THE Doctrine of the TRINITY AND Transubstantiation COMPARED AS TO Scripture Reason and Tradition In a New DIALOGUE between a Protestant and a Papist The first part WHEREIN An ANSWER is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. The Second Edition IMPRIMATUR Ex Aedib Lambeth Jan. 17. 1686. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo Pat. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacris LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street M DC LXXX VIII The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition In a New Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist Pr. I Remember your last Words at parting were Farewel and God give his holy Spirit to instruct you Which have run much in my Mind For if the holy Spirit instruct us what need is there of an Infallible Church I hope those were not only words of course with you Pa. No but I meant that the holy Spirit should instruct you about the Authority of the Church Pr. Was this indeed your meaning Then you would have me believe the Church Infallible because the holy Spirit which is Infallible will instruct me about it if I seek his Directions P. Yes Pr. But then I have no Reason to believe it for the holy Spirit after my seeking his Instructions teaches me otherwise And if the holy Spirit is Infallible which way soever it teaches then I am infallibly sure there is no such thing as Infallibility in what you call the Catholick Church P. Come come you make too much of a sudden Expression at parting I pray let us return to our main business which is to shew that there is the same Ground from Scripture Reason and Tradition to believe Transubstantiation as there is to believe the Trinity And this I affirm again after reading the Answers to the former Dialogue and I now come somewhat better prepared to make it out Pr. So you had need And I hope I shall be able not only to defend the contrary but to make it evident to you that there is a mighty difference in these two Doctrines as to Scripture Reason and Tradition But I pray keep close to the Point for I hate impertinent trifling in a Debate of such Consequence P. I must confess I over-shot my self a little in the former Dialogue when I offer'd to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity unreasonable and absurd For no Church can make such a Doctrine which is unreasonable and absurd in it self not to be so to me No Church can make three and one to be the same if they be repugnant in themselves But my meaning was that Mens Disputes about these things will never be ended till they submit to the Authority of the Church Pr. And then they may believe three or three hundred Persons in the Trinity as the Church pleases Is that your meaning P. No. But I said to my Carnal Reason it would appear so but not to my Reason as under the Conduct of an Infallible Guide Pr. Then an Infallible Guide can make three hundred to be but three which is a notable trick of Infallibility P. No I tell you I meant only that we are not to follow Carnal Reason but the Church's Authority i. e. we are not to search into Mysteries above Reason but only believe what the Church delivers And I intend now to argue the Point somewhat closely with you Do you believe that there are any Mysteries in the Christian Doctrine above Reason or not If not you must reject the Trinity if you do then you have no ground for rejecting Transubstantiation because it is above Reason Pr. You clearly mistake us and I perceive were very little acquainted with our Doctrine for we do not reject any Doctrine concerning God meerly because it is above our Reason when it is otherwise clearly proved from Scripture For then we own our selves bound to submit in matters of Divine Revelation concerning an Infinite Being though they be above our Capacity to comprehend them But in matters of a finite Nature which are far more easie for us to conceive and which depend upon the Evidence of Sense we may justly reject any Doctrine which overthrows that Evidence and is not barely above our Reason but repugnant to it P. I do not well understand you Pr. So I believe but I will endeavour to help your Understanding a little And I pray consider these things 1. That there is a great difference in our Conceptions of Finite and Infinite Beings For whatsoever is Infinite is thereby owned to be above our Comprehension otherwise it would not be Infinite The Attributes of God which are essential to him as his Wisdom Goodness and Power must be understood by us so far as to form a true Notion of that Being which is Infinite but then the Infinity of these Attributes is above our reach And so his Infinite Duration which we call Eternity his Infinite Presence which we call his Immensity the Infinite Extent of his Knowledg as to future Contingencies all these must be confessed to be Mysteries not above our Reason but above our Capacity For we have great Reason to own them but we have not Faculties to comprehend them We cannot believe a God unless we hold him to be Infinite in all Perfections and if he be Infinite he must be incomprehensible so that Religion must be overthrown if something incomprehensible be not allowed And as to finite Beings so far as they run into what we call Infinite they are so far out of our reach as appears by the insuperable Difficulties about the Infinite Divisibility of Quantity 2. That we have certain Notions of some things in the visible World both that they are and that they have some Attributes essential to them We daily converse with things visible and corporeal and if we do not conceive something true and certain in our Minds about them we live in a Dream and have only Phantasms and Illusions about us If we are certain that there are real Bodies and not meer Appearances there must be some certain way of conveying such Impressions to our Minds from whence they may conclude this is a Horse and this a Man and this is Flesh and this Blood and this is Wood and this Stone otherwise all certainty is gone and we must turn meer Scepticks 3. That in examining the sense of Scripture we may make use of those certain Notions of visible things which God and Nature have planted in us otherwise we are not dealt with as Reasonable Creatures And therefore we must use those Faculties God hath given us in reading and comparing Scriptures and examining the sense that is offered by such Notions which are agreeable to the nature of things As for instance the Scripture frequently attributes Eyes and Ears and Hands to the Almighty must we presently believe God to have an Human
RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. a Sac. Dom. Ex Aedib Lambeth Feb. 4. 1686. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND Transubstantiation COMPARED AS TO Scripture Reason and Tradition IN A New DIALOGUE between a Protestant and a Papist The Second part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun in Fleet-street over against St. Dunstan's Church MDC LXXX VII THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION Compared c. Pr. I Hope you are now at Leisure to proceed with your parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation as to Scripture and Reason P. Yes and am resolved to make good all that I have said as to both those Pr. And if you do I will yield the Cause P. I begin with Scripture And the whole Dispute as to both depends on this Whether the Scripture is to be understood Literally or Figuratively If Literally then Transubstantiation stands upon equal terms with the Trinity if Figuratively then the Trinity can no more be proved from Scripture than Transubstantiation Pr. As tho there might not be Reason for a figurative Sense in one place and a literal in another P. It seems then you resolve it into Reason Pr. And I pray into what would you resolve it Into no Reason P. Into the Authority of the Church Pr. Without any Reason P. No There may be Reason for that Authority but not for the thing which I believe upon it Pr. Then you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity meerly because the Church tells you it is the literal Sense of Scripture which you are to follow But suppose a Man sees no Reason for this Authority of your Church as for my part I do not have you no Reason to convince such a one that he ought to believe the Trinity P. Not I. For I think Men are bound to believe as the Church Teaches them and for that Reason Pr. What is it I pray to believe P. To believe is to give our Assent to what God reveals Pr. And hath God revealed the Doctrine of the Trinity to the Church in this Age P. No it was revealed long ago Pr. How doth it appear P. By the Scripture sensed by the Church Pr. But whence come you to know that the Church is to give the Sense of the Scriptures Is it from the Scripture or not P. From the Scripture doubtless or else we could not believe upon the Churches Testimony Pr. But suppose the Question be about the Sense of these places which relate to the Churches Authority how can a Man come to the certain Sense of them P. Hold a little I see whither you are leading me you would sain draw me into a Snare and have me say I believe the sense of Scripture from the Authority of the Church and the Authority of the Church from the sense of Scripture Pr. Do you not say so in plain terms P. Give me leave to answer for my self I say in the case of the Churches Authority I believe the Sense of Scripture without relying on the Churches Authority Pr. And why not as well in any other Why not as to the Trinity which to my understanding is much plainer there than the Churches Authority P. That is strange Is not the Church often spoken of in Scripture Tell the Church Upon this Rock will I build my Church c. Pr. But we are not about the Word Church which is no doubt there but the Infallible Authority of the Church and whether that be more clear in the Scripture than the Doctrine of the Trinity P. I see you have a mind to change your Discourse and to run off from the Trinity to the Churches Authority in Matters of Faith which is a beaten Subject Pr. Your Church doth not tell you so and therefore you may upon your own grounds be deceived and I assure you that you are so for I intended only to shew you that for Points of Faith we must examine and compare Scripture our selves and our Faith must rest on Divine Revelation therein contained P. Then you think the Trinity can be proved from Scripture Pr. Or else I should never believe it P. But those places of Scripture you go upon may bear a figurative Sense as John 10. 30. I and my Father are one and 1 John 5. 7. And those three are one and if they do so you can never prove the Trinity from them Pr. I say therefore That the Doctrine of the Trinity doth not depend merely on these places but on very many others which help to the true sense of these but Transuâ—stantiation depends upon one single Expression This is my Body which relates to a figurative thing in the Sacrament and which hath other Expressions joined with it which are owned to be figurative This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood and which in the literal sense cannot prove Transubstantiation as your own Writers confess and which is disproved by those places of Scripture which assert the Bread and the Fruit of the Vine to remain after Consecration P. Shew the Literal Sense as to the Trinity to be necessary for I perceive you would fain go off again Pr. Will you promise to hold close to the Argument your self P. You need not fear me Pr. I pray tell me Were there not false Religions in the World when Christ came into it to plant the true Religion P. Yes but how far is this from the business Pr. Have a little Patience Did not Christ design by his Doctrine to root out those false Religions P. That is evident from Scripture and Church History Pr. Then Christs Religion and theirs were inconsistent P. And what then Pr. Wherein did this Inconsistency lie P. The Gentiles worshipped false Gods instead of the true One. Pr. Then the Christian Religion teaches the worship of the true God instead of the false ones P. Who doubts of that Pr. Then it cannot teach the Worship of a false God instead of the true One. P. A false God is one that is set up in opposition to the true God as the Gods of the Heathens were Pr. Is it lawful by the Christian Doctrine to give proper Divine Worship to a Creature P. I think not for Christ said Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Which our Church understands of proper Divine Worship Pr. But the Scripture requires proper Divine Worship to be given to Christ which is to require proper Divine Worship to be given to a Creature if Christ be not true God by Nature P. May not God communicate his own Worship to him Pr. But God hath said He will not give his Glory to another Isa. 42. 8. And the Reason is considerable which is there given I am the Lord that is my name which shews that none but the true Jehovah is capable of Divine Worship for Adoration
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
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
