Catholic Charity Complaining and Maintaining that Rome is Uncharitable, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Against the Cavaliers third Chapter, First, it is proved, That although unitie bee necessary in the true Church, yet doth not this discharge the Papists from uncharitablenesse in damning Protestants.
SECT. I.
Wherein is declared; first, the weakenesse of his Grounds and Deductions. Secondly, what kinde of unity is required in the Church.
WEe are past the Champions unproved, and indeede disproved improbability of this assertion; That Rome wants charity in casting damnation upon Protestants. Now we are com to his untruth: It is untrue, saith hee, that Romists want charity, in thus damning Protestants. And by what reason doth hee prove it to bee untrue? Because there is but one Church: a strange kinde of reasoning; that this should bee an untruth, that Rome is uncharitable in damning Protestants because there is but one Church; when even hence appeares the truth of her uncharitablenesse. For if there be but one Church, and Protestants be members of this one Church, how is it not most true that it is uncharitable to damne the true members of this one Church? Now that Protestants are members of this one Church is a truth already proved, which nothing that this Author saith in this booke, or can say, will ever disprove; but much rather his grounds or rules, by which hee would oppugne our truth, doe prove it, and make against himselfe and his untruth.
His grounds are these; There is but one Church, and one Religion, out of which there is no salvation. Secondly, the unity of the members of this Church is broken betweene Papists and Protestants. Thirdly, that both Papists and Protestants are not saveable in their severall Religions. But what doth all this prove but that Protestants▪ first, may bee members of the true Church; with whom, secondly, Papists doe breake unity; therefore, thirdly, Papists are not saveable? His owne proofes make not against us, but make against him and his owne fellowes.
But the inference sowed hereunto is most miserable, That no one is to be blamed, if, conceiving his owne to bee the onelyonly true Religion, hee declares the dangerous estate wherein hee takes any other man to bee, who communicates and agrees not with him: but rather that hee is obliged to let him know it. An inconsequent untruth, except consequent because deduced from untruths; and so it must either accuse the premisses, or it selfe. Doth the Author himselfe beleeve what hee saith? or can it come into his judgement, that if two hold two contrary opinions, whereof one is true, and the other false, that he which holds the false is not to be blamed, if he declare to the other that the truth is falsehood, and thereupon tell him that hee is in danger to be damned by beleeving the truth, so to terrifie him out of the truth into his owne falsehood? If there be no fault in this, then how can any man blame a Turk for telling a Christian that hee cannot well bee saved, except he turne Turke? Surely whatsoever this Cavalier may thinke of this kinde of doctrine, I beleeve that if the same were maintained in false titles to a Crown, the Law would call it treason: For if a Subject conceiving his false title to bee good, should tell his Prince that he were an Usurper, were not such a Subject to be blamed? Surely, whatsoever a Romist may thinke of such a one, I doubt not but the Law would thinke him worthy of a capitall Sentence. And it is likely the abbetters of him by such doctrines, would not bee freed from blame and danger. But if this Champion had sought advice, his own Doctors could have holpen him out of his error: For they aQuaeritur an conscientia errans vim habeat sibi obl…gandi, hoc est, ut eam sequi, & juxta ipsius praescripta agere debeamus. Duae sūt opiniones: prima asseverat non habere vim obligandi, sed ligandi—Quā do conscientia ligat, & non obligat, tunc si contra eam agatur, peccatum quidem admittitur, non tamen secundùm eam agere debemus, quoniam possumus hujusmodi conscientiam errantem deponere. Azor. Instit. moral. Lib. 2. ca. 8. Aliquando proponitur à conscientia erronea ut fiat id quod malum est; ut si quis culpabiliter existimet necessariū esse mentiri utsuam vel alterius vitam conservet, in quo eventu non tenetur quis mentiri, quia mētiendo peccaret. Nullus autem tenetur ad id quod, si fecerit, peccatum cōmittit. —Quod si urgeas, ergo homo iste erit perplexus in utramque partem, quia quicquid faciat peccatum non evadit. Respondetur culpa sua posse quem esse perplexum, quando se ignorat id quod scire potest & tenetur. Non est tamen simpliciter perplexus, quoniam potest & tenetur in hoc eventu conscientiam illam deponere, & scientiam contrariā habere, quo facto ab illa perplexitate liberatur. Sayer. Clau. Reg. Lib. 1. ca. 4. Continge…e potest ut conscientia erronea ex ignorantia culpabili proponat tanquam necessarium, & in praecepto, facere aliquid quod revera aliàs malū est, ut mentiri ad tuendam vit…m — si ex tali conscientia mentiretur, sequendo positivè judicium ejus, nihilominus peccaret, quia illa ignorantia non excusaret eum, nullus enim obligatur ad faciendum illud quod peccatum est — potest autem & debet evitari & omitti mendacium deponendo conscientiam illam e…roneam. Vasques in 1. 