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
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
he doth not explain the former For he puts the Sense upon Corpus meum by adding dicendo to them i. e. This is the meaning of that speech when he calleth the Bread his Body P. Doth not Tertullian say That it had not been the Figure unless it had been the Truth Pr. This is again perverting his words which are Figuratum non fuisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus i. e. there had been no place for a Figure of Christ's Body unless Christ had a true body For he was proving against Marcion that Christ had a true Body and among other Arguments he produces this from the Figure of his Body which he not only mentions here but in other places where he saith That Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread which cannot relate to any Figure of the Old Testament P. But doth not Tertullian say afterwards That the Bread was the figure of Christ's body in the Old Testament Pr. What then He had Two Designs against Marcion one to prove that Christ had a true body which he doth here from the figure of his body and the other that there was a Correspondency of both Testaments and for that purpose he shews that the bread in Jeremiah was the figure of Christ's body P. But the Author of the Single Sheet cites another place of Tertullian where he saith that our flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that our soul may be filled with God. Pr. By the body and blood of Christ he means there the Elements with Divine Grace going along with them as appears by his design which is to shew how the body and soul are joyned together in Sacramental Rites The flesh is washed and the soul is cleansed the flesh is anointed and the soul consecrated the flesh is signed and the soul confirmed the flesh hath hands laid upon it and the soul enlighten'd the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be filled with God. Now unless Tertullian meant the Elements the Parallel doth not proceed for all the rest are spoken of the external Symbols and so this doth not at all contradict what he saith elsewhere no more than the Passage in the second Book adUxorem doth For there he speaks of Christ with respect to the invisible Grace as he doth here as to the outward Symbols P. Clemens Alexandrinus saith That Melchisedeck gave Bread and Wine in figure of the Eucharist Pr. And what then What is this to Transubstantiation P. Origen saith When you eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord enters under your roof c. Pr. Are you sure that Origen said this But suppose he did must he enter with his flesh and bones and not much rather by a peculiar presence of his Grace For is it not Origen who so carefully distinguishes the Typical and Symbolical body of Christ from the Divine Word and so expresly mentions the material part of the Elements after Consecration which pass into the Draught c. Is all this meant of the Accidents only P. What say you to St. Cyprian de Coena Domini Pr. I beg your pardon Sir this is now known and acknowledged to be a late Author in comparison and cannot come within your 600 years and therefore is not ancient enough to be considered P. But in his genuine Writings he speaks of those who offer'd Violence to the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist Pr. And I pray what follows That the substance of the Elements is gone Where lies the Consequence But St. Cyprian saith the bread was his body and the wine his blood therefore their substance must remain P. What say you to Eusebius Emesenus Pr. That he is not within our compass and withal that he is a known Counterfeit P. I perceive you are hard to please Pr. You say very true as to supposititious Writers P. I hope you have more Reverence for the Council of Nice Pr. But where doth that speak of Transubstantiation P. It calls the Eucharist the body of Christ. Pr. And so doth the Church of England therefore that holds Transubstantiation I pray bring no more such Testimonies which prove nothing but what we hold P. I perceive you have a mind to cut me short Pr. Not in the least where you offer any thing to the purpose But I pray spare those who only affirm that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ after Consecration For I acknowledg it was the Language of the Church especially in the fourth Century when the Names of the Elements were hardly mention'd to the Catechumens and all the Discourses of the Fathers to them tended to heighten the Devotion and Esteem of the Eucharist By which Observation you may easily understand the meaning of the Eloquent Writers of that Age who speak with so much Mystery and Obscurity about it If you have any that go beyond lofty expressions and Rhetorical flights I pray produce them P. I perceive you are afraid of S. Greg. Nazianzen and S. Basil but especially S. Chrysostom you fence so much beforehand against Eloquent Men. Pr. As to the other two there is nothing material alledged by any to this purpose but S. Chrysostom I confess doth speak very lofty things concerning the Sacrament in his popular Discourses but yet nothing that doth prove Transubstantiation P. What think you of his Homilies 51 and 83. on S. Mat. 46. Homily on S. John 24. Homily on 1st to the Corinth the Homilies on Philogonius and the Cross Are there not strange things in them concerning the Eucharist About eating Christ and seeing him lie before them slain on the Altar about touching his Body there and the Holy Spirit with an innumerable Host hovering over