peter St. James and St. Matthew Pr. Are you in earnest P. Why what is the matter Pr. Do not you know that these are rejected as Supposititious by your own Writers And a very late and learned Dr. of the Sorbon hath given full and clear Evidences of it P. Suppose they are Yet they may be of Antiquity enough to give some competent Testimony as to Tradition Pr. No such matter For he proves St. Peter 's Liturgy to be later than the Sacramentary of St. Gregory and so can prove nothing for the first 600 years and the Aethiopick Liturgy or St. Matthew's he shews to be very late That of St. James he thinks to have been some time before the Five General Councils but by no means to have been St. James's P. What think you of the Acts of St. Andrew and what he saith therein about eating the Flesh of Christ Pr. I think he saith nothing to the purpose But I am ashamed to find one who hath so long been a Minister in this Church so extreamly ignorant as to bring these for good Authorities which are rejected with scorn by all Men of Learning and Ingenuity among you P. I am afraid you grow angry Pr. I confess Ignorance and Confidence together are very provoking things especially when a Man in years pretends to leave our Church on such pitiful Grounds P. But he doth produce better Authorities Pr. If he doth they are not to his purpose P. That must be tried What say you to Ignatius I hope you allow his Epistles Pr. I see no reason to the contrary But what saith he P. He saith That some Hereticks then would not receive the Eucharist and Oblations because they will not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Christ. And this is produced by both Authors Pr. The Persons Ignatius speaks of were such as denied Christ to have any true Body and therefore did forbear the Eucharist because it was said to be his Body And in what ever Sense it were taken it still supposed that which they denied viz. that he had a true Body For if it were figuratively understood it was as contrary to their Doctrine as if it were literally For a Figure must
relate to a real Body as Tertullian argued in this Case And Ignatius in the same Epistle mentions the trial Christ made of his true Body by the Senses of his Disciples Take hold of me and handle me and see for I am no incorporeal Doemon and immediately they touched him and were convinced Which happen'd but a few days after Christ had said This is my Body and our Saviour gave a Rule for judging a true Body from an appearance or spiritual Substance A Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Therefore it is very improbable that Ignatius so soon after should assert that Christ's true and real Body was in the Eucharist where it could be neither seen nor felt For then he must overthrow the force of his former Argument And to what purpose did Christ say That a Spirit had not Flesh and Bones as they saw him to have if a Body of Christ might be so much after the manner of a Spirit as tho it had Flesh and Bones yet they could not possibly be discerned But after all suppose Ignatius doth speak of the Substance of Christ's Flesh as present in the Eucharist yet he saith not a word of the changing of the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body which was the thing to be proved P. But Justin Martyr doth speak of the change and his Words are produced by all three And they are thus rendred in the single Sheet For we do not receive this as common Bread or common Drink but as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made Man had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so also we are taught that this Food by which our Blood and Flesh are by a change nourished being consecrated by the Power of the Word is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate What say you to this Pr. I desire you to consider these things 1. That Justin Martyr doth not say That the Bread and Wine are by Consecration changed into the Individual Flesh and Blood in which Christ was Incarnate but that as by the Power of the Word Christ once had a Body in the Womb of the Virgin so by the Power of the same Word upon Consecration the Bread and Wine do become the Flesh and Blood of Christ Incarnate so that he must mean a parallel and not the same Individual Body i. e. that as the Body in the Womb became the Body of Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit so the Holy Spirit after Consecration makes the Elements to become the Flesh and Blood of Christ not by an Hypostatical Union but by Divine Influence as the Church is the Body of Christ. And this was the true Notion of the Ancient Church as to this matter and the expressions in the Greek Liturgies to this day confirm the same 2. He doth not in the least imply that the Elements by this change do lose their Substance for he mentions the nourishment of our Bodies by it but he affirms that notwithstanding their Substance remain yet the Divine Spirit of Christ by its Operation doth make them become his Body For we must observe that he attributes the Body in the Womb and on the Altar to the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Word For he did not think Hypostatical Union necessary to make the Elements become the Body of Christ but a Divine Energy was sufficient as the Bodies assumed by Angels are their Bodies tho there be no such vital Union as there is between the Soul and Body of a Man. P. I go on to Irenoeus from whom two places are produced one by the Consensus Veterum where he saith That which is Bread from the Earth perceiving the call of God now is not common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one Earthly and the other Spiritual Pr. Very well Then there is an Earthly as well as a Spiritual thing in the Eucharist i. e. a Bodily Substance and Divine Grace P. No he saith The Earthly is the Accidents Pr. Doth Irenoeus say so P. No but he means so Pr. There is not a word to that purpose in Irenoeus and therefore this is downright Prevarication I grant Irenoeus doth suppose a change made by Divine Grace but not by destroying the Elements but by super-adding Divine Grace to them and so the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood. P. The other place in Irenoeus is where he saith That as the Bread receiving the Word of God is made the Eucharist which is the Body and Blood of Christ so also our Bodies being nourished by it and laid in the Earth and there dissolved will arise at their time c. Pr. What do you prove from this place P. That the same Divine Power is seen in making the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ which is to be in the Resurrection of the Body Pr. But doth this prove that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christ's Body P. Why not Pr. I will give you a plain Argument against it for he saith Our Bodies are nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ. Do you think that Irenoeus believed the substance of Christ's Body was turned into the substance of our Bodies in order to their nourishment No he explained himself just before in the same place De Calice qui est Sanguis ejus nutritur de pane qui est Corpus ejus augetur So that he attributes the nourishment to the Bread and Wine and therefore must suppose the substance of them to remain since it is impossible a substantial nourishment should be made by meer Accidents And withal observe he saith expresly That the Bread is the Body of Christ which your best Writers such as Bellarmin Suarez and Vasquez say is inconsistent with Transubstantiation P. My next Author is Tertullian who is produced by the Consensus Veterum and the Single Sheet but omitted by the Nubes Testium but the other proves That Bread which was the Figure of Christ's Body in the Old Testament now in the New is changed into the real and true Body of Christ. Pr. This is a bold Attempt upon Tertullian to prove that by the Figure of Christ's Body he means his true and real Body For his Words are Acceptum panem distributum Discipulis Corpus illum suum fecit Hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est Figura Corporis mei He took the bread and gave it to his Disciples and made it his Body saying This is my Body i. e. this is the Figure of my Body How can those men want Proofs that can draw Transubstantiation from these Words which are so plain against it P. You are mistaken Tertullian by Figure meant it was a Figure in the Old Testament but it was now his real Body Pr. You put very odd Figures upon Tertullian I appeal to any reasonable man whether by the latter words