« VorigeDoorgaan »
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 peruse these) he caused this to be added-And 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 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 adherents from danger, and 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 of 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, 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 neces
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.
That, whatsoever stood upon the same ground of universal tradition with Scripture, might justly challenge belief as well as Scripture; but that no doctrine, not written in Scripture, could justly pretend to as full tradition as the Scripture, and