2…. Disp. 60. Num. 5.6.can tell him that an erroneous conscience doth not binde to the doing of that which it erroneously thinkes should be done; the proper Guide of our Actions should be Light and Knowledge, not darknesse and error: Neither is the Will bound to obey other then the rectified Understanding. And therefore, if the conscience being deceived, do prescribe that to be done which is unlawfull, the true and onelyonly remedy is to cleere the conscience from the errors, & not to follow it in errors: For this were to double the fault which before was single; for the errour in the conscience was one, and now the following of that errour is another. And if the Cavalier know it not, there is also a Romish Doctor that can tell him a cause and root of this very errour which damneth men that shall bee saved. And indeed it is a vice not beseeming a Cavalier, which hee calleth Pusillanimity. *Error cōscientiae causatur ex cordis pusillanimitate, quâ quis timet non timenda secundùm rectum rationis judicium; et talis conscientia est nimis stricta, et ideo vi…anda, quia causat t…ia mala: Nam de bono facit malū, & de festuca trabem, id est, de levi peccato grave. Secūdò generat desperationē. Tert…ò damnat salvā dum. Pa…ant. in 2. L…ct. 165.An errour of …onscience is caused by pusillanimity of heart, whereby a man fears that which should not be feared according to the right judgement of reason; and such a conscience is too strict, and therefore to bee avoided, because it causeth three evills, whereof the third is this, It damnes him that should be saved.
But thus this errour of the Cavalier being taken from him, by which he thinkes he may follow his erroneous conscience, in denouncing damnation to those that are saved, the very sinnew and bond of his discourse is cut assunder; and all his ensuing labour lost, by which hee strives to prove that Protestants and Romists are divided, and cannot both bee saved: For though they be thus divided, a Papist cannot charitably tell a saved Protestant that hee is damned because hee doth erroneously beleeve it.
Yet will he needs goe on to his proofes of unity, though altogether unprofitable, and unable to excuse Rome from the charge of being uncharitable to Protestants: yea, it rather aggravates his charge, and makes her more uncharitable, in not holding unity with so good Christians as Protestants. Yet hee is resolved to goe on, and to utter that which hee gathered upon this head, or rather upon this word of Unity: for the places which hee brings forth, it seemes, please him well, if they doe speake of the word Unity, or something neere to the sound of it, though the meaning bee nothing of that unity which it concernes him (even in this his walke of impertinency and wandering) to pursue and prove. For sometimes his Allegations seeme to prove that there should bee in the Church one Head, and sometimes one Heart and Affection, somtimes one Spirit. But if the Author would bee pleased to remember his owne businesse, he might consider that his worke is to prove that there is in the Church such an entire unity in all points of Doctrine, that there can be no difference or dissent in any one point, though never so small, but that by this difference the unity of the Church and salvation is lost. For wee deny not, but there must bee one heart, and one affection, and one spirit in the Church, and all this in and under the unity of one Head, Christ Iesus.
Againe, we acknowledge that God did found but one Church, and one Religion; and that without these two there is no salvation: But except the Author prove that the unity of this one Church, and of this one Religion consists in this, that the beliefe of all must be one and the same in all points, under paine of Damnation; the former words of unity are meere words, and not pertinent to this end, neither will they make up his taske. For when hee comes to his next point, that this unity is broken betweene Protestants and Romists, wee will presently deny that wee have any way broken that unity of faith, which holds us in unity with the Church; and consequently wee are still in the state of salvation, and so all his errand is lost. Therefore the most places being impertinent, as proving that which wee deny not, and indeed make nothing for him being granted, hee hath two or three, which by screwes are wrested toward this full unity in points of beliefe, though they reach not home to it. This perchance hee aymed at in other places but they would not joyne with him.