what is there proposed with much more to that purpose Pr. You need not to recite more for I yield that St. Chrysostom delighted in the highest flights of his Eloquence on this Subject in his Homilies and he tells for what Reason to excite the Reverence and Devotion of the People But yet himself doth afford us a sufficient Key to these expressions if we attend to these things concerning his manner of speaking 1. That he affirms those things which no side can allow to be literally understood As when he so often speaks of our seeing and touching Christ upon the Altar which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For Christ is utterly invisible on the Altar even by Divine Power saith Suarez He is invisible in the Sacrament saith Bellarmin and he saith also that he cannot be touched What then is to be said to such expressions of S. Chrysostom Behold thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him It is not his Sacrament only which is offer'd us to touch but himself What if you do not hear his Voice do you not see him lying before you Behold Christ lying before you slain Christ lies on the holy
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
in the one being intrinsecal and substantial the other extrinsecal and accidental And that Hypostasis is the same with the Divine Nature and yet is most closely united with the Human Nature which is so different from the Divine so that it is incomprehensible by us how in that Union the Natures are not confounded or the Hypostasis divided Pr. Suppose now we grant all this that there is an incomprehensible Mystery in the Incarnation what follows from thence Have I not hitherto owned that there must be something incomprehensible by us in what relates to the Divine Nature And it is the less wonder it is so in the Incarnation wherein an Union is implied between an Infinite and Finite Nature when the Union of the Soul and Body though both Finite is above our Comprehension though we our selves consist of Souls and Bodies so united But what Consequence is it if we are not able to explain this that then we must admit that the same Body may be not meerly in two but in ten thousand places at the the same time i. e. If we cannot explain the Hypostatical Union then all manner of Absurdities must go down with us that relate to things of a very different Nature from it P. I am glad to find you are set at last and that now you have a Difficulty before you which you can never get through Pr. Be not too confident I have only hitherto denied the Consequence as to the Difficulties of Transubstantiation But it is possible that setting aside the Confusion of School-Terms I may be able to give a far more intelligible and reasonable Account of the Incarnation it self than you can ever do of Transubstantiation P. First shew that it is possible and then explain the manner of it Pr. But let us in the first place agree what we mean by it P. By the Incarnation I mean the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature so as to make one Person in Christ. Pr. If this be not possible it must either be 1. Because two Natures different from each other cannot be united to make one Person The contrary whereof appears in the union of Soul and Body to the Person of a Man. Or 2. because it is impossible that an Infinite Nature should be united to a Finite P. How can there be an Union possible between two Beings infinitely distant from each other Pr. Not in that respect wherein the Distance is Infinite but if there be nothing destructive to either Nature in such an Union and the Infinite Nature do condescend to it why may it not be so united to an Intelligent Finite Being as to make one Person together with it For in respect of Union the Distance is not so great between Finite and Infinite as between Body and Spirit P. The Distance is Infinite in one Case but not in the other Pr. I do not speak of them with Respect to Perfections but to Union and an infinite Distance in that must imply an absolute Repugnancy which you can never prove For since Body and Spirit may be united to make one Person an Infinite Spirit may be united to a Finite Nature P. But the manner of the Hypostatical Union is impossible to be conceived Pr. Let the thing be granted possible and the difficulty of conceiving the manner may be as great in the Union of Soul and Body Will you undertake to explain that to me and yet I hope you believe it But let us hear your Difficulties again which you object from Bellarmine P. That there should be but one Hypostasis in two Natures and that in the Union the Natures should not be confounded nor the Hypostasis divided Pr. All these Difficulties arise from the sense of the word Hypostasis Which originally signifies a Real Being and not such which depends only on Fancy and Imagination from thence its signification was enlarged not only to things real in opposition to meer Appearances and Creatures of the Mind but to such a thing which did subsist of it self and had not its subsistence in another as Accidents had So that an Hypostasis was a real Substance which had subsistence in it self But such are of two kinds as the Greek Fathers observe 1. Such as are real Substances in themselves but yet are capable of being joined with another to make up a Person thus the Soul and Body have two different Hypostases and make up but one Person of a Man. 2. It is taken for a compleat individual Subsistence which is not joined with any other as a Part and so Hypostasis is the same with a Person which is nothing else but a compleat intelligent