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
Shape because of this No we compare these with the necessary Attributes of God and from thence see a necessity of interpreting these Expressions in a Sense agreeable to the Divine Nature So if other Expressions of Scripture seem to affirm that of a Body which is inconsistent with the Nature of it as that it is not visible or may be in many Places at once there is some Reason for me to understand them in a Sense agreeable to the Essential Properties of a Body 4. There is a difference between our not apprehending the manner how a thing is and the apprehending the impossibility of the thing it self And this is the meaning of the distinction of Things above our Reason and contrary to our Reason If the Question be how the same individual Nature can be communicated to three distinct Persons We may justly answer we cannot apprehend the manner of it no more than we can the Divine Immensity or an Infinite Amplitude without Extension But if any go about to prove there is an impossibility in the thing he must prove that the Divine Nature can communicate it self no otherwise than a finite individual Nature can For all acknowledg the same common Nature may be communicated to three Persons and so the whole Controversie rests on this single Point as to Reason whether the Divine Nature and Persons are to be judged and measured as Human Nature and Persons are And in this I think we have the advantage in point of Reason of the Anti-trinitarians themselves although they pretend never so much to it P. Good night Sir I perceive you are in for an hour and I have not so much time to spare to hear such long Preachments For my part talk of Sense and Reason as long as you will I am for the Catholick Church Pr. And truly she is mightily obliged to you for oppoposing her Authority to Sense and Reason P. Call it what you will I am for the Churches Authority and the talk of Sense and Reason is but Canting without that Pr. The matter is then come to a fine pass I thought Canting had rather been that which was spoken against Sense or Reason But I pray Sir what say you to what I have been discoursing P. To tell you truth I did not mind it for as soon as I heard whither you were going I clapt fast hold of the Church as a Man would do of a Mast in a Storm and resolved not to let go my hold Pr. What! altho you should sink together with it P. If I do the Church must answer for it for I must sink or swim with it Pr. What Comfort will that be to you when you are called to an account for your self But if you stick here it is to no purpose to talk any more with you P. I think so too But now we are in methinks we should not give over thus especially since I began this Dialogue about the Trinity and Transubstantiation Pr. If you do we know the Reason of it But I am resolved to push this matter now as far as it will go and either to convince you of your Mistake or at least to make you give it over wholly P. But if I must go on in my Parallel I will proceed in my own way I mentioned three things Scripture Reason and Tradition And I will begin with Tradition Pr. This is somewhat an uncouth Method but I must be content to follow your Conduct P. No Sir the Method is very natural for in Mysteries above Reason the safest way is to trust Tradition And none can give so good account of that as the Church Pr. Take your own way but I perceive Tradition with you is the Sense of the present Church which is as hard to conceive as that a Nunc stans should be an eternal Succession P. As to comparing Tradition I say that the Mystery of the Trinity was questioned in the very Infancy of the Church and the Arians prevail'd much against it in the beginning of the fourth Age but Transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet for a long time and when it came into debate there was no such opposition as that of Arius to call in question the Authority of its Tradition the Church received it unanimously and in that Sense continued till rash Reason attempted to fathom the unlimited Miracles and Mysteries of God. Pr. I stand amazed at the boldness of this Assertion But I find your present Writers are very little vers'd in Antiquity which makes them offer things concerning the Ancient Church especially as to Transubstantiation which those who had been modest and learned would have been ashamed of P. I hope I may make use of them to justify my self tho you slight them I mean the Consensus Veterum the Nubes Testium and the single Sheet about Transubstantiation Pr. Take them all and as many more as you please I am sure you can never prove Transubstantiation to have been and the Trinity not to have been the constant Belief of the Primitive Church P. Let me manage my own Argument first Pr. All the Reason in the World. P. My Argument is That the Doctrine of the Trinity met with far more Opposition than Transubstantiation did Pr. Good Reason for it because it was never heard of then You may as well say the Tradition of the Circulation of the Blood lay very quiet from the days of Hippocrates to the time of Parisanus Who was there that opposed things before they were thought of P. That is your great Mistake for Transubstantiation was very well known but they did not happen to speak so much of it because it was not opposed Pr. But how is it possible for you to know it was so well known if they spake not of it P. I did not say they did not speak of it but not so much or not half so express because it is not customary for Men to argue unquestionable Truths Pr. But still how shall it be known that the Church received this Doctrine unanimously if they do not speak expresly of it But since you offer at no Proof of your Assertion I will make a fair offer to you and undertake to prove That the Fathers spake expresly against it P. How is that Expresly against it God forbid Pr. Make of it what you please and answer what you can I begin with my Proofs P. Nay then we are in for all Night I am now full of business and cannot hearken to tedious Proofs out of the Fathers which have been canvassed a hundred times Pr. I will be as short as I can and I promise you not to transcribe any that have hitherto written nor to urge you with any spurious Writer or lame Citation at second or third hand and I shall produce nothing but what I have read considered and weighed in the Authors themselves P. Since it must be so let me hear your doubty Arguments which I cannot as well turn against the Trinity For that is
