to give Lawes and those Lawes oblige Subjects to obedience and yet that Prince never be imagined infallible in making Lawes And natural reason cannot conclude it impossible that a Church should have a proportionable power given it by God to binde belief c. Num. 12 As for the Catholick or Roman Church 1. that is a misprision the Catholick is not the single Roman Church nor the Roman the Catholick 2. There no where appears any such definition either of the Catholick i. e. Vniversall Church of God or particularly of the Roman Church no act of Councell representative of that Church no known affirmation of that diffused body under the Bishop of Rome's Pastorage that all authority to oblige belief is founded in Infallibility 3. If any such definition did appear it could no way be foundation of belief to us who doe not believe that Church or any definition thereof as such to be infallible Num. 13 2. If we shall but distinguish and limit the termes 1. what is meant by can lie 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no 3. By power to binde 4 By belief as every of these have a latitude of signification and may be easily mistaken till they are duly limited It will then soon appear that there is no unlimited truth in that which he saith is the whole Churches affirmation nor prejudice to our pretensions from that limited truth which shall be found in it Num. 14 1. The phrase can lie may denote no more than such a possibility of erring as yet is joyned neither with actuall error nor with any principle whether of deficiency on one side nor of malignity on the other which shall be sure to betray it into error Thus that particular Church that is at the present in the right in all matters of faith and hath before it the Scripture to guide it in all its decisions together with the traditions and doctrines of the antient and Primitive Church and having skill in all those knowledges which are usefull to fetch out the true meaning of Scripture and ability to inquire into the antient path and to compare her self with all other considerable parts of the Vniversall Church and then is diligent and faithfull to make use of all these succours and in uprightness of heart seeks the truth and applies it self to God in humble and ardent and continuall prayer for his guidance to lead into all truth This Church I say is yet fallible may affirm and teach false i. e. this is naturally possible that it may but it is not strongly probable that it will as long as it is thus assisted and disposed to make use of these assistances and means of true defining Num. 15 2. That Churches knowledge whether it define truly or no in any proposition may signifie no more than a full perswasion or belief cui non subest dubium wherein they neither doubt nor apprehend reason of doubting that what they define is the very truth though for knowledge properly so called or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum which is unerrable or infallible in strictness of speech it may not have attained or pretend to have attained to it Num. 16 3. By power to binde may be meant no more than authority derived to them from the Apostles of Christ to make decisions when difficulties arise to prescribe rules for ceremonies or government such as shall oblige inferiors to due observance and obedience by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his precept to obey the rulers set over us in the Church which we may doe without thinking them simply or by any promise of God inerrable or infallible as the obedience which is due to civil Magistrates which supposes in them a power of binding subjects to obey doth yet no way suppose or imply them uncapable of erring and sinning and giving unreasonable commands and such as wherein it is unlawfull to yeild obedience to them Num. 17 Beside this there may farther be meant by it a generall obligation that lies on all men to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed to them such as the disbelieving or doubting of it shall be in them inseparable from obstinacy and this obligation is again the greater when that which is thus convincingly proposed is proposed by our superiors from whose mouth it is regular to seek and receive Gods will Num. 18 Lastly Believing may signifie not an implicite irrational blinde but a well-grounded rationall explicite belief of that which as the truth of God is duely proposed to us or again where there is not that degree of manifestation yet a consent to that which is proposed as most probable on the grounds afforded to judge by or when the person is not competent to search grounds a bare yeilding to the judgment of superiours and deeming it better to adhere to them than to attribute any thing to their own judgment a believing so farre as not to disbelieve And this again may rationally be yeilded to a Church or the Rulers and Governors of it without deeming them inerrable or infallible Num. 19 Nay where the proposition defined is such that every member of that Church cannot without violence to his understanding yeild any such degree of belief unto it yet he that believes it not may behave himself peaceably and reverently either duely representing his grounds why he cannot consent to it or if his subscription or consent be neither formally nor interpretatively required of him quietly enjoy his contrary opinion And this may tend as much to the peace and unity of a Church as the perswasion of the inerrability thereof can be supposed to doe Num. 20 By this view of the latitude of these terms and the limitations they are capable of it is now not so difficult to discern in what sense the proposition under consideration is false and in what