individual Hypostasis And in this sense there can be but one Hypostasis in Christ i. e. one Person tho there be two Natures P. But our Divines say that the Humane Nature after the Union hath no Hypostasis it being swallowed up by the Divine Pr. I know they do but if they mean that the Humane Nature after the Union loses that subsistence which is proper to the Humane Nature it is impossible for them to avoid the Eutychian Heresy condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but if they mean no more than that there is a true Nature but no Person save only that which results from both Natures they then agree with the Sense of the Church which condemned the Eutychians For as much as the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches differ'd in themselves they were both built on the same Ground viz. that there could be no true Nature but there must be a Person and that two Natures could not make one Person From whence Nestorius asserted there were two Persons in Christ and Eutyches denied that there were two Natures P. What doth all this signify but that the Authority of the Church must determine whether there be two Natures or two Persons in Christ Pr. It seems then the whole Business wherein the General Councils were so warmly concerned was only to make an Ecclesiastical Dictionary and to appoint what words are to be used and what not Do you think then there were no such real Heresies as Nestorianism and Eutychianism but only they happened to take the words Nature and Person in another sense than the Church would have Men use them P. I trust the Church for all these things Pr. Then if the Church would have you affirm two Persons and one Nature or two Natures and one Person it were all one to you P. Why not since the Church must determine Pr. What if you had been to dispute with Nestorius and Eutyches P. I would have told them they must submit to the Church about the use of words Pr. And they would have laughed at you for your pains For the Controversy was really about the Truth of Christ's Incarnation as the Fathers proved and the Councils determined which in Consequence was rejected by both of them as I will evidently prove if you have any longer Patience P. I beg your pardon Sir I
1. That they do attribute Circumscription to Christ's Body in Heaven so as to exclude the possibility of its being upon Earth 2. That they deny any such thing as the supernatural Existence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit P. What do you mean I am quite tired already and now you are turning up the other Glass Pr. Since you will be dabling in these Controversies you must not think to escape so easily I have been not a little offended at the Insolence of some late Pamphlets upon this Argument and now I come to close Reasoning you would fain be gone P. I am in a little haste at present I pray come quickly to the Point Pr. As soon as you please What think you if a Man now should bring an Argument to prove a matter of Faith from hence That Christ's Body could not be in Heaven and Earth at once would this argument hold good Yet thus Vigilius Tapsitanus argues against those who denied two Natures in Christ for saith he The Body of Christ when it was on Earth was not in Heaven and now it is in Heaven it is not upon Earth and it is so far from being so that we expect him to come from Heaven in his Flesh whom we believe to be now present on Earth by his Divinity How can this hold if the Body of Christ can be in Heaven and Earth at the same time P. He speaks this of the Natural Presence of Christ's Body and not of the Sacramental Pr. The Argument is not drawn from the manner of the Presence but from the Nature of a Body that it could not be in Heaven and Earth at the same time And so St. Augustin said That Christ was every where present as God but confined to a certain place in Heaven according to the Measure of his true Body P. This is only to disprove the Ubiquity of Christ's Body and not his being in several places at the same time Pr. Then you yield it to be repugnant to the Nature of a Body to be every where present P. Yes Pr. But what if there be as great a repugnancy from St. Augustin's Argument for a Body to be present in several places at once P. I see no such thing Pr. No His Argument is from the Confinement of a true Body to a certain place And if it be in many places at once it is as far from being confined as if it took up all places And there are some greater Difficulties as to a Body's being distant from it self than in asserting its Ubiquity P. I perceive you are inclined to be a Lutheran Pr. No such matter For I think the Essential Properties of a Finite and Infinite Being are incommunicable to each other and I look on Ubiquity as one of them P. Then the same Argument will not hold as to Presence in several places for this is no Infinite Perfection Pr. You run from one Argument to another For these are two distinct ways of arguing and the Argument from the Repugnancy of it to the Nature of a Body doth as well hold against Ubiquity as that it is a Divine Perfection And St. Augustin in that excellent Epistle doth argue from the Essential Properties and Dimensions of Bodies and the difference of the Presence of a Spirit and a Body I pray read and consider that Epistle and you will think it impossible St. Augustin should believe Transubstantiation P. St. Augustin was a great Disputant and such are wont while they are eager upon one Point to forget another But St. Augustin elsewhere doth assert the Presence of Christ's real Body in the Sacrament