A DIALOGUE Between a New Catholic Convert AND A PROTESTANT, Showing the DOCTRINE of TRANSUBSTANTIATION To be as Reasonable to be Believed as the GREAT MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY By all Good Catholics.  
Published with Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty for His Household and Chapel. 1686.   

A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A New Catholic Convert, AND A PROTESTANT, Concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation.  A. 
YOU cannot imagine how much I am overjoyed to see you. I have been big with Discourse these three days for want of utterance. You may remember, when we talked together last, we parted in a Dispute concerning Transubstantiation and the Holy Trinity, of their equal Reasonableness and Authority. I must confess I was not at that time so thoroughly armed with Reasons to show you the Parallel: but since I have given myself a little leisure to consider of it, and I am persuaded I shall be able to give you satisfaction.  B. 
Sir, you know I am always glad of any Opportunity to gain your good Company, but especially upon so good an Occasion. I'll assure you, I am not, nor ever was, an Enemy to Catholic Communion; and if I had not too just a Cause, I should never suffer myself in that which without reasonable Grounds might be called a wilful Schism.  A. 
I have no reason to doubt your Integrity, and therefore shall not question that: I shall only desire the liberty to press my old Argument, That you would rely on the Authority of the Church. I must confess, you have often questioned the doing of it; but I am sure, when you shall consider there are Mysteries as well as Doctrines in the Christian Religion, and when you know that Mysteries are not to be fathomed by Natural Reason, you must needs conclude, that in some Cases your safest way is to trust Tradition. Now certainly no one can give us so good an Account of That, us the Church.  B. 
But, Sir, to be short; What relation has this to the present Parallel of the Trinity and Transubstantiation? The Authority of the Church is another Point as disputable as That.  A. 
Very much: For as these two Doctrines have equal ground from Scripture, Reason, and Tradition; so is there the same Obligation of your receiving one, as well as the other. And indeed I have since wondered at my own Profession, while a Protestant, to think how blind and partial I was: But I must confess, because we are in a Dispute, it is better laying by such aggravating Circumstances; and indeed I cannot but be sensible what Prejudices such Discourses always make, and therefore I shall speak nothing more of that nature.  B. 
But to return to the main Point; I must tell you, I do not think them equally grounded on Scripture, Reason, or Tradition; and indeed you may remember that was the old Point in dispute with us.  A. 
Well, Sir, to show you your Error, I shall begin with the several Particulars in their Order; and so, first, as to the Tradition of Transubstantiation. Now 'tis evident That has been delivered with less interruption than that of the Holy Trinity: That Mystery was questioned in the very Infancy of the Church; nay, not only so, but the Arians prevailed much against it about the beginning of the Fourth Age. On the other side, Transubstantiation lay unquestioned and quiet a long time; and when it came to 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.  B. 
But the Fathers are not half so express in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as they are in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity.  A. 
That's true, and there's very good Reason for it: Transubstantiation has not been a Doctrine so long in dispute, and 'tis not customary for Men to argue unquestionable Truths. And whereas you may think that Transubstantiation has of late received such shrewd Repulses by your Books, I'll assure you, you forget how much the true Catholic Zeal destroys the Seeds of Heresies. Do you think that so many Bishops, not only of the Eastern, but of the Western Church also, could be Arians, and yet suppose that that Opinion wanted as plausible a Pretence of Tradition? Certainly if you consider that, you cannot think to establish the Doctrine of the Trinity by Tradition, more than Transubstantiation; especially considering the strong Footsteps of that Sect even in the Fathers now extant. I would cite you some of them, but that they are not so much to my main Design, and indeed my aim is Brevity.  B. 
Well, Sir, 'tis true, we cannot so well plead Tradition to what you have urged; and especially when I call to mind, that Arianism was confirmed by a General Council: But we allege an higher ground; we stand upon the Authority of the Scriptures, and indeed that is the true Touchstone of all Doctrines.  A. 
'Tis true, if you will follow the Catholic Church, and take the Scriptures literally, you may discover the Mystery of the Holy Trinity in them; but if you once yield to Figurative Allusions and Interpretations, the Arians will be as much too hard for you, as you imagine yourselves to be for the Catholic Church. In short, both Doctrines will be at a loss, and both equally require the Authority of the Church to support them.  B. 
O no, surely, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is more express in Scriptures than so.  A. 
To satisfy you that what I say is Truth, because I may represent the Parallel the clearer, I will personate an Arian, that Sect so often condemned by the Ancient Church, and you shall see his Plea against the Trinity is as fair as yours against Transubstantiation. And because this is the main Parallel, I shall be somewhat the longer, that I may give you the greater satisfaction.  B. 
I shall be very glad to hear what you can speak to the matter.  A. 
First then, I say, 'Tis highly unreasonable to interpret that Text, 1 John 5.7. That there be Three in Heaven that bear record, and those Three are One; as likewise John 10.30. I and my Father are One, literally; for if we do, we not only oppose Sense and Reason, but we make Construction directly against the very Scripture, John 10.31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. and John 17.21, 22, 23. 1 Cor. 3.8 And what can be urged more against us in respect of Transubstantiation?  B. 
Very right, Sir, that Interpretation carries a forcible Reasonableness; but the Doctrine of the Trinity does not wholly depend upon those two Proofs.  A. 
Right, it does not; but I can give you further Demonstration in this Parallel. A principal Ground of the Trinity is because the Son is so often called God in Scripture, as John 1.1, 2. Rom. 9.5. etc. Now if we did not comply with the Catholic Church, and make a Literal Construction in this Case likewise, how strangely should we be confounded by those Texts where this Godhead in Christ is declared to be no more than Lordship, and subordinate to the Father? as Heb. 1.8, 9 1 Cor. 8.4, 5. 1 Cor. 15.27, 28. Rev. 3.12. and John 10.35, 36.  B. 
