SECOND DIALOGUE Between a New Catholic Convert AND A PROTESTANT.  
Showing why he cannot believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Though he do firmly believe the Doctrine Of the Trinity.  
LONDON, Printed for B. Aylmer, at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill. 1687.   

IMPRIMATUR.  
Decemb. 3. 1686. Guil. Needham.   

A Second Dialogue Between a new CATHOLIC CONVERT AND A Protestant, etc.  A. 
SIR, I much rejoice to meet you thus happily, and I hope I find you at leisure.  B. 
I am not only at leisure, but very much disposed to discourse with you farther of that matter which you commended to my consideration when we were last together.  A. 
And I hope you have duly considered it; if you have done so, I make no doubt but you are of my mind.  B. 
I do not find in myself any inclination so prevailing as that which I have towards truth; and you will believe me when I tell you that in matters of this nature I am not likely to be drawn from it by any worldly interest. I have the indifference of a Traveller, and desire nothing but to find the right way to Heaven.  A. 
This persuasion I have had of you always; and as this disposition to embrace the truth, where ever it is, well becomes an honest mind, so I do not fear but you are by this time convinced, that when you believe the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, you cannot reject the belief of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; For you remember that this is the question that we disputed on when we met last.  B. 
You are very right when you say that was the question between us. And I do very well remember that you used these very words; As these two Doctrines have equal ground from Scripture, 
Pag. 2.  Reason and Tradition; so is there the same obligation of your receiving the one as well as the other. I do freely own that I believe the H. Trinity, and that I do not believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and therefore do not think myself obliged to believe the one because I believe the other. And, if you please to give me the hearing, I will frankly tell you why I cannot believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation true, and then I'll give you my reasons why, though I do believe the Holy Trinity, I do not think myself obliged for the same reason to believe your Doctrine of Transubstantiation.  A. 
As to the first of these you may I conceive spare your pains. I desire not to hear your reasons against that Doctrine of the Catholic Church. 'Tis the other matter you are most concerned in, viz. to give good reason why you do not believe the one as well as the other. But I give you liberty to proceed in your own way.  B. 
I shall be very brief as to the first of these, and only touch upon some things that do absolutely hinder me from believing this Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Nothing is more certain than that this Doctrine destroys the evidence of Sense, and consequently subverts our whole Religion. We cannot be certain of the truth of the Miracles which Jesus did, nor of his Resurrection, if our senses are not to be credited even then when the object of them is at a due distance, and the medium and organ rightly disposed, and all other requisites in due order. And by the very same r●●●●● I believe this Doctrine true I may suspect the rest 〈◊〉 Religion. In a word, it seems to me to be a 〈…〉 falsehood, and nothing can be more evidently 〈◊〉 manifestly true than this is manifestly false: And you will in vain attempt to prove any of your Doctrines from the Bible, when, according to this Doctrine I may not trust my Eyes, and may as well deny that there is any such place of Scripture which you allege, as you can affirm the truth of this Doctrine, against the evidence of sense. Besides it labours with difficulties and absurdities that are insupportable.  A. 
But we are not to reject a Doctrine because it is attended with some considerable difficulties, for than we may reject that of the Holy Trinity, and of the Incarnation, and Resurrection of our Bodies. And there are great difficulties in the account of the genealogy of Jesus by St. Matthew and St. Luke, and yet I presume you believe these Doctrines, and do not question the truth of either Evangelist how inconsistent soever they may seem to be one with another.  B. 
Mistake me not, Sir, I am far from thinking that we are to reject those Doctrines which are attended with great difficulties: But yet we are certain that Doctrine cannot be true, which if it were allowed so to be, would subvert the whole Religion, and leave nothing certain or true but itself; nor leave us any evidence that itself is true.  A. 
Let me entreat you to speak to the main point, that is, give me your reasons why when you believe the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity you should reject this of Transubstantiation; for if this be attended with great difficulties, so is the other.  B. 
This I will readily do, but must tell you again that I do not reject any Doctrine because of the difficulties attending on it.  A. 
Assign then the reasons why when you do believe the Trinity, you deny that Doctrine which hath Equal Ground for it from Scripture, Reason and Tradition.  B. 