Pr. Then the plain Consequence is that he contradicted himself P. But he doth not speak of a Sacramental Presence Pr. What again But St. Augustin makes this an essential difference between a Divine and Corporal Presence that the one doth not fill places by its Dimensions as the other doth so that Bodies cannot be in distant places at once What think you of this P. I pray go on Pr. What think you of the Manichees Doctrine who held that Christ was in the Sun and Moon when he suffered on the Cross Was this possible or not P. What would you draw from hence Pr. Nothing more but that St. Augustin disproved it because his Body could not be at the same time in the Sun and Moon and upon Earth P. As to the ordinary course of Nature St. Augustin's Argument holds but not as to the Miraculous Power of God. Pr. There is a difference between the ordinary Course of Nature and the unchangeable Order of Nature P. Let me hear this again for it is new Doctrine to us Pr. That 's strange Those things are by the ordinary Course of Nature which cannot be changed but by Divine Power but imply no Repugnancy for God to alter that Course but those are by the unchangeable Order of Nature which cannot be done without overthrowing the very Nature of the things and such things are impossible in themselves and therefore God himself cannot do them P. It seems then you set Bounds to God's Omnipotency Pr. Doth not the Scripture say there are some things impossible for God to do P. Yes such as are repugnant to his own Perfections as it is impossible for God to lye Pr. But are there no other things impossible to be done What think you of making the time past not to be past P. That is impossible in it self Pr. But is it not impossible for the same Body to be in two different times P. Yes Pr. Why not then in two or more different Places since a Body is as certainly confined as to Place as it is to Time P. You are run now into the Point of Reason when we were upon St. Augustin's Testimony Pr. But I say St. Augustin went upon this ground that it was repugnant to the Nature of a Body to be in more places than one at the same time And so likewise Cassian proves That when Christ was upon Earth he could not be in Heaven but in regard of his Divinity Is there not the same Repugnancy for a Body in Heaven to be upon Earth as for a Body upon Earth to be in Heaven P. These are new Questions which I have not met with in our Writers and therefore I shall take time to answer them But all these Testimonies proceed upon a Body considered under the Nature of a Body but in the Sacrament we consider Christ's Body as present after the manner of a Spirit Pr. That was the next thing I promised to prove from the Fathers that they knew of no such thing and therefore could not believe your Doctrine Have you observed what the Fathers say about the difference of Body and Spirit P. Not I but I have read our Authors who produce them for our Doctrine Pr. That is the perpetual fault of your Writers to attend more to the sound of their Words than to the force of their
Reasonings They bring places out of Popular Discourses intended to heighten the Peoples Devotion and never compare them with those Principles which they assert when they come to Reasoning which would plainly shew their other Expressions are to be understood in a Mystical and Figurative Sense But I pray tell me do you think the Fathers had no distinct Notion of a Body and Spirit and the Essential Properties of both P. Yes doubtless Pr. Suppose then they made those to lye in such things as are inconsistent with the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit do you think then they could hold it to be so present And if they did not they could not believe Transubstantiation P. Very true Pr. What think you then of St. Augustin who makes it impossible for a Body to be without its Dimensions and Extension of Parts But you assert a Body may be without them or else it cannot be after the manner of a Spirit as you say it is in the Sacrament P. I pray shew that St. Augustin made it inconsistent with the Nature of a Body to be otherwise Pr. He saith That all Bodies how gross or subtle soever they be can never be all every where i. e. cannot be indivisibly present after the manner of a Spirit but must be extended according to their several Parts and whether great or little must take up a space and so fill the Place that it cannot be all in any one Part. Is this possible to be reconciled with your Notion of a Body being present after the manner of a Spirit P. To be present after the manner of a Spirit is with us to be so present as not to be extended and to be whole in every part Pr. But this St. Augustin saith no Body can be and not only there but elsewhere he saith Take away Dimensions from Bodies and they are no longer Bodies And that a greater part takes up a greater space and a lesser a less and must be always less in the part than in the whole P. But he speaks of Extension in it self and not with respect to Place Pr. That is of Extension that is not extended for if it be it must have respect to Place but nothing can be plainer than that St. Augustin doth speak with respect to Place And he elsewhere saith That every Body must have Place and be extended in it P. But he doth not speak this of the Sacrament Pr. But he speaks it of all Bodies wheresoever present and he doth not except the Sacrament which he would certainly have done if he had believed as you do concerning it P. St. Augustin might have particular Opinions in this as he had in other things Pr. So far