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
he as successor of S. Peter hath a supremacy over all the Churches in the world I undertake to examine the truth of two branches of this suggestion one whether Saint Peter had this universal Supremacy given him by Christ the second whether this power if supposed to be instated on Saint Peter devolved on the Bishops of Rome The former of these I examined in that Chapter And I must now discern if I can how I have failed in any particle of my undertaking Num. 4 First saith he will not reflect on my curious division And I that know there was no curiosity in any division of mine but on the other side such perspicuity as was agreeable to a desire and indevour to set down the whole matter of debate between us as distinctly and intelligibly as I could that the Reader might be sure to judge whether I answered their charge or no I have no reason in the least to suspect the fitnesse and usefulnesse of my division nor consequently to be impertinently sollicitous in reflecting on it Num. 5 That which he saith he cannot omit I shall make haste to consider with him viz my great mistake in thinking the Catholick ought to prove his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacie Num. 6 To this I answer 1. that there is no manner of foundation or pretense for this exception here For I no where say the least word toward this purpose of requiring the Romanist to prove his pretensions or to prove them by this medium Onely I take it for granted that he doth actually produce arguments to inferre the Pope's universal Primacie and that Christ's donation to S. Peter is one of those arguments And that I was not herein mistaken I shall instead of a larger deduction of evidences from all sorts of Romish writers make my appeal to the objecter himself in several places of this little tract particularly p. 20. where he hath these words we relie on the first as the foundation and corner-stone of the whole building And what that first is appears by the words immediately precedent that the pretensions for the Pope's supremacy in England must be founded as successor to S. Peter in the universal Pastorship of the Church so including England as a member thereof From whence in stead of recriminating and retorting on him the charge of the ill memory I shall onely make this undeniable inference that I was not mistaken in thinking that the Romanist doth actually found his pretensions in the universal Pastorship of Saint Peter and consequently If I prove that to fail I have removed that which in his own style is the foundation and corner stone of his whole building Num. 7 But then 2. because he here pretends that it belongs not to a Romanist to prove his pretension just but that it sufficeth that he hath the possession I desire to propose these three things to his consideration 1. By demanding whether at this time or for these 100 years the Pope hath had the possession of the obedience of this nation I suppose he will say he hath not And if so then by the force of his own argument that possession and all the arguments deducible from thence are now lost to him the prescription being now on our side as before on theirs and there is nothing left him to plead but the original right on his side against the violence of the succeeding possession And if he come to the pleading of the right then that is the very method that I proposed and so did not offend or forget my self in so doing Num. 8 Secondly Concerning their possession before Henry VIII his daies I shall demand how long they had it and how they acquired it If he will not at all think fit to answer this question in either part then I confesse he hath made an end of the dispute and by refusing to give account of the right he had to his possession he will leave every man to catch and hold what he can and then to imitate him and give no account to any how he came by it which as it is an unchristian method every man being obliged to clear his actions from manifest charges of injustice and violence so again 't is an evil lesson against himself and unlesse we will confesse our selves Schismaticks in casting off their obedience 't is impossible for him ever to prove us such this kinde of schism which now we speak of being by all acknowledged to be a separation from our lawfull superiors and no way being imaginable to prove the Pope to be such to this nation without offering some proof to the point of right as well as adhering to his possession Num. 9 To which purpose it is farther observable 1. That even in secular things it is not every possession that gives a right but 1. either the bonae fidci possessio a possession honestly come by or the unjustnesse of whose original is not contested or made to appear And 2. whatsoever privilege by humane laws belongs to prescription yet in divine or Ecclesiasticall matters prescription can be of no force against truth of right and so this Gentleman seems to acknowledge here extending the force of possession no farther than till sufficient cause be shewed to the contrary 3. That though whilst I am in possession I need not be bound to prove my right yet when I am out of possession there is not beside absolute force any way possible to recover a possession but this of contesting and evidencing the right of it and that 't is evident is the present case Num. 10 But if he shall think fit to answer the question in either part of it then by the answer to the first part of it he must be forced to set down the original of it and by answer to the second the right of that original and so he hath been fain to doe as elsewhere so in this very paragraph where he speaks of Christ's commanding obedience to his Church I suppose he must mean the Church of Rome and that is again the very method in which I proposed to debate and consider this matter Num. 11 Thirdly For the power of which the Pope was possest in this Kingdome either it was no more than an Ecclesiastical Primacie such as by the antient Canons belongs to a Primate or Patriarch over Metropolitans and Bishops or else it was a supreme power over the King himself whether in Spiritual or also in Temporal affairs Num. 12 If it pretend onely to be the former of these then the power of Kings to erect or translate Primacies or Patriarchates which is insisted on and evidenced in the Tract of Schisme c 6. § 9. was sufficient then to justifie what here was done no possession being pleadable against the King to restrain or exclude this exercise of his power and so now to free us from schisme by this Gentleman's rule this act of the Kings in translating the Primacie being sufficient cause for quitting