sense it is true and by us acknowledged to be so Num. 21 A congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum that it is not deceived in any particular proposition may yet have authority to make decisions c. and to require inferiors so farre to acquiesce to their determinations as not to disquiet the peace of that Church with their contrary opinions Num. 22 But for any absolute infallible belief or consent that no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible hath power to require of any Num. 23 By this it appears in the next place in what sense it is true which in the following words is suggested of Protestants that they binde men to a Profession of Faith and how injustly it is added that supposing them not to be infallibe it is unjust tyrannical and self-condemnation to the binders The contrary whereto is most evident understanding the obligation with that temper and the infallibity in that notion wherein it is evident we understand
be deceived and there I acknowledge infallibility upon this ground whether of nature or of grace of common dictate or of religion that it is impossible for God to lie to deceive or to be deceived But that the whole Canon of Scripture as it is delivered to us by the Laodicean Councel is the Word of God though I fully believe this also and have not the least doubt to any part of it yet I account not my self infallible in this belief nor can any Church that affirms the same unlesse they are otherwise priviledged by God be infallible in affirming it nor any that believes that Church be infallible in their belief And as that priviledge is not yet proved by any donation of Gods to belong to any Church particularly to the Roman so till it be proved and proved infallibly it can be no competent medium to induce any new act of Infallible belief the want of which may denominate us either hereticks or schismaticks Num. 40 In the mean time this is certain that I that doe not pretend to believe any thing infallibly in this matter not so much as that the Church is not infallible must yet be acknowledged to believe her fallible or else I could not by this Gentleman be adjudged a scismatick for so believing And then this supposeth that I may believe what in his opinion I believe untruly that sure is that I may believe what I doe not believe infallibly The matter is visible I cannot think fit to inlarge on it Num. 41 One thing onely I must farther take notice of the ground which he here had on which he founds his exception against the solidity of my discourse calling it my great evidence that we that doe not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certain suppositions that follow there Num. 42 The matter in that place Chap. II. Sect. 12. lies thus In examining the nature of schisme I have occasion to mention one not reall but fiction of case Suppose first that our Ancestors had criminously separated from the Church of Rome and suppose secondly that we their posterity repented and desired to reform their sin and to be reunited to them yet supposing thirdly that they should require to our reunion any condition which were unlawfull for us to perform in this conjuncture I say we could not justly be charged for continuing that separation Num. 43 This fiction of case I could not think had any weak part in it for as it supposed that on one side which I knew a Romanist would not grant viz that they should require any condition unlawfull for us to perform so it supposed on the other side that which we can no way grant viz that our Ancestors criminously separated But this I knew was ordinary to be done in fictions of cases Suppositio non ponit is the acknowledged rule my supposing either of these was not the taking them for granted And yet after all this I foresaw that objection that the Romanist who acknowledges not any such hard condition required to our reconciliation will conceive this an impossible case And to this I answered that we that acknowledge not their Church to be infallible may be allowed to make a supposition meaning as before a fiction of case which is founded in the possibility of her inserting some error in her confessions and making the acknowledgment of it the indispensable condition of her communion What I have offended herein I cannot imagine for 1. I onely set a fiction of case doe not take their infallibility for a thing confestly false nor in that place so much as dispute against it Only I say that which was sufficiently known before I said it that their Infallibity is not acknowledged by us and so that her inserting some error in her Confessions is to us i. e. in our opinion a thing possible and so for disputation sake supposable in the same manner as I suppose that which I am known not to believe and if this Gentleman be thus severe I shall despair to approve my discourses to him Num. 44 Secondly that I make it my great evidence is not with any appearance of reason suggested by him It comes in meerly as an incidentall last branch the least necessary most unconsiderable of any and that which might have been spared then or left out now without any weakning of or disturbing the discourse Num. 45 Thirdly Whereas he adds that I proceed to make certain suppositions that follow there this is still of the same strein I make but one supposition viz in case she make any unlawfull act the indispensable condition of her Communion And that one certainly is not in the plurall more or indefinitely certain suppositions Num. 46 That I put this one case as possible and then proceeded to consider what were by the principles acknowledged by all particularly by Mr. Knot to be done in that one case was agreeable to the strictest