my Point Pr. I leave you to try your Skill upon them The first shall be from the Proofs of the Truth of Christ's Incarnation and I hope this will not hold against the Trinity And those Arguments which they brought to prove Christ Incarnate do overthrow Transubstantiation effectually So that either we must make the Fathers to reason very ill against Hereticks or if their Arguments be good it was impossible they should believe Transubstantiation For can you suppose that any can believe it who should not barely assert but make the force of an Argument to lie in this that the Substance of the Bread doth not remain after Consecration And this I now prove not from any slight inconsiderable Authors but from some of the greatest Men in the Church in their time I begin with St. Chrysostom whose Epistle to Coesarius is at last brought to light by a learned Person of the Roman Communion who makes no question of the Sincerity of it and faith The Latin Translation which only he could find entire was about five hundred years old but he hath so confirm'd it by the Greek Fragments of it quoted by Ancient Greek Authors that there can be no suspicion left concerning it P. What means all this ado before you come to the Point Pr. Because this Epistle hath been formerly so confidently denied to be St. Chrysostom's and such care was lately taken to suppress it P. But what will you do with it now you have it Pr. I will tell you presently This Epistle was written by him for the satisfaction of Caesarius a Monk who was in danger of being seduced by the Apollinarists P. What have we to do with the Apollinarists Do you think all hard words are akin and so the affinity rises between Apollinarists and Transubstantiation Pr. You shall find it comes nearer the matter than you imagined For those Hereticks denied the Truth of the Human Nature of Christ after the Union and said that the Properties of it did then belong to the Divine Nature as appears by that very Epistle P. And what of all this Do we deny the truth of Christ's Human Nature Pr. No but I pray observe the force of his Parallel He is proving that each Nature in Christ contains its Properties for saith he as before Consecration we call it Bread but after it by Divine Grace sanctifying it through the Prayer of the Priest it is no longer called Bread but the Body of our Lord altho the nature of Bread remains in it and it doth not become two Bodies but one Body of Christ so here the Divine Nature being joyned to the Human they both make one Son and one Person P. And what do you infer from hence Pr. Nothing more but that the Nature of Bread doth as certainly remain after Consecration as the Nature of Christ doth after the Union P. Hold a little For the Author of the single Sheet saith That the Fathers by Nature and Substance do often mean no more than the natural Qualities or visible Appearances of Things And why may not St. Chrysostom mean so here Pr. I say it is impossible he should For all the Dispute was about the Substance and not about the Qualities as appears by that very Epistle for those Hereticks granted that Christ had all the Properties of a Body left still they do not deny that Christ could suffer but they said the Properties of a Body after the Union belonged to the Divine Nature the Human Nature being swallowed up by the Union And therefore St. Chrysostom by Nature must understand Substance and not Qualities or else he doth by no means prove that which he aimed at So that St. Chrysostom doth manifestly assert the Substance of the Bread to remain after Consecration P. But doth not St. Chrysostom suppose then that upon Consecration The Bread is united to the Divinity as the Human Nature is to the Divine else what Parallel could he make Pr. I will deal freely with you by declaring that not St. Chrysostom only but many others of the Fathers did own the Bread after Consecration to be made the real Body of Christ but not in your Sense by changing the Substance of the Elements into that Body of Christ which is in Heaven but by a Mystical Union caused by the Holy Spirit whereby the Bread becomes the Body of Christ as that was which was conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin. But this is quite another thing from Transubstantiation and the Church of England owns that after Consecration The Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ. P. But altho this be not Transubstantiation it may be something as hard to believe or understand Pr. By no means For all the difficulties relating to the taking away the Substance of the Bread and the Properties of Christ's Body are removed by this Hypothesis P. Let us then keep to our Point but methinks this is but a slender appearance yet St. Chrysostom stands alone for all that I see Pr. Have but a little Patience and you shall see more of his mind presently But I must first tell you that the Eutychians afterwards were condemned in the Council of Chalcedon for following this Doctrine of Apollinaris and that Council defines that the differences of the two Natures in Christ were not destroyed by the Union but that their Properties were preserved distinct and concur to one Person And against these the other Fathers disputed just as St. Chrysostom had done before against the Apollinarists Theodoret brings the same Instance and he affirms expresly That the Nature of the Elements is not changed that they do not lose their proper Nature but