from it that I shall make it appear that this was the general Sense of the Fathers St. Gregory Nazianzen saith That the Nature of Bodies requires that they have Figure and Shape and may be touched and seen and circumscribed St. Cyril of Alexandria saith That if God himself were a Body he must be liable to the Properties of Bodies and he must be in a place as Bodies are And all those Fathers who prove that God cannot be a Body do it from such Arguments as shew that they knew nothing of a Bodies Being after the manner of a Spirit For then the force of their Arguments is lost which are taken from the Essential Properties of a Body such as Extension Divisibility and Circumscription But if a Body may be without these then God may be a Body after the manner of a Spirit and so the Spirituality of the Divine Nature will be taken away P. I never heard these Arguments before and must take some time to consider Pr. The sooner the better and I am sure if you do you will repent being a New Convert But I have yet something to add to this Argument viz. That those who have stated the Difference between Body and Spirit have made Extension and taking up a place and Divisibility necessary to the very Being of a Body and that what is not circumscribed is incorporeal P. Methinks your Arguments run out to a great length I pray bring them into a less Compass Pr. I proceed to a Third Argument from the Fathers which will not take up much time and that is That the Fathers knew nothing of the Subsistence of Accidents without their Substance without which Transubstantiation cannot be maintained And therefore in the Roman Schools the possibility of Accidents subsisting without their Subjects is defended But on the contrary Maximus one of the eldest of the Fathers who lived in the Second Century affirms it to be of the Essence of Accidents to be in their Substance St. Basil saith Nature doth not bear a distinction between Body and Figure altho Reason makes one Isidore Pâ—lusiota saith That Quality cannot be without Substance Gregory Nyssen That Figure cannot be without Body and that a Body cannot be conceived without Qualities And that if we take away Colour and Quantity and Resistance the whole Notion of a Body is destroy'd Take away Space from Bodies saith St. Augustin and they can be no where and if they can be no where they cannot be And so he saith if we take away Bodies from their Qualities And in plain terms That no Qualities as Colours or Form can remain without their Subject And that no Accidents can be without their Subject is in general affirmed by Isidore Hispalensis Boethius Damascen and others who give an Account of the Philosophy of the Ancients P. All this proceeds upon the old Philosophy of Accidents What if there be none at all Pr. What then makes the same Impression on our Senses when the Substance is gone as when it was there Is there a perpetual Miracle to deceive our Senses But it is impossible to maintain Transubstantiation as it is defined in the Church of Rome without Accidents They may hold some other Doctrine in the place of it but they cannot hold that And that other Doctrine will be as impossible to be understood For if once we suppose the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament in place of the Substance of the Bread which appears to our Senses to be Bread still Then suppose there be no Accidents the Body of a Man must make the same Impression on our Senses which the Substance of Bread doth which is so horrible an Absurdity that the Philosophy of Accidents cannot imply any greater than it So that the New Transubstantiators had as good return to the Old Mumpsimus of Accidents P. I suppose you have now done with this Argument Pr. No I have something farther to say about it which is that the Fathers do not only assert That Accidents cannot be without their Subject but they confute Hereticks on that Supposition which shew'd their assurance of the Truth of it Irenoeus overthrows the Valentinian Conjugations because Truth can no
at was to prove a real Union between Christ and his People That Christ was in them more than by meer consent and to prove this he lays hold of those words of our Saviour My Flesh is meat indeed c. But the substantial Change of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body signifies nothing to his purpose and Bellarmin never so much as mentions Hilary in his proofs of Transubstantiation but only for the real Presence But I must add something more viz. that Hilary was one of the first who drew any Argument from the literal Sense of John 6. I do not say who did by way of Accommodation apply them to the Sacrament which others might do before him But yet there are some of the eldest Fathers who do wholly exclude a literal Sense as Tertullian look'd on it As an Absurdity that Christ should be thought truly to give his Flesh to eat Quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset And Origen saith It is a killing Letter if those Words be literally understood But this is to run into another debate whereas our Business is about Transubstantiation If you have any more let us now examine their Testimonies P. What say you then to St. Ambrose who speaks home to the Business for he makes the Change to be above Nature and into the Body of Christ born of the Virgin There are long Citations out of him but in these words lies the whole strength of them Pr. I answer several things for clearing of his meaning 1. That St. Ambrose doth parallel the Change in the Eucharist with that in Baptism and to prove Regeneration therein