laws of discourse which I have met with And if in compliance with this Gentleman I must deny my self such liberties and yet yeild him so much greater on the other side If I must at the beginning of a defense of the Church of England be required to grant the Church of Rome infallible i. e. to yeild not onely that she speaks all truth but also that it is impossible she should speak any thing but truth whom yet by entring on this theme I undertake to contradict and to prove injurious in censuring us for Schismaticks this were as I have said an hard task indeed The very same as if I were required to begin a duell by presenting and delivering up all weapons into the enemies hand to plead a cause and introduce my defense by confessing my self guilty of all that the plaintiffe doth or can have the confidence to charge upon me Num. 47 And if these be the conditions of a dispute these will questionlesse be hard whatsoever the conditions of our reunion be conceived to be and moreover this Gentleman will be as infallible as his Church and then 't is pity he should lavish out medicines that is so secured by charms that he should defend his cause by reasons which hath this one so much cheaper expedient to answer a whole book in one period Num. 48 And so much for his Animadversions on this second Chapter which are no excellent presage of that which we are to expect in the insuing CHAP. III. Exceptions to the third Chapter answered Sect. I. The Division of Schisme justified Of Schisme against the authority of Councells Of Vnanimity of belief in the dispersion of the Churches Num. 1 THe exceptions against the third Chap are reducible to 4 heads The first about the insufficiency of the division of Schisme in these words Num. 2 In his third Chapter what is chiefly to be noted to our purpose is that his division is insufficient for he maketh Schism to be only against Monarchicall power or against fraternall
error certainly without a bias of interest or prejudice it is impossible for him to leave the Church if he be in it or not returne if he be out of it for if infallibility be the ground of the Churches power to command beliefe as shee pretends no other no time no separation within memory of History can justifie a continuance out of the Church You may please to consider then how solid this Doctors discourse is who telleth us for his great evidence that we saith he who doe not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make certaine suppositions that follow there The question is whether a Protestant be a Schismatick because a Protestant and he will prove he is not a Schismatick because he goeth consequently to Protestant that is Schismatical grounds I pray you reflect that not to acknowledge the Church to be infallible is that for which we charge the Doctor with Schisme and Heresie in Capite and more than for all the rest he holds distinct from us for this principle taketh away all beliefe and all ground of beliefe and turneth it into uncertainty and weather-cock opinion putteth us into the condition to be circumferri omni vento Doctrinae submitteth us to Atheisme and all sort of miscreancy let him not then over-leap the question but either prove this is not sufficient to make him a Schismatick and an Heretick too or let him acknowledge he is both Num. 3 This discourse thus inlarged to the consideration of fallibility and infallibility in a Church is certainly a digression in this place and taking the occasion from some words of mine Sect. 6. of a concession of Master Knots it is a little necessary to recount what concession that was and the use that I there made of it that so it may appeare whether there were any thing blameable in my procedure Num. 4 The subject I was upon Sect. 5. was the undoubted lawfulnesse of being and continuing excluded from any such Church the conditions of whose communion containe Sin in them To this head of discourse I mentioned a concession of Master Knots that it is perfectly unlawful to dissemble aequivocate or lye in matters of Faith and this as a confirmation of my then present assertion that when I am not permitted by the Romanists to have external communion with them unlesse I doe thus dissemble equivocate and lye affirme my selfe to believe what I doe not believe I may lawfully continue thus excluded from their communion But then I could not justly conceale what Master Knot there added as his conclusion from hence together with the acknowledged unlawfulnesse of forsaking the externall communion of Gods visible Church that therefore the Church of Rome is infallible because otherwise men might forsake her communion Num. 5 Here indeed I thought it very strange that this conclusion should be thus deduced from such praemisses that it should be deemed lawful to separate from a Church for every error or for no more but being subject to error being fallible though it were actually guilty of no errour which I conceived to be the same in effect as to affirme it lawfull to forsake the communion of all but Saints and Angels and God in Heaven because all others were peccable and fallible But yet I thought not fit to goe farther out of my way to presse the unreasonablenesse of it but contented my selfe with that which was for my present turne his confession that it was lawful to separate or continue in separation from the Church of Christ in case we could not without lying c. be permitted to communicate with it Num. 6 This being the whole businesse as it lyes visible to any in that 5. and 6. Sect. Let us now see what a confusion is made to gaine some small advantage from hence or excuse for a long digression Num. 7 First it is the conclusion viz. that any