SECT. II.
The argument drawne from the authority of the High Priest among the Iewes answered.
A First of his unproving and impertinent places, is that of Deut. 17. where (as our Author saith) his whole people should be subject to the determination of the High Priest for the time being; and this upon no lesse then paine of death: In which sentence, there was to be no appeale. And a little after, The great authority and power, which was cast upon the individuall Person of one Iudge.
But first if wee will reade the words of God himselfe, we may see that He speaks of more then one individuall Person:Ver 9. and Ver. 12. For Hee speakes of the Levites, the Priests, and the Judge. And if a man will not hearken to the Priest, or to the Judge, that then he should dye.
Verse 11.But secondly, it must bee remembred, that that which the Priest or the Judge must pronounce, must bee the sentence of the Law: For even the Prophet must dye, which shall presume to speak a word which God hath not commanded.Deut. 18.20.
Yet thirdly, wee well know, That this speaking according to the Law, was often neglected by the Priests; and therefore they brake the Covenant of Levi, Mal. 2.8.and led the people into errors, as hereafter more fully may bee proved. And I hope this Champion will not say, that the people lost their salvation if they did not hold unity with the errors of the Priests.
And whereas hee addeth, That there could bee no Religion or Church that did not agree with this; Wee take not this to bee the present Question: but, Whether all beleevers, Proselites or Jewes, did in every point, by the Priests decision, hold an unity of beliefe, and did in no point differ: Now this, I thinke, will never bee both affirmed and proved. For not only humane Testimonies, but the Scriptures themselves doe shew us,Mat. 22. Act. 23.6, 8. that there were divers sects and opinions among them, and yet they joyned together in externall unity, not dividing themselves into two Religions and Churches.
But to put this Author out of trouble, in regard of his individuall High Priest, the mention of whom seemes to looke asquint on the Pope, as his shadow; let him remember, That the High Priest was himselfe a shadow of Christ,Heb. 7.12. & 8.5. and when Christ came, this shadow was abolished; and when this shadow dyed, it left not the Pope either heire or executor; and so hee can be at best but the counterfeit of an abolished shadow.
And thus all this Authors labours for the High Priest are left to the Pope. But see how yet it fals out more unhappily against him; for after hee had made mention of the individuall High Priest, his next proofe ariseth from Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, punished for Schisme (and not for Heresie, and difference in Doctrine) against two individuall persons, Moses and Aaron.
SECT. III.
It is declared, 1. That the unity of the Church may be preserved without an exact agreement in all points of doctrine. 2. That the Papists exalt the Pope above God, in that they hold all differences from the Popes determination to bee mortall, and yet some breaches of Gods Law to bee veniall.
ANother place of his, very impertinent to his purpose,foreign Unic… solitaru, Psal. 68.7. Pagnin. lex. is taken or racked out of the Psalmes; which, differently from the originall and corrected Translations, hee thus paraphraseth; Hee makes them to bee all after one manner, and to bee endued with the same affections and dictamens concerning Gods service. But the word dictamens we leave to this Author, as being his owne, and not the Texts; onelyonly wee may upon request allow this place, and the next (of Christs prayer for unity, Iohn 17) to intend unity of affections; and yet hee will bee short of his unity in all points of Doctrine. And it is wel known, that if this were meant, the present Romists themselves have not that unity, neither those who farre excelled them, the ancient Martyrs and Fathers. And farre more guilty are they against the prayer of Christ, in maintaining division aSchismatis tota radix & vera causa est, & jam diu fuit Romanus Ponti…ex. —Schismaticus enim est qui ab Ecclesia universali se separat; non qui Papam errantem nolit s…qui. Spalat Ostens. error. Suarez. cap. 6.of affections towards Patriarchall Sees, and many eminent parts of the catholick Church: for the Pope is like Ismael, his sword against every man that will not submit to his universall Supremacy.