he argues from the miraculous Conception of Christ in the Womb of the Virgin but in Baptism no body supposes the Substance of the Water to be taken away and therefore it cannot hold as to the other from the Supernatural Change which may be only with respect to such a Divine Influence which it had not before Consecration 2. He doth purposely talk obscurely and mystically about this matter as the Fathers were wont to do to those who were to be admitted to these Mysteries Sometimes one would think he meant that the Elements are changed into Christ's Individual Body born of the Virgin and yet presently after he distinguishes between the true Flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried and the Sacrament of his Flesh. If this were the same what need any distinction And that this Sacramentum Carnis is meant of the Eucharist is plain by what follows for he cites Christ's words This is my Body 3. He best explains his own meaning when he saith not long after That the body of Christ in the Sacrament is a Spiritual body or a body produced by the Divine Spirit and so he parallels it with that spiritual Food which the Israelites did eat in the Wilderness And no man will say that the Substance of the Manna was then lost And since your Authors make the same St. Ambrose to have written the Book De Sacramentis there is a notable passage therein which helps to explain this for there he saith expresly Non iste Panis est qui vadit in Corpus sed ille Panis Vitoe Eternoe qui animoe nostroe Substantiam fulcit It is not the Bread which passes into the Body but the Bread of Eternal Life which strengthens the Substance of our Soul. Where he not only calls it Bread after Consecration which goes to our Nourishment but he distinguishes it from the Bread of Eternal Life which supports the Soul which must be understood of Divine Grace and not of any Bodily Substance P. I perceive you will not leave us one Father of the whole number Pr. Not one And I hope this gives an incomparable Advantage to the Doctrine of the Trinity in point of Tradition above Transubstantiation when I have not only proved that the greatest of the Fathers expresly denied it but that there is not one in the whole number who affirmed it For altho there were some difference in the way of explaining how the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ yet not one of them hitherto produced doth give any countenance to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation which the Council of Trent declared to have been the constant belief of the Church in all Ages which is so far from being true that there is as little ground to believe that as Transubstantiation it self And so much as to this Debate concerning the comparing the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation in point of Tradition if you have any thing to say further as to Scripture and Reason I shall be ready to give you Satisfaction the next Opportunity FINIS BOOKS lately Printed for W. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book Intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto Third Edition An Answer to a Discourse Intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants 4to Second Edition An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply 4to The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry in which the Bishop of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted 4to The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation demonstrated 4to A Letter to the Superiours whether Bishops or Priests which Approve or License the Popish Books in England particularly to those of the Jesuits Order concerning Lewis Sabran a Jesuit A Preservative against Popery being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants how to Dispute with Romish Priests The First Part. The Fourth Edition The Second Part of the Preservative against Popery shewing how contrary Popery is to the True Ends of the Christian Religion Fitted for the Instruction of Unlearned Protestants The Second Edition A Vindication of both Parts of the Preservative against Popery in Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran Jesuit A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity aed Communion of the Catholick Church wherein most of the Controversies relating to the Church are briefly and plainly stated The First Part. 4to These Four last by William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Imprimatur Guil. Needham
now I think you have drawn out the most refined Spirits of Socinianism to make the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation parallel because you say it implies a Contradiction which is the nearest Parallel you have yet offered at But this terrible Argument is grounded on the same Supposition viz. That the Divine Essence is no more capable of communicating it self to three distinct Persons than any created Being is The Reason of that Axiom being that created Things by reason of their finite Nature cannot diffuse or communicate themselves to more than one and therefore those which agree in a Third must agree together but supposing it possible that the same finite Nature could extend it self to several Individuals it would be presently answered the Axiom did hold only where they did adequately and reciprocally agree and not where they did agree only in Essence but differ'd in the manner of Subsistence For where a different manner of Subsistence is supposed possible in the same Individual Nature the Agreement in that cannot take away that Difference which