Congregation that can lye c. cannot have power to binde any to believe what shee saith which he saith is called by me Master Knots concession But this is a great mistake I never lookt on this as his concession never called it by that title but as a conclusion that he made a strange shift to deduce from another concession Num. 8 A concession this Gentleman should in reason have understood to be somewhat which the Adversary yeilds and which the disputer gaines advantage by his yeilding it such was his assertion that all lying and dissembling was unlawful and that rather than that should be admitted it were lawful to forsake the external communion of the Church of Christ And that and nothing but that was by me cited as his concession Num. 9 Secondly That conclusion it self that the Congregation that is fallible cannot have power to binde to believe is not so much as considered by me in that place or else where I said not one word against it which might provoke this objector to take it up and confirme it neither was it in the least needfull or pertinent to the matter then in hand to enter into the consideration of it All that was by me taken notice of and that but in passing was the consequence or coherence betwixt the praemisses and that conclusion which naturally inferred a third thing that it was in Mr. Knots opinion lawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church which I thought by the way would be sure to excuse us though we should be granted to have forsaken and continued wilfully in Separation from the Roman Church if it might but appeare that either that were guilty of any one error or lyable to fal into any one And this being intirely all that was there said by me there is no reason I should so far attend this Gentleman in his digression as to consider what here he proceeds to say upon his new-sprung subject of discourse very distant from that of Schisme to which I indeavoured to adhere having elsewhere pursued at large the Romanists other hypothesis concerning their Churches Infallibility Num. 10 Were it not thus remote from our matter in hand and perfectly unnecessary to the defence of our Church from Schisme I might discover farther many infirme parts in this procedure I shall but briefly touch on some of them Num. 11 1. For the truth of that proposition that a Congregation that can lye i. e. a Church that is fallible and knoweth not i. e. hath no infallible certainty whether it lye or no in any proposition cannot have power to binde any to believe what shesaith I may certainly affirme 1. That this is no infallible truth being no where affirmed by any infallible speaker or deduced from any infallible principle For as to the Scripture it is not pretended to be affirmed by that and for Natural Reason that cannot be an infallible Judge in this matter of defining what power may be or is by God given to a Church without defining it infallible A Prince may no doubt be impowered by God
that lie between us And so still I discern not wherein our humility can be judged to fail by those with whom I now dispute being content that it should by others be judged excessive CHAP. IX An Answer to the Exceptions made to the ninth Chapter Sect. I. The hinderances of Communion imputable to the Romanist not to us Siquis Ecclesiam non audierit one of our grounds What is meant by Ecclesia Num. 1 THE Exceptions to this Chapter are not very great whether we respect their weight or number yet upon the same account that the former have been our exercise these may for a while detain us also Num. 2 In his 9th Chap saith he he pretendeth the Roman Catholick Church is cause of this division because they desire communion and cannot be admitted but under the belief and practice of things contrary to their consciences of which two propositions if the second be not proved the first is vain and is as if a subject should plead he is unjustly outlawed because he doth not desire it Now to prove the latter he assumeth that the Protestant is ready to contest his Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by what he means by that I know not for that they will convince their Negatives by any ground a good Christian ought to be concluded by I see nothing lesse What then will they contest it by all grounds a good orthodox Christian ought to be concluded by If they answer in the Affirmative we shall ask them whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of their grounds and if they say no we shall clearly disprove their Major but then their defence is if any ground or rule of it self firm and good speaketh nothing clearly of a point in question they will contest that point by those grounds and is not this a goodly excuse Num. 3 The designe of Chap 9. of the Treatise of Schisme is to vindicate us from all guilt of schisme as that signifies offence against external peace and communion Ecclesiastical and it being certain that we exclude none from our Communion that acknowledge the foundation and that we desire to be admitted to the like freedome of external communion with all members of all other Christian Churches the result is visible that the hinderances that obstruct this freedome are wholly imputable to the Romanist such are their excommunicating us and imposing conditions on their communion such as we cannot admit of without sin or scandal acting contrary to conscience or making an unsound confession Num. 4 To this all that is answered is that unlesse this second be proved viz that such conditions are by them imposed on their communion the first that of our desire of Communion is vain And to this I make no doubt to yeild for if we may with a good conscience be admitted to