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
is done to God only on the account of his incommunicable Perfections and therefore the Reason of Divine Worship cannot reach to any Creature P. Not without Gods Will and Pleasure But may not God advance a mere Creature to that Dignity as to require Divine Worship to be given to him by his fellow-creatures Pr. Wherein lies the nature of that which you call proper Divine Worship P. In a due esteem of God in our Minds as the first Cause and last End of his Creatures and such Acts as are agreeable thereto Pr. Then proper Divine Worship doth suppose an Esteem of God as infinitely above his Creatures and how then is it possible for us to give the same Worship to God and to a Creature For if the distance be infinite between God and his Creatures and we must judg of things as they are then we must in our minds suppose a Creature to be infinitely distant srom God and if we do so How is it possible to give the same Divine Worship in this sense to God and to any Creature P. And what now would you infer from hence Pr. Do not you see already viz. that God cannot be supposed to allow Divine Worship to be given to Christ if he were a mere Creature and therefore since such Divine Worship is required by the Christian Doctrine it follows that those expressions which speak of his being One with the Father cannot be figuratively understood P. But where is it that such Divine Worship is required to be given to Christ in Scripture For according to my Principles the Church is to set the bounds and measures of Divine Worship and to declare what Worship is due to God what to Christ what to Saints and Angels what to men upon Earth what to Images Sacraments c. And if we depart from this Rule I know not where we shall fix Pr. I pray tell me doth the difference between God and his Creatures depend on the will of the Church P. No. Pr. Is it then in the Churches Power to give that to a Creature which belongs only to God P. I think not Pr. Who then is to be judg what belongs to God and what not God or the Church P. God himself if he pleases Pr. Then our business is to search what his Will and Pleasure is in this matter by reading the Scriptures wherein his Will is contained And there we find it expressed That all men should hâ—nour the Son even as they honour the Father John 5. 23. Let all the Angels of God worship him Heb. 1. 6. Blessing and honour and glory and power be unto him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lamb for ever and ever Revel 4. 13. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in earth c. Phil. 2. 9. If it were Gods great design by the Christian Doctrine to restore in the world a due sense of the infinite distance between God and his Creatures could any thing be more repugnant to it than in the same Doctrine to advance a creature to a participation of the same Divine Honour with himself So that in plain truth the Idolatry of the world lay only in a bad choice of the Creatures they were to worship and not in giving proper Divine Worship to a Creature for that Christianity it self not only allows but requires on supposition that Christ were God merely by Office and was originally a Creature as we are But I pray observe the force of the Apostles Argument speaking of the Gentile Idolatry he saith it lay in this That they did service unto them which by Nature are no Gods Gal. 4. 8. P. You know I must now personate the Anti-Trinitarian and he answers That by Nature no more is implied than truly and really i. e. God did not advance those Creatures among the Gentiles to that Worship and Honour which he hath done Christ. Pr. Then you make it lawful by the Gospel to believe Christ to be a mere Creature and at the same time to give him Divine Worship which supposes him not to be a Creature and so you must believe him to be a Creature and not to be a Creature at the same time P. How do you make that appear Pr. From your own words for you say proper Divine Worship lies in a due esteem of God in our minds as the first Cause and last End and in actions agreeable thereto then to give Divine Worship to God we must believe him to be above all Creatures as to his Nature and Being and theresore to give Christ Divine Worship must imply our believing him not to be a Creature and to be a Creature at the same time P. But the meaning of Divine Worship here must not then relate to Acts of the Mind but to outward Acts of Adoration in the Church Pr. Were the Gentiles guilty of Idolatry in that respect or not P. Yes but not those whom God requires to Worship in such a manner Pr. Then the Sin of Gentile-Idolatry lay only in giving Divine Worship to a Creature without Gods command which lessens it to that degree as to make Will-worship and Idolatry the same and to blame the Apostles for making such a dreadful Sin of it and disswading Christians so much from returning to the Practice of it For they had the priviledg of giving Divine Worship to a Creature by Gods command which others were damned for doing without a command which makes the Christian Religion not to appear so reasonable as the Anti-Trinitarians contend it is But here are four foul mistakes in point of Reason which they are guilty of 1. In making the Sin of Idolatry so Arbitrary a thing which depends not on the Nature of the Object which is worshipped but on the will and Pleasure of God. 2. In making the Gentiles guilty of a great Sin meerly in wanting a Divine command which was out of their Power 3. In making the Christian Religion to set up the Worship of a Creature when its design was to root out Idolatry 4. In making a Fictitious God or a Creature to be advanced to the Throne of God. Which I think is far more contradictious to Reason than a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the same Nature For nothing can be more absurd than to make that to be God which wants all the essential Attributes and Perfections of God as every Creature must do Such as Self-Existence Eternity Independency Immensity Omnipotency c. What a Contradiction is it to suppose a weak impotent depending confined created God And such every Creature must be in its Nature or else it is no Creature I do not at all wonder to find the Socinians after this to lessen the natural knowledg of God and his infinite Perfections both as to Power and Knowledg for it was their concernment to bring the Notion of God as low as possible that a Creature might be in the nearer Capacity of being made
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