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
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
no Creature could deserve Divine Worship and he deliver'd that as part of his own Doctrine and therefore those Words where he is said to make himself equal with God must be understood of Nature and not of Office. P. But St. John 17. 22. saith that Christ prayed to his Father for his Disciples That they may be one as we are one and that is not by Unity of Nature Pr. I grant it But our Saviour there speaks of a true but a lower kind of Unity or else the Socinians must think every Believer as capable of Divine Honour as Christ himself if they take those Words strictly That they may be one as we are one P. St. Paul saith He that planteth and he that watereth is one 1 Cor. 3. 8. Pr. Who doubts but there are other sorts of Unities besides that of Nature But doth this prove that there is no Unity of Nature between the Father and the Son If we have no better Arguments against Transubstantiation we will give over disputing P. I know you have other Arguments for the Trinity but they prove as little without the Authority of the Church as from those places where Christ is called God as Joh. 1. 1 2. Rom. 9. 5 c. Pr. And I think the Argument from those places very good and strong especially from John 1. 1 2 3. and it seems directly contrary to the whole design of Scripture to call any one God over all Blessed for evermore as Christ is called Rom. 9. 5. but he that is God by Natuce P. How do you prove that John 1. 1. relates to any thing beyond the beginning of the Gospel and that Christ the Word was before John the Baptists Preaching Pr. I desire any one to read the Text impartially and he will find the Socinian sense to be unnatural forced obscure and jejune proving a thing of no moment at that time but the Sense we give to be strong weighty consistent and of very great Consequence at that time when the Cerinthians denied the Divinity of Christ. The Sentences are short the Words lofty and significant the manner of beginning unusual so that any one would expect some great and extraordinary matter to be said in these few Verses but what a frustration were this if after all they intended no more than that altho John Baptist preached in publick before Christ yet that Christ was in being before that Which is a Sense so mean so remote from the occasion of his Writing as it is deliver'd by the Ancients that nothing but a miserable necessity could make Men of Wit and Subtilty to put such a Sense upon St. John's Words P. But they deny there was any such occasion of St. John's writing as the Cerinthians Heresy at that time Pr. I know Socinus doth so but he might as well have denied that there was any such Person as Cerinthus And I think the Cerinthian Heresy not only to have been the occasion of St. John's Writing but that the understanding of it gives the greatest and truest light to the Words of the Evangelist shewing the force and importance of them P. Wherein I pray did that Heresy consist Pr. I shall not meddle with other parts of it but only what relates to the present Subject and that lay in these things 1. That there was a Supreme and unknown Father who was before the Beginning and therefore they called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was the Fountain of all Emanations Iren. l. 1. c. 1. 19. 2. That the World was not made by him but by a Power at a distance from him called Demiurgus Iren. l. 1. c. 25. And in the Egyptian School where Cerinthus was educated the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word was one of the intermediate Emanations between the Father and the Demiurgus Iren. l. 1. c. 23. 3. That this World was in a state of Darkness and Confusion as to the supreme Father of all only some few had some beams of Light from him by which they knew him 4. That Jesus was a mere Man born as other Men are of Joseph and Mary but of extraordinary Goodness Wisdom and Sanctity 5. That the Supreme Father at his Baptism did send down a Divine Power upon him in the shape of a Dove which enabled him to declare the unknown Father and to work Miracles which returned to its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Fulness above when Jesus suffer'd This is a short Scheme of that Heresy as delivered by the ancient Fathers And now let any one compare St. Johns Words with it and he will find his design was to countermine this Heresy by two things 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word was Eternal For the Cerinthians said the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in the beginning but made a great space of time between the eternal Being of the Father and the Emanation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he was in perfect Silence as Irenoeus expresses it l. 1. c. 1. And so in the beginning doth imply the Eternity of the Word But that is not all for he saith it was with God and was God and was the Demiurgus or the Maker of the World and the Revealer of God to Mankind Joh. 1. 1 2 3 4 5 9 10. And so there was no place for those several Emanations between God and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Demiurgus as the Cerinthians said 2. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was Incarnate which he affirms v. 14. And the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us c. and was the only begotten Son of the Father and so he not only cuts off the other Emanations but declares that Jesus was far from being a mere Man. And to this purpose he brings in the Testimony of John Baptist v. 15. and applies what he had said to the Person of Jesus Christ v. 17. Now this being St. Johns design his Words afford a Demonstration to us of the Union of the Divine and Human Nature in Christ when he saith The Word was made Flesh. P. But doth not the Scripture in other places imply that there is a subordination in Christ to his Father which is not consistent with such an Equality of Nature see Heb. 1. 8 9. 1 Cor. 8. 4 5. 15. 27 28. Rev. 3. 12. Pr. The first place is a proof for the Divinity of Christ for the Words are But unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever c. It is true in the next verse it is said with respect to his Office Therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee c. But we do not deny that Christ was anointed as Mediator and in that respect God was his God but doth this prove that he that is Mediator cannot have a Divine Nature in Conjunction with the Human The second Place I suppose is mistaken 1 Cor. 8. not 4. and 5. but 6 verse But unto us there is but one God the Father of whom