remain in their former Substance Figure and Form and may be seen and touched as before Still this is not to prove any Accidental Qualities but the very Substance of Christ's Body to remain P. But was not Theodoret a Man of suspected Faith in â—he Church and therefore no great matter can be made of his Testimony Pr. Yield it then to us and see if we do not clear Theodoret but your own learned Men never question him as to this matter at least and the ancient Church hath vindicated his Reputation And he saith no more than St. Chrysostom before him and others of great Esteem â—fter him P. Who were they Pr. What say you to a Pope whom you account Head of the Church Pope Gelasius writing against the same Hereticks produces the same Example and he expresly saith The Substance of the Bread and Wine doth not cease P. I thought I should find you tripping Here you put a Fob-head of the Church upon us For the Author of the single Sheet saith this was another Gelasius as is prov'd at large by Bellarmin Pr. In truth I am ashamed of the Ignorance of such small Authors who will be medling with things they understand not For this Writer since Bellarmin's time hath been evidently proved from Testimonies of
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
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
God. But those who consider and know what God is and what he must be if he be God will find far greater difficulty in making Man to be God than in believing God to be made Man. For This implies no greater difficulty than meerly as to our Conception how an infinite Being can be so united to a finite as to become one Person which implies no repugnancy but only some thing above our Capacity to comprehend And we confess our selves puzled in the manner of conceiving how a finite Spitit which can pass through a Body can be so united to it as to make a Man by that Union yet we all acknowledg the Truth of this But to suppose a Creature capable of being made God is to overthrow the essential difference between God and his Creatures and the infinite Distance between them Which is of very pernicious Consequence as to the great ends of the Christian Religion which were to reform the World and to restore the Distinction between God and his Creatures which by the prevalency of Idolatry was almost lost in the World The Supreme God being hardly discerned in such a croud of created and fictitious Gods. And this very Argument is enough to turn my Stomack against Socinianism or Arianism P. I had thought all Men of sense among you had been Socinians I have often heard them charged with being so Pr. You see how grosly you are deceived notwithstanding your pretence to Infallibility I do not pretend to any deep reach but I see reason enough to be no Socinian P. Let us return to our Matter in hand What say you to those Texts which are said to be inconsistent with the literal Sense of those before mention'd which relate to the Unity between Father and Son Pr. What Texts do you mean P. What say you to Joh. 10. from the 30. to the 39 Pr. I wonder what it is produced for P. It is said Joh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one now it is highly unreasonable to interpret these words literally because of those which follow Pr. How doth that appear For v. 31. it is said That the Jews took up stones to stone him Which shews that they look'd on him as speaking Blasphemy But what Blasphemy was it for Christ to declare an Unity of Consent between him and his Father which in Truth is nothing but doing his Father's Will Therefore it is plain that the Jews did apprehend more in those Words of our Saviour And they explain themselves v. 33. what they understood by them Because that thou being a Man makest thy self God. Which shews that they thought not an Unity of Consent but of Nature was meant P. But Christ's answer shews that he speaks only of a God by Office and not by Nature v. 34. Jesus answered them Is it not written in your Law I said ye are Gods Pr. I pray go on and see how Christ argues v. 35 36. If he called them Gods unto whom the Word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken say ye of him whom the Father hath sent into the World Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God P. This only shews that Christ had greater Reason to be called God but not that he was so by Nature Pr. I pray go on still v. 37 38. If I do not the Works of my Father believe me not But if I do tho ye believe not me believe the Works that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him P. Is it not said elsewhere That he that keepeth his Commandments dwelleth in him and he in him 1 Joh. 3. 24. Would you hence infer an Unity of Nature between Christ and Believers Pr. I do not lay the weight on the Phrase but as it is the Conclusion of the Dispute between Christ and the Jews And it ought to be observed that this was the end of the third Conference between Christ and the Jews upon this Argument The first was John 5. and then from Christ's saying The Father worketh hitherto and I work v. 17. the Jews infer'd v. 18. That he made himself equal with God. In the second Conference John 8. he said Before Abraham was I am v. 58. And then the Jews took up stones to cast at him After this followed this third Conference John. 10. and this runs again into the same point That he being a Man made himself God. And these Conferences were all publick in or near the Temple and this last was in Solomons Porch John 10. 