But, Sir, our Saviour forgave Sins too.  A. 
That's true, but only by a deputed Authority. You see, when the Sons of Zebbedee petitioned him, he could not grant the final Accomplishment of our Spiritual Warfare, that was the Father's Prerogative, Matth. 20.23. And tho' he is to be our Judge, yet he knows not the time, Mark 13.31. 1 Tim. 6.15.  B. 
I must confess, these things a little surprise me; but however, I cannot think these neither the only Grounds that support that Mystery of the Trinity.  A. 
No, you are in the right; there is one strong Proof more: the making of all things visible and invisible is attributed to the Son, and that expressly, John 1.3. Heb. 1.10. and particularly, Col. 1.16, 17, 18, 19 But yet for all that, if we do not adhere with the Catholic Church to the Literal Interpretation, we are at a loss there too: For, first, 'tis plain by the rest of the Scripture, that the Son is not our only Maker, as appears by our Creation attributed to the Father; and than if we compare those Texts to Heb. 1.2, 9, 10. 1 Cor. 8.6. Eph. 3.9. Eph. 4.5, 6. 1 Cor. 15.27, 28. we cannot reasonably attribute more to the Son, than his being God's Instrument in the Creation.  B. 
But are these the true and only Grounds of the Doctrine of that Holy Mystery?  A. 
Yes verily; for, that we are Baptised in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is no Argument. That were as reasonable, if understood of Christ and the Holy Ghost, as our Spiritual Governors, as under the supposal of their being Coequal with the Father, 1 Cor. 10.2. 1 Cor. 12.12, 13.  B. 
But surely, Sir, the Arians should have other Grounds to establish their Opinions, besides those; or else your Parallel with Transubstantiation will not be so demonstrable as you conceive. Pray inform me a little further, I have a mighty desire to understand a little better their Fundamental Principles.  A. 
To satisfy you, I shall. First, They allege Christ represented under the Law altogether as an Angel; for Eminency called the Angel of the Presence, Isa. 63.9. Eccl. 5.6. Gen. 48.16. Num. 20.16. Exod. 23.20, 21, 22. referred to 1 Cor. 10.4, 5, 9 Further, they collect him to be a Created Being, from Col. 1.15. Rev. 3.14. Psal. 118.23. Isa. 45.8. Ecclus 1.4, 9 Ecclus 24.9. Sap. 6.22, 23. And they interpret that Scripture, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, by Acts 13.33. and 2 Pet. 1.17. As to the Holy Ghost, they prove a vast distance between him and the Son, by John 16.12, 13, 14, 15. and John 15.26. Besides, they say, he is no where called God; and urge for the probability of their Opinion Rev. 12.9. Rev. 20.8. 2 Cor. 4.4. For as there is an universal tempting Evil Power, so we may reasonably conclude, there may be a Good Assisting Power, without any necessity of his being God. And further, wherever in the Scriptures there is made any mention of the Three Persons, there is always declared an express Gradation; as, 1 Cor. 12.3, 4, 5. 2 Cor. 13.14. Gift and Communion from the Fellowship of the Holy Ghost, Grace and Administration from the Lordship and Kingship of Christ, and Love and Operation from the Father, the Supreme God, the Original Fountain, according to Eph. 4.4, 5, 6.  B. 
I must confess, Sir, these Opinions seem to make it necessary for us in that Doctrine too, to trust to the Authority of the Catholic Church, and I shall take time to consider a little upon them: But pray, Sir, what say you to the Reasons of the two Doctrines.  A. 
Really, Sir, I must tell you, I think that Parallel much the easiest. 'Tis strange new Arithmetic to a Man, to tell him, Three distinct Persons are one and the same Individual Nature, and then to call such a one the most Pure and Simple Being; and that especially when they are declared to have various Intellectual Powers, as appears by John 16.12, 13, 14, 15. and Mark 13.31. 1 Tim. 6.15. Acts 1.7. For my part, I cannot tell well how the Prejudice of Education could possibly digest a thing so unreasonable, were it not a Divine Mystery. I am sure, to my Carnal Reason, there may be as well Three hundred Persons in the Godhead, as Three; and I know not what can be said of Transubstantiation that is seemingly more absurd than That.  B. 
I must confess, Sir, I have had strange, consused, and surprising Thoughts of it myself; but I alays apprehended the Christian Church a sufficient Guide.  A. 
If you did, Sir, pray consider who that Catholic Mother is you so obeyed; and as you have received the Trinity, so receive a Doctrine equally as Reasonable, and delivered by Her, Transubstantiation. I know the Ingenuousness of your Temper, and you promised me at first not to be a wilful Schismatic; and therefore I have hopes my Reasons, and your Consideration, will be sufficient to reduce you to Catholic Communion.  B. 
Sir, I shall consider of it; but as yet you only talked to me at large: I shall desire one Favour of you before we part; Pray state the Parallel a little shorter, I shall the better remember it.  A. 
Well, Sir, I shall. First, The Tradition of one Doctrine cannot be stronger than another, where both have been at least equally questioned. Secondly, 'Tis as reasonable to take This is my Body literally, as it is to take these Texts I and my Father are one god over all blessed for ever, and By him all things were made, without reference to other Scriptures, and a Figurative Interpretation. And, lastly, I think to Human Reason 'tis as equally unreasonable, and as seemingly repugnant, to say One is Three, as it is to say a Body is not what it appears.  B. 
Very well; I shall desire no more of you now: I'll only take a little Time to consider, and then you shall know my Mind more freely.  A. 
Farewell; and God give you his Holy Spirit to instruct you.  
FINIS.