A divine antidote against a devilish poyson, or, A scriptural answer to an anti-scriptural and heretical pamphlet entituled A designed end to the Socinian controversie, written by John Smith answered by Francis Gregory, D.D. and rector of Hambleden in the county of Bucks.

SECT. XXVIII. (Book 28)

THE next thing, which this Au∣thor attempts, is to discourse of Scripture Mysteries, and here his De∣sign is to overthrow the Mysterious Doctrines of the Blessed Trinity, by charging it with Contradictions and Impossibilities: for, thus he writes;

If we are to believe Mysteries, when clearly revealed, yet that doth not oblige us to believe Impossibilities and Contra∣dictions; I answer,

That we are to believe Mysteries, when clearly revealed from Heaven, is so certain a Truth, that if this Man doubt it, as he seems to do, he is an Infidel, as well as an Heretick. But sup∣pose, that we are so to believe, yet, saith he, it doth not from thence fol∣low,

that therefore we must believe Im∣possibilities and Contradictions. His mea∣ning is, as is evident from the Design of his whole Book, that we are not bound to believe the Doctrine of the Trinity; because, in his opinion, there are Impossibilities and Contradictions in it.

But doth this presuming Mechanick perfectly understand the Infinite per∣fections of the incomprehensible God? Can he give us a just Account of his Eternity without Succession? Or his Om∣nipresence without Extension? Can he tell us, how any Being should be of and from it self, and yet such a Being there must be, and that without a Beginning? If this man doth not fully comprehend the Nature of God, the Infinity of his Essence, and the Extent of his unlimited Power, how dares he charge that Doctrin with Impossi∣bilities and Contradictions, which this great God hath so clearly and so fre∣quently revealed for a certain Truth, and which this man doth not, cannot under∣stand.

But the Truth is, there is nothing of Contradiction in what the Scriptures deliver concerning the Trinity; we are there told that there is but One true

God, and we believe it; we are also there as plainly told, that there are Three Persons in the Godhead, and we do equally believe that too, and so have the generality of good men done before us.* 1.1 So testified Epiphanius of his and former times, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the Ho∣ly Scriptures the Trinity is declared unto us, and is believed, and that without any curious Questions or Con∣tentions about it; and so it was in the Ages before him; so he intimates elsewhere:* 1.2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Religion called Christian, by the good pleasure of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, hath been believed by all men, who pleased God in their respe∣ctive Generations.* 1.3 And this Trinity thus believed, he thus describes; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. There are Three Holy ones, Three equal∣ly Holy, Three Subsistences, Three equal Subsistences, being each joined to one another, being of one Consent, one

Godhead, and the same Power, &c. but then he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But as to the manner, how this should be, it must be left to these blessed Persons themselves to to teach us.

And since the Doctrin of the Trini∣ty hath in all Ages been received as an undoubted Article of our Christian Faith, by the Generality of judicious men; we may conclude, that they, who believed it, discovered no Impos∣sibilities, no Contradictions in it; and if there were none in their Ages, the Do∣ctrin being still the same, there can be none in ours. Indeed, were we told, that there is but One God, and yet that there are Three Gods, this were a plain Contradiction, and con∣sequently impossible that both the Pro∣positions should be true; but when we are told, that there is but One God, and yet Three Persons, each of which is God, there is no Contradiction in this; because their Divine Nature, Es∣sence and Infinite Perfections are nume∣rically the same. And although our shallow understanding cannot dive in∣to this deep Mystery, nor apprehend how it should be so; yet ought we to be so far from judging it impossible,

that we are obliged firmly to believe that so it is, because it is as clearly de∣livered in the Scriptures, and I think as consonant to humane Reason, as some other Articles of our Faith, which yet most men within the Church pre∣tend to believe.

The Resurrection of the Dead is a Doctrin attended with such Intricacies, and so many Difficulties, that humane Reason scarce knoweth how to admit it for a certain truth, though indeed it be so. In St. Paul's time it was thought to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a thing Incredi∣ble,* 1.4 and Celsus in Origin stiles it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a thing impossible, and yet we believe, not only that it may, but must be. Now, as there are some things in Nature, which are looked upon as Types, Emblems, and Representations of the Resurrecti∣on; so likewise are there some instances in Nature, which, though they can∣not be urged as proofs for the certainty, yet may serve as useful illustrations to help our weak Apprehensions, and somewhat facilitate our belief as to the Possibility of the Trinity. As for in∣stance; there is in every living Man a Rational, a Sensitive, and a Vegetive Soul; and yet the Soul of Man is but One; so here, there is in the Deity a

Father, a Son, and an Holy Ghost, and yet the Deity is but One. Only here is the difference, Reason, Sense, and Ve∣getation, are but three essential and di∣stinct Faculties, or Powers of one and the same Soul; whereas, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are three essential and distinct subsistences in one and the same Godhead; and for the belief of this, the Scripture is our only Authentick Warrant.

