Obrazy na stronie


which must not have extension there; but our Saviour's body, according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, must not have extension there; therefore, according to this doctrine, he must not have the figure of a man's body there. The major of this syllogism I prov

I ed, because the figure of a man's body could not be without extension. The minor I proved thus: That must not have extension in the eucharist, whose every part is together in one and the same point; but according to this doctrine, every part of our Saviour's body must be here in one and the saine point; therefore here it must not have extension.

Mr. Dan. answered, by distinguishing the major of the first syllogism, and said ; that he must not have the true figure of a man's body, according to the reason of a figure taken in its essential consideration, which is to have positionem partium sic et sic extra partes ; ; but not the accidental consideration, which is in ordine ad locum. And this answer he applied for the solution of the minor, saying thus: Our Saviour is there without any real alteration intrinsical, but not extrinsical; for he is not changed in order to himself, but in order to place: or otherwise, he is not altered in his continual existence, which is only modus essentiæ, and inseparable even by Divine power, though altered in modo existendi, which is situation, and required to figure taken in order to place.

Chill. Against this it was replied by Chillingworth, that the distinction of a man's body, as considered in itself, and as considered in reference to place, is vain, and no solution of the argument; and thus he proved it: If it be impossible that any thing should have several parts one out of another in order and reference of each to other, without having these parts in several places, then the distinction is vain; but it is impossible,

that any thing should have several parts one out of another, without having these parts in several places; therefore the distinction is vain.

The major of this syllogism he took for granted.

The minor he proved thus : Whatsoever body is in the proper place of another body, must of necessity be in that very body, by possessing the dimensions of it; therefore, whatsoever hath several parts one out of the other, must of necessity have them one out of the place of the other; and consequently in several places.

For illustration of this argument he said : If my head, and belly, and thighs, and legs, and feet, be all in the very same place, of necessity my head must be in my belly, and my belly in my thighs, and my thighs in my legs, and all of them in my feet, and my feet in all of them; and therefore if my head be out of my belly, it must be out of the place where my belly is ; and if it be not out of the place where my belly is, it is not out of my belly, but in it.

Again, to shew that, according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, our Saviour's body in the eucharist hath not the several parts of it out of one another, he disputed thus: Wheresoever there is a body, having several parts one out of the other, there must be some middle parts severing the extreme parts; but here, according to this doctrine, the extreme parts are not severed, but altogether in the same point; therefore here our Saviour's body cannot have parts one out of the other.

Mr. Dan. to all this (for want of a better answer) gave only this: “Let all scholars peruse these.” After, upon better consideration, he wrote by the side of the last syllogism this : Quoad entitatem verum est, non quoad locum; that is, “ According to entity it is true, but not according to place.” And to, “Let all scholars



[ocr errors]

peruse these,” he caused this to be added, weigh whether there is any new matter worth a new answer."

Chillingworth replied, That to say the extreme parts of a body are severed by the middle parts according to their entity, but not according to place, is ridiculous. His reasons are, first, because severing of things is nothing else but putting or keeping them in several places, as every silly woman knows; and therefore to say they are severed, but not according to place, is as if you should say, they are heated, but not according to heat; they are cooled, but not according to cold; indeed it is to say, they are severed, but not severed.

VIII. An Account of what moved the Author to turn

Papist, with his own Confutation of the Arguments

that persuaded him thereto. I RECONCILED myself to the church of Rome, because I thought myself to have sufficient reason to believe, that there was and must be always in the world some church that could not err; and consequently, seeing all other churches disclaimed this privilege of not being subject to error, the church of Rome must be that church which cannot err.

I was put into doubt of this way which I had chosen by Dr. Stapleton and others, who limit the church's freedom from error to things necessary only, and such as without which the church can be a church no longer; but granted it subject to error in things that were not necessary: hereupon considering, that most of the differences between protestants and Roman

catholics were not touching things necessary, but only profitable or lawful; I concluded, that I had not sufficient ground to believe the Roman church either could not or did not err in any thing, and therefore no ground to be a Roman catholic.

Against this again I was persuaded, that it was not sufficient to believe the church to be an infallible believer of all doctrines necessary, but it must also be granted an infallible teacher of what is necessary; that is, that we must believe, not only that the church teacheth all things necessary, but that all is necessary to be believed which the church teacheth to be so; in effect, that the church is our guide in the way to heaven.

Now to believe that the church was an infallible guide, and to be believed in all things which she requires us to believe, I was induced, first, because there was nothing that could reasonably contest with the church about this office, but the scripture; and that the scripture was this guide I was willing to believe, but that I saw not how it could be made good without depending upon the church's authority,

1. That scripture is the word of God; 2. That the scripture is a perfect rule of our duty ;

3. That the scripture is so plain in those things which concern our duty, that whosoever desires and endeavours to find the will of God there, he shall either find it, or at least not dangerously mistake it.

Secondly, I was drawn to this belief, because I conceived that it was evident, out of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that there must be unto the world's end a succession of pastors, by adhering to whom men might be kept from wavering in matters of faith, and from being carried up and down with every wind of false doctrine. That no succession of pastors could guard their ad

[ocr errors]

herents from danger of error, if themselves were subject unto error, either in teaching that to be necessary, which is not so, or denying that to be necessary, which is so : and therefore,

That there was and must be some succession of pastors, which was an infallible guide in the way to heaven, and which could not possibly teach any thing to be necessary, which was not so; nor any thing not necessary, which was so. Upon this ground I concluded, that seeing there must be such a succession of pastors as was an infallible guide, and there was no other, (but that of the church of Rome,) even by the confession of all other societies of pastors in the world ; that therefore that succession of pastors is that infallible guide of faith which all men must follow.

Upon these grounds, I thought it necessary for my salvation to believe the Roman church in all that she thought to be and proposed as necessary.

Against these arguments it hath been demonstrated unto me—and first against the first—that the reason why we are to believe the scripture to be the word of God, neither is nor can be the authority of the present church of Rome, which cannot make good her authority any other way, but by pretence of scripture; and therefore stands not unto scripture (no not in respect of us) in the relation of a foundation to a building, but of a building to a foundation ; doth not support scripture, but is supported by it. But the general consent of Christians of all nations and ages, a far greater company than that of the church of Rome, and delivering universally the scripture for the word of God, is the ordinary external reason why we believe it; whereunto the testimonies of the Jews, enemies of Christ, add no small moment for the authority of some part of it.

« PoprzedniaDalej »