their Communion and yet wilfully withdraw our selves from it then I confesse there is no place for this plea of ours But for the contesting of this there was not then neither will there now be any place without descending to the severals in difference between us which was beyond the designe either of those or these Papers and therefore for that all that can be said is that we are ready to maintain our Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by And because it is here askt whether siquis Ecclesiam non audierit be one of those grounds I answer without question it is and so is every other affirmation of Christ or the Apostles however made known to us to be such And I cannot sufficiently admire why when it is known to all Romanists that we are ready to be judged by Scripture and when it is certain that siquis Ecclesiam non audierit are the words of scripture he should suppose as here he doth that we will say No i. e. that we will refuse to be tried or concluded by that Num. 5 Here I must suppose that by Ecclesiam he understands the Roman which he calls Catholick Church but then this interpretation or understanding of his is one thing and those words of Christ are another for they belonging to the Church indefinitely under which any man that hath offended is regularly placed doe to a member of the particular Roman Church signifie that as to an English man the Church wherein he lives and that is not the Roman or the Vniversal Church of God and that is more than the Roman Num. 6 And so by acknowledging that ground of scripture we are no way obliged to believe all that that particular Church of Rome to which we owe no obedience and are as ready to contest that by the same means also exacts of us Num. 7 As for our contesting any point by that ground or rule which speaketh nothing clearly of it I gave him no occasion to make any such objection against us and withall have said what was sufficient to it Chap. 8. Sect. 3. n. 7. and so need not here farther attend to it CHAP. X. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the tenth Chapter Sect. I. The Romanists want of charity wherein it consists Num. 1 IN his view of Chap 10. he takes notice of two charges by us brought in against them 1. judging 2. despising their brethren but contents himself with a very brief reply and that onely to one of them Thus Num. 2 In his 10th Chap he saith we judge them and despise them as to the first I have often wondred and doe now that men pretending to learning and reason should therein charge us with want of charity for if our judgment be false it is error not malice and whether true or false we presse it upon them out of love and kindnesse to keep them from the harm that according to our belief may come upon them but since they deny they are Schismaticks and offer to prove it we must not say it yet I think we ought untill we have cause to believe them since our highest tribunal the Churches voice from which we have no appeal hath passed judgment against them Num. 3 The want of charity with which we charge the Romanist in this matter is not their warning us of our danger which may reasonably be interpreted love and kindness and care to keep us from harm and if they erre in admonishing when there is no need of it there is nothing still but charity in this but it is their casting us out of their Communion on this score that we consent not to all their Dictates that we withdraw our obedience from those who without right usurped it over us their anathematizing and damning us and being no way perswadable to withdraw these sanguinary Censures unlesse we will change or dissemble our beliefs and as there cannot be charity in this any thing that can tend to the mending of any for how can it be deemed any act of reformation in any to forsake his present perswasions whilst he is
matter still divolves as it did in the tract of Schisme to that one question whether the Bishop of Rome had at that time any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and must be decided as there it is by the view of Evidences whether that pretended from Peters Vniversal Pastorship or that from Augustines planting Christianity here or that from the voluntary conâ—ession of some Kings and each of them is so disproved there that till some competent answer be rendered to those particulars which certainly is not yet done by this Gentleman who onely here tells us the manner how he relyes on each of these and the possession they had of the beliefe that the Pope was head of the Vniversal Church 't is perfectly unnecessary farther to consider what is here added onely to inflame passions but not to satisfie Conscience to exasperate not to argue Num. 9 For what if moderate Protestants should truly curse the day c. or in a more Christian dialect expresse their dislike to the great Sacrilege and some other enormities which were committed in that Princes reigne what prejudice will this be to any lawful exercise of that regal power 'T is certaine that all the Acts of a bad Prince are not invalid or null and much more evident still that he that hath not offended in assuming the power which really belongs to him may by being denyed that be inraged and laid open to importune Temptations and if he be not a through Christian constant and masterly fall and that foulely under those temptations And if Henry VIII did so still this is very extrinsecall to the present inquiry whether he as King had power to remove a Patriarchy and by that to remove all forraigne jurisdiction or authority out of this Church Num. 10 All that remaines in this Section farther to be spoken to is the possession that is here pleaded not in the power it