But that we have there any such Warrant, this man denieth, and like one out of his wits tells us, When a Mystery is plainly expressed in some places of Scripture, if others more nu∣merous and plain had affirmed the con∣trary, or had it been contradicted by any self-evident Principle of Reason, we might then have rejected the belief thereof as safely, and with as good Au∣thority, as we now do that of the Popish Transubstantiation, which by the way is as expresly contained in Scripture, as is that of the Trinity; so he. To which I answer: In this expression there is both Blalphemy and Falshood.

1. In this expression there is Blas∣phemy, and it lieth in that vile suppo∣sition of his, When a Mystery is plainly revealed in some places of Scripture, if

others more numerous and plain had af∣firmed the contrary; in plain English, had God contradicted himself, a sugge∣stion so blasphemous, a supposition so abominable, that he who raised it, wants and deserves a Room in Bethle∣hem, or in some other Mad-house.

For this supposition can no way tend to promote this man's accursed Design; for, it doth insinuate, that the mysterious Doctrin of the Trinity, which concession is enough for us, is plainly revealed in some places of the Scripture; and although he makes bold to intimate, that it is as plainly contradicted in many more; yet when he shall be at leisure to shew us that such and such Texts, relating to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are incon∣sisted, and clash with one another: We doubt not, but we shall very easily and very fairly reconcile alone, and make up a perfect and lasting Peace, and a very friendly correspondence between them.

2. In this expression of his our Au∣thor asserts a down-right Falshood; for he thus affirms, The Doctrin of the Po∣pish Transubstantiation, is as expresly con∣tained in the Scripture, as is that of the Trinity.

But is this man a Member of any reformed and Protestant Church? could the whole Society of Jesuits have said more in favour of their beloved Tran∣substantiation, and in so few words, than this man hath done? could he make good, what he hath said, he would well deserve a Cardinal's Cap, if not a Triple Crown.

But there lieth a strong Prejudice against this unwarrantable Assertion; for if this Doctrin of Transubstantia∣tion be, as this man saith, as expresly contained in the Scripture, as is that of the Trinity; how came to it pass, that the one should not be receiv'd and esta∣blished as an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith, as early as the other? Irenaeus tells us thus;* 1.5 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. the Church, tho then dispersed through∣out the whole World, received the Doctrin of the Trinity,* 1.6 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Apostles and their Disciples; of whom Ignatius was one; who in his Epistles to several Churches, and par∣ticularly in the Inscription of that to Philadelphia, doth distinctly mention the Three Persons of the Trinity, which is an Argument that they were all own∣ed

and adored as one God in his early Days.

So that for the general Reception and Belief of the Doctrin of the Trinity, we may justly plead Prime Antiquity, even before the Days of Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France, in the second Cen∣tury, a Disciple of Polycarp; and in the time of Ignatius,* 1.7 whom Isaac Vossius stiles; Martyr gloriosissimus, Coaetaneus, & amicus Apostolorum, a most glorious Martyr, contemporary with the Apo∣stles, and a Friend of theirs. But can any Plea of such Antiquity be justly offer∣ed for the Romish Doctrin of Transub∣stantiation? when this Doctrin first began to be obtruded upon the Church as a necessary Article of the Christian Faith, we have this just Account from the Pen of a learned Man:* 1.8 Innocentius Tertius circa Annum Domini millesimum ducentesimum in Lateranensi Concilio, modum conversionis, ante in Ecclesia non definitum, primus determinavit, & dog∣mati novo novam etiam indidit & accom∣modavit appellationem, &c. Pope Inno∣cent the Third about the Twelfth Cen∣tury in the Lateran Council was the first Man, who determined the man∣ner, how the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are converted, into the real

Body and Blood of Christ, and to this New Doctrin, never defined till now, he gave and sitted a new Name, that of Transubstantiation.

Now, may we not here very justly demand, whence was it that this Do∣ctrin of Transubstantiation should be utterly unknown to Prime Antiqui∣ty? if it be as expresly contained in the Scripture, as the Doctrin of the Tri∣nity; why was this so early and so ge∣nerally professed, when the other was not so much as thought on? certain∣ly, the only reason must be this: Ig∣natius, Clemens Romanus, Clemens Alex∣andrinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and many other learned Men in the succeeding Ages, could find the Do∣ctrin of the Trinity clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures; but as for that Monster of Transubstantiation, they could there with their best Eyes find neither the word, nor the thing inten∣ded by it.

For the Truth is, it is not there; 'tis a New Doctrin, to which our Evangelists and Apostles were perfect Strangers; in all their Writings there is, not only no sure footing, but not so much as a plausible Pretence for it; 'tis opposed by Sense, by Reason, by

several Scriptures, but countenanced by none; insomuch that although some learned Men, out of a base compliance with the Interests of the Roman Church, plead for it; yet we may justly think that they themselves do not, cannot believe it. The Scriptures, which de∣liver the Doctrin of the Trinity are familiar, plain, and easie; such as must be understood in their common, natu∣ral, and literal Sense, and are uncapa∣ble of any other tolerable Interpreta∣tion. But those Texts, which are usu∣ally cited in favour of Transubstantia∣tion, are improper, figurative, metony∣mical, and in a literal Sense impossible to be true.