23. a Place of great resort and near the place where the Sanhedrim sate who were the Judges in the Case of Blasphemy Now the force of my Argument from hence lies in these things 1. That Christ certainly knew that the Jews did think by his Discourse That he made himself equal with God. 2. That if it were not true it was notorious Blasphemy and so esteemed by the Jews 3. That such a mistake ought to have been presently corrected and in the plainest manner as we find it was done by St. Paul when the men of Lystra said The Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men for he ran in presently among them and said We are men of like passions with you Acts 14. 11 15. It is impossible for me to think that if Christ had known himself to be a meer man he would have suffered the Jews to have run away with such a mistake as this without giving them the clearest and plainest information whereas in all his Answers he vindicates himself and endeavours rather to fasten those Impressions upon them as appears by this conclusion of the last Conference That ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him Doth this look like correcting a dangerous mistake in the Jews And is it not rather a justification of that sense which they took his words in And in the first Conference John 5. Our Saviour is so far from doing as St. Paul did that he challenges Divine Honour as due to himself That all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father v. 23. From whence it follows that Christ must be charged as one who being a meer man did affect Divine Honour or else that being God as well as Man he looked on it as justly due to him I pray tell me what sense do your Friends the Socinians make of those words of St. Paul Phil. 2. 6 7. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no Reputation c. P. The sense they give is this that he did not make a shew or Ostentation of his own Greatness but studiously concealed it and therein shewed his great Humility Pr. But is there any Greatness like that of Divine Honour and yet this he challenged to himself P. But he knew what the Father designed him for and so spake those things by way of Prediction Pr. He knew
are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him And this is one of the strongest holds of the Socinians But two Considerations will take off the seeming force of it 1. That the Apostle in his disputes with the Gentile Idolaters concerning whom he speaks v. 4 5. doth utterly deny any Divinity in the Beings they worshipped instead of God when he saith An Idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one He knew very well that they worshipped many v. 5. As there be Gods many and Lords many among them but unto us Christians there is but one God and one Lord i. e. we have but one Supreme God to whom we give Divine Worship and instead of the multitude of Mediators we have but one Mediator and so his design is in opposition to their many Gods to assert the Unity of the Divine Nature not so as to exclude a distinction of Persons but thereby to exclude other Gods as the proper Object of Worship and the Unity of a Mediator in opposition to their many Lords 2. That if this place excludes Christ from the Unity of Nature with God it doth exclude him from being the Object of Divine Worship for it saith That there is no other God but One therefore no Creature can be made God And to us there is but One God the Father therefore the Son cannot be God. If therefore the name Lord be taken in opposition to God then Christ cannot be God in any sense for we must have but One God but the plain meaning of the Apostle was That by one Lord he meant one Mediator by whom alone we have in this new frame of things by the Gospel access unto God the Father The third place 1 Cor. 15. 27 28. speaks plainly of Christs Kingdom as Mediator The fourth place Rev. 3. 12. where Christ speaks several times of my God proves no more than his words on the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me For surely Christ might own a particular Relation to God and Interest in him as he was in human Nature without overthrowing the Divine Nature in him P. But he owns That though he is to be our Judg he knows not the time Mark 13. 32. Which seems inconsistent with the Divine Nature which knoweth all things Pr. The Son there spoken of was Christ as endued with a human Soul when he was upon earth which could not understand a secret so much out of the reach of mans understanding without immediate Revelation But it was not necessary by virtue of the Union of both Natures that the Divine Nature should communicate to the human Soul of Christ all Divine Mysteries but as the human Body was notwithstanding subject to Passions and Infirmities incident to it so the human Soul might continue ignorant of the Day of Judgment in this state both to let us know how great that secret is and that Christ had the proper capacity of a human Soul which could not extend to such things without Divine Revelation P. There is one Argument more which seems to prove Christs Divinity and doth not viz. The making of all things visible and invisible being attributed to him John 1. 3. Heb. 1. 10. Col. 1. 16 17 18 19. Pr. Now I confess this doth more than seem to me to be a very strong Argument and that for this Reason the Apostle saith The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things which are made even his Eternal Power and Godhead Rom. 1. 