Schismatick therefore the examination of the cause is unnecessary whatsoever can be pretended on that head is not worth the producing or heeding in this matter Num. 4 2. 'T is as evident how farre the position it selfe is removed from being a contradiction which yet the Romanists Logick hath pronounced to be a pure one A pure contradiction is in our Logick est and non est It is a Schisme and It is not a Schisme It is causlesse and it is not causlesse and the like But certainly my concluding that no cause can justifie a Schisme or if the Schisme be proved t is in vain to plead that we had cause for it containes no such contradictory enuntiations He that should say that a Seditious person or a Rebell is worthy of death whatsoever cause it were that incited him to that villanie doth neither affirme the Rebell to be no Rebell nor the cause he pretends to be no cause onely he saith indeed that whatsoever the cause be 't is incompetent to justifie so foule a fact Num. 5 3. The proofe which he addes to conclude this position to be a pure contradiction is very farre from proving it The proof is this for saith he not a division but a causelesse division is a Schisme But this hath been shewed to have no truth in it because Division and Schisme being exactly the same one a Latine the other a Greek word every Division is and must necessarily be in him who is guilty of it a Schisme and if a voluntary Division a criminous Schisme whatsoever were the motive or cause of it by Division or Schisme understanding as I declare my selfe to doe a spontaneous receding or dividing from the unity of the Church not being cut off or driven from it Num. 6 Lastly what he addes as a consectary of his proof that he doth not understand how a Division can be shewed unreasonable and causelesse without examining the occasions and motives he may now if he please without much difficulty comprehend viz. by considering that no cause or reason how weighty soever is sufficient to justifie a division For as long as this is either proved or granted the conclusion will be indubitable without examining of the motives that the Division is unreasonable and causelesse Let it once be granted or proved by the known Lawes of a Nation that every act of Sedition is a transgression of Law criminous and punishable whatsoever the motive be that incited it and then there will need no more than conviction of the fact to conclude that fact unreasonable That which is in it selfe so culpable and inexcusable that no reason whatsoever can be able to justifie it is ready for the sentence of condemnation without farther processe when 't is reasonably resolved that no reason can excuse such a fact what reason can there be to lose time in examining reasons This is the very case in hand as 't is apparent to any that will but view the place and 't is not much for my incouragement in this taske that the Gentleman to whom I must reply was willing to think this so deep a riddle so much above common understandings Num. 7 I shall here only adde that what was thus said was not in reason to provoke the Romanist being a concession that cut me off from many visible advantages and so deserved his reward much better than rebuke and being thus early and unexpectedly fallen under his short displeasure by my indeavour to oblige him I have yet a shield which promiseth me security from the continuance of it I meane not the evidence of the truth affirmed by me for that is not an amulet alwaies to be depended on when it is against interest to acknowledge it but the suffrage of his owne great Champion Master Knot who hath directly affirm'd what I affirmed and therefore I may be allowed not to understand how this should be so unintelligible citing it out of Saint Augustine That there is no just necessity to divide unity And that it is not possible that any man have just cause to separate Infideli unmasked cap. 7. num 5. And so it is as manifest that this part of the first Chapter is common to both as the former of which he affirmes it the conclusion in all reason being involved in the same condition which belonged to the Praemises and it was onely my ill luck or his willingnesse to finde fault that it was not formerly apprehended to be so CHAP. II. Concerning Heresie Excommunication Infallibility Sect. I. Of passing slightly over the difference betwixt Heresie and Schisme Nū 1 THe exceptions to the second Chapter are three the first concerning Heresie the second concerning Excommunication the third concerning Master Knots concession which ushers in a Discourse of Infallibility Num. 2 The former in these words He slightly passeth over the distinction of Heresie and Schism as if he would not have it understood that all Heresie is Schisme though some Schisme be no Heresie Num. 3 What is here called the slight passing over the distinction of Heresie and Schisme is one piece of injustice in him and the cause to which it is affixt my unwillingnesse that it should be understood that all Heresie is Schisme will soon appear to be another Num. 4 For the first It is evident that in that Sect. 3. of Chap. 2. I do not at all consider the distinction of Heresie and Schisme nor could without absolute interruption and disturbance of the discourse in hand direct transgression of all rules of method say any thing to that subject in that place The thing that I there manifest is the difference betwixt Excommunication and Schisme and sure that is not Heresie and Schisme unlesse Excommunication be Heresie and so the punishment of the Sin be the Sin it selfe between the passive and the active or reciprocal division or separation and all that I say in that Section which can relate to Heresie is that where the offence for which a man is excommunicated is Heresie and not Schisme there it is evident that his Excommunication which still is his punishment and not his sinne the cause of it also being not Schisme but somewhat else Heresie or the like cannot be the guilt of Schisme in him that is so punished Num. 5 Now it is evident that I cannot be said to passe over that slightly which I doe not speak to at all and to which I had no occasion to speake and consequently that I was no way lyable to this exception Num. 6 And that being said the second part of the same exception that of the ground on which I doe this must needs be as causlesse as the former For 1. 't is certaine that my thoughts or wishes or designes are not things which can duely fall under this objecters cognizance he cannot upon any sure grounds divine or affirme what I aimed at in such or such a slight passage and 2. 't is yet more certaine that no collection can justly