are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him And this is one of the strongest holds of the Socinians But two Considerations will take off the seeming force of it 1. That the Apostle in his disputes with the Gentile Idolaters concerning whom he speaks v. 4 5. doth utterly deny any Divinity in the Beings they worshipped instead of God when he saith An Idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one He knew very well that they worshipped many v. 5. As there be Gods many and Lords many among them but unto us Christians there is but one God and one Lord i. e. we have but one Supreme God to whom we give Divine Worship and instead of the multitude of Mediators we have but one Mediator and so his design is in opposition to their many Gods to assert the Unity of the Divine Nature not so as to exclude a distinction of Persons but thereby to exclude other Gods as the proper Object of Worship and the Unity of a Mediator in opposition to their many Lords 2. That if this place excludes Christ from the Unity of Nature with God it doth exclude him from being the Object of Divine Worship for it saith That there is no other God but One therefore no Creature can be made God And to us there is but One God the Father therefore the Son cannot be God. If therefore the name Lord be taken in opposition to God then Christ cannot be God in any sense for we must have but One God but the plain meaning of the Apostle was That by one Lord he meant one Mediator by whom alone we have in this new frame of things by the Gospel access unto God the Father The third place 1 Cor. 15. 27 28. speaks plainly of Christs Kingdom as Mediator The fourth place Rev. 3. 12. where Christ speaks several times of my God proves no more than his words on the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me For surely Christ might own a particular Relation to God and Interest in him as he was in human Nature without overthrowing the Divine Nature in him P. But he owns That though he is to be our Judg he knows not the time Mark 13. 32. Which seems inconsistent with the Divine Nature which knoweth all things Pr. The Son there spoken of was Christ as endued with a human Soul when he was upon earth which could not understand a secret so much out of the reach of mans understanding without immediate Revelation But it was not necessary by virtue of the Union of both Natures that the Divine Nature should communicate to the human Soul of Christ all Divine Mysteries but as the human Body was notwithstanding subject to Passions and Infirmities incident to it so the human Soul might continue ignorant of the Day of Judgment in this state both to let us know how great that secret is and that Christ had the proper capacity of a human Soul which could not extend to such things without Divine Revelation P. There is one Argument more which seems to prove Christs Divinity and doth not viz. The making of all things visible and invisible being attributed to him John 1. 3. Heb. 1. 10. Col. 1. 16 17 18 19. Pr. Now I confess this doth more than seem to me to be a very strong Argument and that for this Reason the Apostle saith The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things which are made even his Eternal Power and Godhead Rom. 1. 20. Was this Argument of the Apostle good or not P. No doubt it was Pr. Then the Creation of the World is an Invincible Proof of the true God. P. What follows Pr. Then if the making of all things be attributed to Christ he must be true God but this is plain in the New Testament in which the making of all things is as clearly attributed to the Son as it is to the Father All things saith St. John were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made John 1. 3. For by him were all things created saith St. Paul that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created by him and for him Col. 1. 16. Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands Heb. 1. 10. Now compare these expressions with those wherein the Creation is attributed to the Father The world is said to be made by bim Rom. 1. 20. That he hath created all things Rev. 4. 11. That of him and for him and to him are all things Rom. 11. 36. And let any impartial mind discern the difference Therefore we have as much Reason from Scripture to believe Christ to be God as we have from the Creation of things to believe a God. P. But you do not take notice of the different expressions in Scripture concerning the Father and the Son All things are said to be of the Father and by the Son 1 Cor. 8. 6. And that the Father created all things by Jesus Christ Eph. 3. 9. which proves no more than that the Son was Gods Instrument in the Creation Pr. What do you mean by Gods Instrument in the Creation Do you think one Creature can create another How then can the Creation prove an Infinite Power If you believe the Instrument uncreated then you must assert him to be true God by Nature and then we have all we desire P. But the Socinians do not like this Answer of the Arians and therefore they interpret these places of the state of things under the Gospel and not of the Creation of the World. Pr. They have not one jot mended the matter for 1. Where the new Creation is spoken of some circumstances are added which limit the sense to it as when St. Paul saith We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works that we shoul walk in them Eph. 2. 10. VVho could possibly understand this of the old Creation And so If any man be in Christ Jesus he is a new Creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. But in the other places the same Expressions are used which are attributed to the old Creation without limitation from circumstances or from the Context and occasion of them 2. There are some things said to be created by Christ Jesus which cannot relate to the new Creation for by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or Powers Col. 1. 16. How are these created by Preaching the Gospel when they are uncapable of the proper means of it which are the Doctrine of the remission of Sins upon Repentance and the Renewing and Sanctifiing Grace of God P. But St. Paul doth not
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