selfe if it were that hath formerly been spoken to but in the beliefe that the Pope as successor to S. Peter is head and Governour of the Vniversal Church This beliefe saith he they have been in possession of ever since the Conversion of our English Ancestors till King Henry and for this beside his own bare affirmation he brings no other proofe than one testimony of Naâ—ier on the Revelation confessing that the Church of Rome hath borne a sway over the Christian world above 1200. yeares Num. 11 And 1. for this kinde of Possession possession in the beliefe of any thing any farther than that which is believed is true and that appeare some other way than by our having so long believed it certainly this is no matter of any deep consideration to us If it still appeare to be true upon grounds of reason those grounds are the considerable and not the beliefe And if the grounds be discovered to be fallacious and the contrary to be more reasonable to be believed then sure this hath but the advantage of an Antient error and the older it is the fitter not to be longer continued in it must be immediately deposited And against this or instead of doing thus to talke of possession is unnatural and irrational the same plea that may serve for any sinne that hath had the luck to get the first hold in us the same that would certainly have held for all the Idolatry of the Heathens when Christ came into the world And he that hath long lived in obscurity and misery he and his Ancestors for many years together and were now offered an advancement out of that sad condition would he ever be so unkinde to himselfe as to refuse that offer upon this one account because it is the turning him out of a possession This prescribing for Error and prescribing for Sin and prescribing for Misery are in effect the same equally unnatural and irrational supposing it to be truly Error and Sinne and Misery which we treat of Num. 13 But then secondly waving this and applying our selves to the particular before us how doth it appeare that the Romanist hath been in possession in this beliefe so long as he pretends He here brings but one Testimony to confirme it that of Napier But for this testimony the answer is easie that the affirmations or confessions of such as Napier was and is by this Gentleman acknowledged to be in their arguing against the credit of Antiquity or to make good other hypotheses of theirs are of as little authority with us as I suppose they will be with them when they are contrary to their pretensions or interests Secondly that the Popes bearing a sway over the Christian world is not interpretable to signifie his Vniversal Pastorship The Bishop of the Prime imperial See may justly be very considerable and so beare a sway but it follows not thence that his ordinary jurisdiction hath been thus extended to the whole Christian world Num. 14 Nay thirdly the contrary to this hath been sufficiently evidenced Chap 4. and 5. both as concernes Saint Peter himselfe and the Bishop of Rome as successor to Saint Peter and till those evidences are refuted the affirmation of Napier being so imperfect and infirme both in respect of the testifier and the matter of the testimony will be very unfit to bear sway with any rational man Num. 15 And so the whole weight of this argument prest with so much confidence is resolved into the bare authority of the Speaker this Gentleman who saith it that ever since the conversion of the English Nation the Romanists have had possession of this beliefe that the Pope as successor to Saint Peter is Governour of the Vniversal Church Num. 16 And that I may apply some answer yet more particularly to this I shall premise one thing that if indeed this were granted which is suggested it would not be of any great force toward the inducing of this conclusion that the Pope really was and is Vniversal Pastor For supposing the Pope to have assumed that authority at the time of Augustine the Monke his coming into England and making his plantation and supposing him to have preacht this to King Ethelbert and the rest of his Proselites with the same gravity and confidence that he used in imparting all the Doctrines of Christian Faith in the same manner as Xaverius the Apostle of the Indics imparted to them two Gospels the one of Christ the other of Saint Peter I shall not doubt but upon these grounds it would be very consequent that all that willingly imbraced the preaching of Augustine and had no other Doctrine to compare it with or examine it by should probably receive this branch of beliefe and so all others from and after them that insisted firmely and punctually on Augustine's way and thus 't is possible the possession of that belief might be continued till the dayes of Hen. VIII Num. 17 But then this is no proofe that what in this particular Augustine
from coming to this contestation is not to gain any advantage by his guilt but adversus eum lis habetur pro contestato he shall be lookt on as if the suit had been actually contested against him See Bartolus in l. si eum § qui injuriarum in fi ff si quis caut Num. 32 But as to the Canon Law which in all reason the Catholick is to own in this question it is known that it admitteth not any the longest prescription without the bonae fidei possessio he that came by any thing dishonestly is for ever obliged to restitution and for the judging of that allows of many waies of probation from the nature of the thing the course we have taken in this present debate and from other probable indications and where the appearances are equal on both sides the Law though it be wont to judge most favourably doth yet incline to question the honesty of coming to the