I can by no means grant that it hath Equal Ground: And I will therefore give you the reasons which you demand. And  
First, The Doctrine of the Trinity is revealed in the Scripture, in this both sides are agreed: The other Doctrine is not revealed, so the Protestants with one consent affirm: 
Salmeron To. 9 tract. 16.  And indeed those of your Church grant that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not evidently revealed in Holy Writ. 
Bellarmin. de Euchar. l. 3. cap. 23.  Scotus affirms, as Bellarmin confesseth (and thinks his opinion not altogether improbable) that Transubstantiation cannot be evidently proved from any express Scripture. Now the Fathers of the Council of Nice urge the Text of H. Writ against the Arians. But the Church of Rome maintains their Doctrine upon another bottom, and that is the authority and declaration of the Church.  A. 
But do we not bring Texts of Scripture for the proof of this Doctrine?  B. 
That you do frequently, but then the greater and wiser of your Divines will not lay the stress of the cause upon Scripture. I except out of this number Mr. Sclater of Putney, 
Consens. vet. pag. 20.  who is for the literal sense of those words, This is my Body, because the nature of a last Will and Testament requires it should be so. But, alas! he considers not what follows, where 'tis said in these words of this last Will and Testament, that the Cup is the New Testament of his Blood, where he will be forced to acknowledge a figure or two. But he that can prove Transubstantiation from the Rabbias, may be allowed a greater liberty than other men think fit to take.  A. 
Have you a●y other rea●on to allege why you do not, when you believe the Trinity, bel●●●● 〈◊〉 Doctrine also?  B. 
I have, and having showed that your Doctrine hath not equal ground from Scripture, I add  
Secondly, That it hath not equal ground from Reason. 'Tis certain, and hath been abundantly made good that your Doctrine contradicts right Reason: It involves a heap of contradictions: it supposeth a change of substance when the accidents remain, that these accidents should nourish, or destroy: That the same body should be in many places at once, broken and whole at the same time; that a whole body should be in a point; that every wafer should be the whole body, and yet the body be but one. That a thing can be divided into wholes. I forbear to name much more to the same purpose. The Doctrine of the Trinity is indeed above our reason and comprehension, but you will not say 'tis against it. Besides 'tis revealed, and 'tis reasonable to believe what God says. Besides we are better able to judge the nature of bodies (upon which account we reject your Doctrine as manifestly false) than of the spiritual and incomprehensible nature of God. We reject not what our reason does not comprehend. But shall we therefore believe what is a contradiction to all the reason of mankind? And because we do not comprehend the sublime nature of God, may we not rely upon our senses when they are employed on their proper objects?  A. 
Have you any other reason why you reject Transubstantiation, when you believe the Trinity?  B. 
Having showed that your Doctrine hath not Equal Ground from Scripture and Reason, I add, that it hath not,  
Thirdly, Equal ground from Authority. Indeed you produced none at all, and therefore I need not cite any 〈…〉, th●t 〈…〉 the 
〈…〉  in the Doctri●e of Transubstantiation, as they are in … M●●●ery of the Holy Trinity. It will be hard to re … e this concession with what you affirmed a little above, that these two Doctrines have Equal ground from Tradition. But he that believes the Doctrine itself, need n●● … ggle to say, that not half so much is yet Equal ground. 'Tis true you pretend to give a good reason why the Fathers are not half so ex●ress in the one as in the other. Because Transubstantiation hath not been a Doctrine so long in dispute, and 'tis not Customary for men to argue unquestionable truths. I do easily believe it hath not been so long in dispute; no such thing being heard of in the primitive and best times. And 'tis easier to suppose it an unquestionable truth than to prove it to have been professed at all. But this is to beg and not to prove the question.  
I will add no more reasons, though I might easily do it, because I am for brevity as well as you. I have abundantly shown that these two Doctrines have not Equal ground from Scripture, Reason and Tradition, and that there is not the same obligation to receive one as the other.  
And thus, Sir, though I cannot acquiesce in what you say, yet I hearty thank you for your good Prayer, and beg you would join with me in repeating it in behalf of all Christians. God give us his Holy Spirit to instruct us.  
FINIS.