and Rom. 11. 13. to be the Apostle of the Gentiles And that I exprest by that phrase Peter was the Apostle of the Jewes so it is said of him expresly Gal. 2. 8. exclusively to the uncircumcision and truly I knew not nor yet doe how to expresse it more significatively and more to the rendring of the full importance of those plain texts and this Gentleman hath not pleased to direct me how to doe it better Num. 6 And having the Scripture thus clear and irrefragable for my position if now I should not be able to salve the Antinomies to answer his objections from scripture to it this were certainly but my dulness another that hath a greater 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be able to doe it and therefore ought not to be any prejudice to the truth of the affirmation But unlesse the difficulties be greater than as yet appear I shall not much doubt of undertaking the taske of reconciling all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that can be phansied Num. 7 For what if Peter by special vision was once commanded to preach to Cornelius a Gentile Sure this is very competible with my position For not to mention that this is acknowledged to have been a peculiar commission by special vision determined to that particular person and his family which till he had this vision he thought it utterly unlawfull to preach to Act. 10. 28. And it is certain that one special case were no prejudice to the general position and again that Cornelius though a Gentile was yet a Proselyte of the Jews such as they called a Proselyte of the gates though not of justice a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or devout man though not circumcised To omit these I say the answer is obvious 1. That this agreement of which I speak was at the time of Paul's going up to Jerusalem Act. 15. i. e. some years after this of Peter's preaching to Cornelius as may appear Gal. 2. 1. which defines it to be about 14 years after S. Paul's conversion whereas that of Peter's preaching to Cornelius Act. 10. placed in the next chapter to that which described the conversion of Paul must needs be some considerable space before this time of his going up to the Councel at Jerusalem And so that of Peter's preaching to Cornelius and his protesting the same in the Councel of Ierusalem hath nothing of opposition to this agreement made for the future sure not for the time past what should be done in their after-preaching I suppose I need adde no more to that which is thus evident Num. 8 Secondly I have already sufficiently exprest how farre this agreement extended and how farre exclusive it was not that it should be unlawful for Peter to preach to a Gentile or for Paul to preach to a Iew but that when they met in the same city as at Antioch certainly they did and at Rome also I make no question then the one should constantly apply himself to the Iewes receive disciples form them into a Church leave them to be governed by a Bishop of his assignation and the other should doe in like manner to the Gentiles Num. 9 And that this was so in the consequents of the story is largely shewed in that Tract What could have been said more punctually to prevent this exception taken from Peter's preaching to Cornelius I cannot yet discern I wish this Gentleman had pleased to take notice of it As it is I hope he will now be more sure to doe so Sect. IV. Paul's first preaching to the Iewes in every city To what the agreement between him and Peter belonged Num. 1 ANother argument he adds much to the same purpose which will make his third Exception Num. 2 Again if he were made the Apostle of the Iewes exclusively to the Gentiles by the same reason S. Paul was made Apostle of the Gentiles exclusively to the Iewes for the words are like and yet the scripture teacheth us that whereever he came he preached first to the Iewes Is not this to make scripture ridiculous Num. 3 Here is great severity again a charge of making scripture ridiculous But I hope I have been farre from any guilt of it That S. Paul whensoever he came to a city where the faith had not been preached and where there was any synagogue of the Iews went into that synagogue in time of their publick assembling I never made any question were this before or were it after the story of Act. 15 when I suppose this agreement to be made betwixt him and S. Peter c. Num. 4 Great reason and no small obligation there was for that For I. Christ had commanded that the preaching should begin at Ierusalem the Metropolis of the Iewes and as to the Iewes first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God had raised up his Son Iesus Act. 3. 26. so the Gospel of the resurrection was to be revealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Iew first Rom. 1. 16. Num. 5 And although in Paul's commission from Christ it were peculiarly express that he should preach the Gospel to the Gentiles Act. 9. 15. 22. 21. yet according to this great fundamental oeconomie he counted it necessary first to make tender of his service and of the glad tidings of the Gospel to the Iewes and so he tells them Act. 13. 46. It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you and till the Iewes refuse it and reject it he doth not betake himself so peculiarly to the Gentiles Num. 6 Again this was in some measure necessary to his publishing the Faith For that was most advantageously to be done in the publick Assemblies that it might be known to all that were in the city And the synagogues of the Iewes being such were in all reason by him that was a Iew to be preferred before the Idolatrous Temples of the heathens And according to these obligations and inducements so generally he did But then as this no way prejudiceth his title of Apostle of the Gentiles to which he was at the first assigned by Christ so neither is it any way contrary to or unreconcileable with the agreement which I suppose to be made between him and Peter and Iohn which concerned onely those cities and regions where they met and came to plant Churches There and there onely it is that I affirm this distribution of Provinces to have been made and consequently the affirmation is no farther in any justice to be extended than thus that when they so met Paul betook himself to the Gentile part compacted the Gentile proselytes or believers into a Church put them into the hands of a Bishop of his own assignation Ignatius at Antioch Timothy at Ephesus whereas Euodius was in the former Bishop of the Iewish part and in the latter and in all Asia Iohn was the Apostle of the circumcision and constituted Bishops there And this I suppose without farther inlarging may satisfie the importunity of his