possession and to presume the dishonesty upon this account because mala fides dishonesty is presumed industriously to contrive its own secrecie and to lie hid in those recesses from which at a distance of time it is not easily fetcht out So Felinus in C. ult de praescript per leg ult C. unde vi And in a word it is the affirmation of the Doctors presumi malam fidem ex antiquiore adversarii possessione the presumption is strong that the possession was not honestly come by when it appears to have been antiently in the other hands and the way of conveyance from one to the other is not discernible See Panormit and Felinus in c. si diligenti X de prescript Menochius arbit quaest Casu 225. n. 4. and others referred to by the learned Grotiâ—â— in Consil Jurid super iis quae Nassavii p. 36. c. But I have no need of these nicer disquisitions Num. 33 As for the perswasion of infallibility meaning as they must their own perswasion of it that can have no influence upon us who are sure that we are not so perswaded unless the grounds on which their perswasion is founded be so convincingly represented to us that it must be our prejudice or other vitious defect or affection in us that we are not in the like manner perswaded of it But on this we are known to insist and never yet have had any such grounds offered to us As may in some measure appear by the view of that Controversie as it lies visible in the Book intituled The view of Infallibility Num. 34 As for the uncertainty of the reasons on the Protestants side by uncertainty meaning fallibility and the potest subesse falsum whilest yet we are without doubting verily perswaded that our reasons have force in them that cannot make it possible for us to believe what we doe not believe or lawfull upon any the fairest intuition to professe contrary to our belief I believe that Henry VIII was King of this Nation and the reasons on which I believe it are the testimonies of meer men and so fallible yet the bare fallibility of those testimonies cannot infuse into me any doubt of the truth of them hath no force to shake that but humane belief and while I thus believe I am sure it were wilfull sin in me though for the greatest and most pretious acquisitions in my view to professe I doe not believe it The like must be said of any other perswasion of mine denied by the Romanists and the denying whereof is part of the condition required of me to make me capable of communion with them Num. 35 But it is not now time to insist on this both because here is nothing produced against it and because here follows a much higher undertaking which swallows up all these inferior differences between us viz that not to acknowledge the Church that must be the Roman Church to be infallible is the great crime of schime and heresie in capite and more than all that I hold distinct from the Romanists Num. 36 This I acknowledge was not foreseen in the Tract of Schisme and may serve for the una litura the one answer to remove all that is there said For if our grand Fundamental schisme and heresie be all summed up in this one comprehensive guilt our not acknowledging the Church of Rome to be infallible then it was and still is impertinent to discourse on any other subject but that one of Infallibility for if that be gained by them to belong to their Church I am sure we are concluded Schismaticks and till it be gained I am sure there is no reason to suppose it Num. 37 But then as this is a compendious way of answering the Tract of Schism and I wonder after he had said this he could think it seasonable to proceed to make exceptions to any other particulars this one great mistake of the Question being discovered made all other more minute considerations unnecessary as he that hath sprung a mine to blow up the whole Fort need not set wispes of straw to severall corners to burn it so it falls out a little unluckily that this doth not supersede but onely remove this Gentleman's labour it being now as necessary that he should defend his hypothesis of the Church of Romes Infallibility against all that is formerly said by me on that subject as now it was to make this Answer to the Book of Schism and till that be done or attempted to be done there is nothing left for me to reply to in this matter Num. 38 For as to his bare affirmations that the not acknowledging their Infallibility takes away all belief and ground of belief turns all into uncertainty c. nay submitteth to Atheisme and all sorts of miscreancy It is sure but a mistake or misunderstanding as of some other things so particularly of the nature of belief For beside that I may have other grounds of belief than the affirmations of the Roman Church the authority of Scripture for the severalls contained in it and the Testimony of the universal Primitive that sure is more than of the present Roman Church to assure me that what we take for Scripture is Scripture and to derive Apostolical traditions to me and so I may believe enough without ever knowing that the Roman Church defines any thing de fide but much more without acknowledging the truth of all she defines and yet much more without acknowledging her inerrable and infallible Beside this I say it is evident that belief is no more than consent to the truth of any thing and the grounds of belief such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting to induce conviction and perswasion and where that is actually induced there is belief though there be no pretense of infallibility in the argument nor opinion of it in him that is perswaded by it Num. 39 That all that God hath said is true I believe by a belief or perswasion cui non potest subesse falsum wherein I cannot