is consistent with it which we attribute to the unlimitedness and perfection of the Divine Nature P. But you can bring no other Instance but the thing in Question and therefore this is a Petitio Principii or taking that for granted which is in Dispute Pr. I do not think it to be so where the Reason is assigned from the peculiar Properties of the Divine Nature to which there can be no parallel And I think it very unreasonable in the Socinians to send us to created Beings for the Rules and Measures of our Judgment concerning a Being acknowledged to be Infinite P. Are not the Divine Persons Infinite as well as the Divine Nature and therefore as created Persons do take in the whole Nature so infinite Persons will do the infinite Nature Pr. No question but the Persons are infinite in regard of the Nature which is so but if an infinite Nature be communicable to more Persons than One every such Person cannot appropriate the whole Nature to it self P. If the difference be on the account of Infinity then there must be an infinite number of Persons in the Divine Essence Pr. I answer that infiniteness of Number is no Perfection and as to the number of Persons we follow not our own Conjectures nor the Authority of the Church but Divine Revelation which hath assured us that there is but one God and yet there are three that are one Which depends not meerly on the place of St. John but the Form of Baptism is remarkable to this purpose which joyns together the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost without any other distinction besides that of Order and Relation And it is against the fundamental design of Christianity to joyn any Created Beings together with God in so solemn an Act of Religion And St. Paul joyns them together in his Benediction The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love of God and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all Amen 2 Cor. 12. 14. From whence the Christian Church hath always believed a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature P. You have taken a great deal of pains to clear the Doctrine of the Trinity from any absurdity in point of Reason why should you not do as much now as to Transubstantiation Pr. In plain truth because I cannot for here lies a vast difference between them In the Trinity we consider'd an Infinite Being to which no bounds can be set without destroying its Nature but in Transubstantiation we suppose a true finite Body which hath its natural bounds and limits to one certain Place and yet you will and must suppose this Body to be equally present in many thousand distant Places at the same time which implies so great a Repugnancy to the very Nature of a Body that I can by no means give my Assent to it P. Alas Is this it which chokes your Reason so that you cannot swallow the Doctrine of the Church in this matter You do not consider that tho we allow nothing Infinite in the Body it self yet we suppose an Infinite Power to be imploy'd about it and an Infinite Power may produce things above our Comprehensions about Bodies in themselves finite Pr. This is the utmost your Cause will bear but I pray tell me Is there any such thing as a Repugnancy in the Nature of things or not i. e. Are there not some things which are endued with such Properties that if you alter them you destroy their very Nature as to suppose an indivisible Line a Triangle without Lines a Body without Dimensions P. Hold a little a Body must have Dimensions belonging to it but it is not necessary it should have those Dimensions where-ever it is present For it may be present in one Place as a Body and in another after the manner of a Spirit Pr. You might as well have said a Body may be consider'd two ways as it is a Body and as it is not a Body for there can be no Body where there are no Dimensions proper to it P. See how you are mistaken for it is 〈…〉 the Dimensions which seem to hinder a Body being in 〈◊〉 places at once but its Unity as Bellarmin well observe◠Pr. I say both of them 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 Body can no more be without it◠Dimensions than a Line without Divisibility P. I grant that naturally it cannot but by Divine Power it may Pr. Will you make the Power of God to change the Essential Properties of things while the things themselves remain in their true Nature You may as well say that naturally Man is a Reasonable Creature but by Divine Power he may be a true Man and yet want the Faculty of Reasoning That naturally two and two make four but God can make two and two to be joyned together in a supernatural manner so as that four shall not result from them that tho naturally speaking white-washing a Wall makes it look white yet by an extraordinary Power there may be the presence of all things which make a Wall white yet it shall not do so just so it is to make a Body present and yet to have no Dimensions of a Body Is there any real difference between the Nature of a Body and Spirit Wherein lies it Is it not as repugnant for a Body to be after the manner of a Spirit as for a Body and Spirit to be the same P. All this proceeds upon not considering the difference between the Essential Extension of a Body and that which is quantitative and hath relation to Place Pr. The Essential Extension of a Body without Quantity is Non-sense and a Contradiction For it is to make a Body extended and not extended at the same time I pray tell me what you mean by a Body as it is opposed to a Spirit P. I mean as all Mankind do such a Substance which consists of Parts extended and divisible