Such are those expressions of our Blessed Saviour, who said of the Bread being then in his Hand; This is my Body,* 1.9 and of the Wine, This is my Blood; and again, This Cup is the New Testament: All this is true in that Sense, which our Lord intended; but that must needs be Tropical; we cannot doubt, but Joseph spake truth, when interpreting Pharaoh's Dream,* 1.10 he told him thus; The seven good ki••e are seven years, and it was a truth, which was thus told St. John;* 1.11 The seven Can∣dlesticks are the seven Churches, and

our Lord spake truth, when he said, I am the Door, the Vine, the Bread, which came down from Heaven, &c. All these Texts are fairly capable of a fi∣gurative Sense, but impossible to be true in any other.

So here, when our Lord said of Bread and Wine; This is my Body, This is my Blood; his Speech must be metonymical, and his meaning must be this: Bread in this Sacrament shall be used by my Institution to represent my Body, and Wine my Blood, even as the seven golden Candlesticks represented the seven Churches. And thus do the An∣cient Fathers, who never dreamed of Transubstantiation, expound this Text, Hoc est corpus meum, id est,* 1.12 Fi∣gura corporis mei: This is my Body, that is to say, this is the Figure of my Body, so Tertullian. And thus St. Au∣stin, Non dubitavit Dominus dicere,* 1.13 Hoc est corpus meum, cùm signum daret cor∣poris sui: Our Lord did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when he gave the sign of his Body, the Bread. St. Chry∣sostom stiles the Sacrament Bread and Wine; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.14 Tokens of Christ's Body and Blood. St. Hierom saith, that by this Bread and Wine our Lord was pleased; Veritatem corporis & saengui∣nis

sui repraesentare, To represent the Truth of his Body and Blood: Now, if the Bread be, what Tertullian calls it, the Figure of Christ's Body; if it be as St. Austin saith, the sign of his Body; if the Bread and Wine be, as St. Chryso∣stom speaks, Symbols and Tokens; or, as St. Hierom expresseth it, Representati∣ons of our Lord's Body and Blood; then these words of Christ; This is my Body, This is my Blood, are metonymical; and being so: They give no countenance to the Romish Doctrin of Transubstan∣tiation.

And since this Text doth not prove that Doctrin, there is no other, that can so much as be pretended for it, without force and violence;* 1.15 nay, some Popish Writers themselves, as Chemni∣tius testifieth, do confess thus much; Nec verbis Scripturae, nec symbolis fidei, nec veterum sententiis cogi nos ad Dogma Transubstantiationis; we are not obli∣ged to believe the Doctrin of Tran∣substantiation by any word of Scripture, by any publick Confession of the Chri∣stian Faith, nor by any declared judg∣ment of Ancient Writers; whereas by every one of these Authorities the Do∣ctrin of the Trinity is confirmed and established.

Nor is it any wonder that it should be so; for the Doctrine of Transub∣stantiation is grounded upon such Texts, as every man of sense and reason, who is not intoxicated and miserably fore∣stalled with groundless Prejudices, must needs acknowledge to be improper and metonymical; whereas the Doctrine of the Trinity is delivered in such words as are plain, easie, and uncapable of any figure. St. John saith, The word was God; again he saith of Christ, This is the true God. St. Thomas stiles him, My Lord, and My God. St. Paul stiles him, God blessed for ever; St. John saith, There are Three that bear record in Hea∣ven; and our Lord himself hath named them; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now, are not all these Texts, familiar, obvious, and very in∣telligible? Can we imagine, that any Trope should be in them? the genera∣lity of the most judicious Interpreters have understood them in their literal sence; and why they should now be expounded any other way, neither this Man, nor any of his Abettors, will ever be able to give us one solid reason.

And yet this illiterate Mechanick, in conformity to the rest of his Book, makes bold to affirm this notorious

falshood, That the Doctrine of Transub∣stantiation, which is grounded upon the literal sence of a Text or two, which being so understood, can never be true, is as expresly contained in the Scripture, as the Doctrine of the Tri∣nity, which yet is built upon such plain Texts, wherein no figure can be found; nor can they fairly be under∣stood in any sence, save only that which is literal.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Epiphan. in Pan. Haer. 74. p. 891.
• * 1.2

  Epiphan. in Pan. adv. Haer. l. 3. Tom. 2. p. 1084.
• * 1.3

  Epiphanius ubi supra.
• * 1.4

  Origen. contra l. 5. p. 24. Edit. Cantabrig.
• * 1.5

  Irenaeus adv. Hae. l. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.6

  Ignatius in Ep. ad Phi∣lad.
• * 1.7

  Isaaicus Vossius in praef. ad Igna. Epist.
• * 1.8

  Chemnit. in Exam. Concilii gridentini p. 271.
• * 1.9

  Mat. 26.26.28. Luk. 22.20
• * 1.10

  Gen. 41.26
• * 1.11

  Apoc. 1.20.
• * 1.12

  Tertull adv. Marc l. 4. c. 4. p. 458.
• * 1.13

  Ang. cont. Adimant. c. 12. p. 41
• * 1.14

  Chrysost. in Mat. Hom. 82. Hierom. in Mat. 26.26
• * 1.15

  Chemnitii Exam. Conc. Tri∣dent. p. 272.