20. Was this Argument of the Apostle good or not P. No doubt it was Pr. Then the Creation of the World is an Invincible Proof of the true God. P. What follows Pr. Then if the making of all things be attributed to Christ he must be true God but this is plain in the New Testament in which the making of all things is as clearly attributed to the Son as it is to the Father All things saith St. John were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made John 1. 3. For by him were all things created saith St. Paul that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by him and for him Col. 1. 16. Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands Heb. 1. 10. Now compare these expressions with those wherein the Creation is attributed to the Father The world is said to be made by bim Rom. 1. 20. That he hath created all things Rev. 4. 11. That of him and for him and to him are all things Rom. 11. 36. And let any impartial mind discern the difference Therefore we have as much Reason from Scripture to believe Christ to be God as we have from the Creation of things to believe a God. P. But you do not take notice of the different expressions in Scripture concerning the Father and the Son All things are said to be of the Father and by the Son 1 Cor. 8. 6. And that the Father created all things by Jesus Christ Eph. 3. 9. which proves no more than that the Son was Gods Instrument in the Creation Pr. What do you mean by Gods Instrument in the Creation Do you think one Creature can create another How then can the Creation prove an Infinite Power If you believe the Instrument uncreated then you must assert him to be true God by Nature and then we have all we desire P. But the Socinians do not like this Answer of the Arians and therefore they interpret these places of the state of things under the Gospel and not of the Creation of the World. Pr. They have not one jot mended the matter for 1. Where the new Creation is spoken of some circumstances are added which limit the sense to it as when St. Paul saith We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works that we shoul walk in them Eph. 2. 10. VVho could possibly understand this of the old Creation And so If any man be in Christ Jesus he is a new Creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. But in the other places the same Expressions are used which are attributed to the old Creation without limitation from circumstances or from the Context and occasion of them 2. There are some things said to be created by Christ Jesus which cannot relate to the new Creation for by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or Powers Col. 1. 16. How are these created by Preaching the Gospel when they are uncapable of the proper means of it which are the Doctrine of the remission of Sins upon Repentance and the Renewing and Sanctifiing Grace of God P. But St. Paul doth not
Pr. Then being extended and divisible are the natural and essential Properties of a Body And therefore to suppose a Body not to be extended and divisible is to suppose it not to be a Body which is a plain Contradiction P. You are to distinguish between the Intrinsecal Quantity which is an inseparable Property of a Body and the Extrinsecal Relation it hath to a Place Pr. Intrinsecal Quantity without Relation to Place is intrinsecal Non-sense For how is it possible for extended Parts to have no Relation to Place P. By Relation to Place I mean when the Parts of a Body answer to the Parts of a Place but by Intrinsecal Quantity I mean that there is the real order and proportion of Parts in the Body it self but it doth not fill up the Place Pr. Then you do suppose the Body of Christ in the Eucharist to have all the distinct Parts of a Body with their due Order and Proportion but to be in the Sacrament after an indivisible manner P. Why not Pr. Do you think it possible for the real and entire Body of a Man to be crouded into the compass of a Wafer with all the difference of its Parts so that no true Part of the Body be missing P. Yes by Divine Power Pr. Do you think a far less thing possible than that viz. that a Man's Head and Shoulders and Arms should be contained entire and distinct under the Nail of his little Finger P. Why not Pr. Then why may not the greatest Body be within the least Why may not an Elephant be caught in a Mouse-trap and a Rhinoceros be put into a Snuff-box For either there is a Repugnancy in the Nature of the thing for a greater Body to be within a less or there is not if not then these mentioned Instances are possible if there be then the supposition of Divine Power can give no relief unless you suppose that God can do things repugnant in themselves i. e. that he can do things which cannot be done But I pray tell me if the very Body of Christ be by Transubstantiation in the Wafer with all its Parts in their due order then the Head must be distant from the Feet and all other Organs in their proper places but this cannot possibly be supposed where there is no measure of distance as Place is and the whole Body is in a point P. I say again there is the just order of Parts considered in themselves but not with respect to Place Pr. Then it is impossible there should be any distance without which it is impossible there should be the order of Parts in a Human Body Thus there is a Repugnancy in the very supposition of Christ's Body being in the Wafer tho there were but one single Wafer but when to this we add that it is equally thus present in thousands of Wafers at what distance of Place soever the Absurdities do increase and multiply so fast upon us that it is hardly possible to imagin any thing concerning a Body which doth imply more than this doth As that one and the same Body should be indivisibly present in many places where it must be divided from it self by so many Bodies interposing so that it is impossible to apprehend how two Bodies can be divided from one another more effectually than such a Body must be from it self if it be present in many places at once P. I pray stop here for reckon up as many Absurdities as you will they are all but the Effects of Carnal Reason and we must captivate our Understanding to the Obedience of Faith. Pr. Then it is to no purpose to argue any farther on the point of Reason and I thought you designed this for one part of your Parallel P. So I did and I still say there are things as hard to make out about the Trinity which you have not yet taken notice of Pr. I pray let us hear them that we may put an end to this Discourse P. What say you then to one and the same Nature being in three distinct Persons which Bellarmin saith is more wonderful than that one Body should be in many Places because the Nature is identified with the Persons but the Body is not so with the Places in which it is present If therefore the same Nature be not divided from it self in the Persons of the Trinity how much more easily may one Body be present in several places and not be divided from it self Pr. It is strange neither Bellarmin nor you should discern the difference For the reason why a Body must be divided from it self being in several places is because it is finite and there being no Penetration of Dimensions in Bodies the interposing of other Bodies must needs divide the same Body in distant places but the Reason why the same Divine Nature may be in several Persons is because it is Infinite and therefore nothing can bound or discontinue it P. You have talked much of Contradictions Is there any greater about Transubstantiation than that of Eternal Generation of the Son in the Mystery of the Trinity for if it be not proper Generation then you cannot infer from it that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father if it be then it must be a proceeding from not being to being and so an Eternal Generation is a Contradiction Pr. It is a Rule in common Reason That all Attributes must be understood according to the Nature of the Subjects And therefore if the Subject here spoken of be of such a Nature as to be uncapable of proceeding from not being to being then whatever is affirmed of it must be so understood as not to destroy its Nature The Term of Generation alone is not it may be sufficient to prove the Son Co-essential with the Father because it might have been used improperly and metaphorically But when from the Scripture it otherwise appears that the Son of God being the Word was in the beginning with God and was God John 1. 1. and we soon after find him called the only begotten of the Father Ver. 14. and the only begotten Son Ver. 18. we have reason to infer from hence his Eternal Generation Which must not be understood in such a mean sense as is agreeable to Creatures but as it is consistent with the Essential Attributes of God of which necessary Existence is one So that by Eternal Generation no more can be meant than such an Emanation of the Son from the Father as doth suppose them to have the same Nature and Co-existence which is best represented by the Rays of the Sun coming from the Fountain of Light if they were permanent and not successive P. What say you then to the Mystery of the Incarnation Is it not more wonderful as Bellarmin observes that there should be one Hypostasis in two Natures than one Body in two Places since the Union is greater between the Hypostasis and the Natures than between the Body and the Places it is
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
Table as a Sacrifice slain for us Thou swearest upon the holy Table where Christ lies slain When thou seest our Lord lying on the Table and the Priest praying and the by-standers purpled with his Blood. See the Love of Christ he doth not only suffer himself to be seen by those who desire it but to be touched and eaten and our Teeth to be fixed in his Flesh. Now these Expressions are on all sides granted to be literally absurd and impossible and therefore we must say of him as Bonaventure once said of S. Augustin Plus dicit sanctus minus vult intelligi We must make great allowance for such Expressions or you must hold a Capernaitical Sense And it is denied by your selves that Christ is actually slain upon the Altar and therefore you yield that such Expressions are to be figuratively understood 2. That he le ts fall many things in such Discourses which do give light to the rest As 1. That Flesh is improperly taken when applied to the Eucharist 2. He calls the Sacrament the Mystical Body and Blood of Christ. 3. That the eating of Christ's Flesh is not to be understood literally but spiritually 4. He opposes Christ's sacramental Presence and real corporal Presence to each other 5. He still exhorts the Communicants to look upwards towards Heaven And now if you lay these things together this Eloquent Father will not with all his Flights come near to Transubstantiation P. No! In one place he asserts the Substance of the Elements to be lost Pr. Thanks to the Latin Translators for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Criticks observe doth not signify to destroy but to refine and purify a Substance But I do not rely upon this for the plain answer is that S. Chrysostom doth not there speak of the Elements upon Consecration but what becomes of them after they are taken down into the Stomach St. Chrysostom thought it would lessen the Peoples Reverence and Devotion if they passed into the draught as Origen affirmed and therefore he started another Opinion viz. That as Wax when it is melted in the fire throws off no superfluities but it passes indiscernably away so the Elements or Mysteries as he calls them pass imperceptibly into the substance of the Body and so are consumed together with it Therefore saith he approach with Reverence not supposing that you receive the divine body from a Man but as with Tongs of Fire from the Seraphims Which the Author of the Consensus Veterum translates but Fire from the Tongues of Seraphims S. Chrysostom's Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Sense is that the divine Body i. e. the Eucharist after Consecration being by the divine Spirit made the divine Body as in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy there is a particular Prayer for the Holy Ghost to come and so make the Bread to be the divine Body or the holy Body of Christ is to be taken not with our Mouths which can only receive the Elements but after a divine manner as with Tongs of fire from Seraphims by which he expresses the spiritual acts of Faith and Devotion as most agreeable to that divine Spirit which makes the Elements to become the holy Body of Christ. But that St. Chrysostom did truly and firmly believe the Substance of the Bread to remain after Consecration I have already proved from his Epistle to Coesarius P. I pray let us not go backward having so much ground to run over still Pr. I am content if you will produce only those who speak of the change of Substance and not such as only mention the Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration which I have already told you was the Language of the Church and therefore all those Testimonies are of no force in this matter P. Then I must quit the greatest part of what remains as Optatus Gaudentius S. Jerom and others but I have some still left which will set you hard What say you then to Gregory Nyssen who saith the sanctified bread is changed into the body of the Word of God. And he takes off your Answer of a mystical Body for he puts the Question How the same Body can daily be distributed to the faithful throughout the World it remaining whole and entire in it self Pr. Gregory Nyssen was a Man of Fancy and he shewed it in that Catechetical Discourse However Fronto Ducoeus thought it a notable place to prove Transubstantiation which I wonder at if he attended to the Design of it which was to shew that as our Bodies by eating became subject to Corruption so by eating they become capable of Immortality and this he saith Must be by receiving an immortal Body into our B dies such as the Body of Christ was But then saith he how could that body which is to remain whole in it self be distributed to all the faithful over the whole Earth He answers by saying That our Bodies do consist of Bread and Wine which are their proper Nourishment and Christ's Body being like ours that was so too which by the Uniâ—n with the Word of God was changed into a Divine Dignity But what is this to the Eucharist you may say He goes on therefore so I believe the sanctified Bread by the power of the Word of God to be changed into the Body of God the Word Not into that Individual Body but after the same manner by a Presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God the Word in it and that this was his meaning doth evidently appear by what follows For saith he that Body viz. to which he was Incarnate was sanctified by the Inhabitation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dwelling in the Flesh therefore as the Bread was then changed into a Divine Dignity in the Body so it is now and the Bread is changed into the Body of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of Jesus Christ as it was said by the Word This is my Body And so by receiving this Divine Body into our bodies they are made capable of Immortality And this is the true Account of Gregory Nyssen's meaning which if it prove any thing proves an Impanation rather than Transubstantiation P. But Hilary's Testimony cannot be so avoided who saith That we as truly eat Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament as he was truly Incarnate and that we are to judg of this not by carnal Reason but by the Words of Christ who said My Flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed Pr. I do not deny this to be Hilary's Sense But yet this proves nothing like to Transubstantiation For it amounts to no more than a Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament and you can make no Argument from hence unless you can prove that the Body of Christ cannot be present unless the Substance of the Bread be destroy'd which is more than can be done or than Hilary imagined All that he aimed
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
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