And according to this dividing Spirit of the Papacie, is it this Authors businesse in this worke, to make a division in the Church (for false proving is making) even where there is an unity? for, is not this his employment in this Chapter, (and more hereafter in taking away the distinction of points fundamentall) to set Christians by the eares, and one to damne another for differing in every little point of doctrine? For thus hee saith, even soone after his former places of unity (and hee would faine have Saint Matthew and Saint Mark to say so with him,Mat. 28.20. Mar. 16.16.) Whosoever should faile of beleeving any one point of Christian doctrine, should be as sure of condemnation, as if he had beleeved but any one, or none. A Foundation laid of Babel it selfe, even of division and hatred in the Church of God; A Position to which I cannot bee silent for Sions sake, nor for my brethren and companions sake, whom this Position hath often slaine with death temporall, and adjudged to death eternall. For let it look as smooth as it will, doe you breake up the bowels of it, and you shall finde it full of bloud, division, and damnation. This, even this is it which hath wrought those fearefull Massacres, Treasons, Excommunications, Fires, whereof many horrid spectacles in the second Chapter have been presented.
And how should it bee otherwise, but that it should produce such hellish effects, when it teacheth Christians, for every failing in the beleefe of any one point of Christian (that is in their language, Romish or Popish) doctrine, to accompt other Christians in the state of damnation, and to hate them more then heathens; So that if the Pope say, that the Worship of Images, Prayer in an unknown tongue without understanding, Rats eating the body of Christ, and such other errors, bee points of Christian doctrine; the man that beleeves them not, though hee beleeve in Christ, yea, all other points but one of these, hath forfeited his salvation, and is fallen into the odious state of a combustible heretick, and of a damnable person. But this Author might have beene put in minde of more mercy by one of his allegations; for though Christ in the place of Matthew by him alledged, willeth that all Nations bee taught to observe whatsoever hee hath commanded; yet his owne fellow Romists allow, that the breach of some of Christs Commands are not damnable: I might alledge a Command of Christ in the Lords Supper, Drinke yee all of this; which (as concerning the lay people) they have turned into Drinke yee none of this: But I will passe to other Commands, such as those are which command the keeping of the morall Law, (Matth. 5.17.28.48.) and forbid every idle thought: but the breach of these aQ…i concupiscit inordinatè contra solam liberalitatem, vel pauxillum contra justitiam, solum venialiter peccat. Navar. Man. cap. 20. N. 1. Negari non debet peccatum veniale es…e cōtra praeceptum aliquod. Vasq. in 1a. 2r. Disp. 144.9.Commands by inordinate thoughts, or small deviations, the Romists can make not mortall and damnable, but veniall. How comes it then that they will allow us no veniall errors and failings in small points of doctrine, but any one point of Christian (that is, in his sense, Popish) doctrine not beleeved, is damnably mortall? Is there not in this a great piece of Popish leaven, even of the wicked mystery, that sinnes against Gods Commands of morall obedience may bee veniall; but against the Popes Commands, in the least point of doctrine, are altogether mortall? And doth not the reason appeare to bee this, That in the breach of a morall Law (as that of coveting our neighbours goods) God is offended, but the Pope is not hurt: but by not beleeving any one point which the Pope delivers for Christian doctrine, his In…rrability fals to the ground, and so his Supremacy? And it were better, according to the policie of this wicked Mystery, that all the world were burned or damned, or set at division, then that the Papacie should fall. But thus doth the Pope set himselfe above God, by valuing offences against himselfe of a more damnable nature then sinnes against God: But well it is withall, that they shew hereby, that God is yet farre more mercifull then the Pope; for God, they say, makes little sins veniall, whereas the Pope makes little errors against Popish doctrine deadly and damnable. But the truth is, to those that are in Christ Jesus, God doth make veniall both errors in lesser points of faith, which grow by ignorance, blindenesse, or weaknesse of faith, aswell as lesser errors in life, by infirmity and weaknesse. Christs bloud is a propitiation for all our sinnes, aswell sins in the understanding, as in the will. And to those who attaine to that measure of faith which knits them to Christ Jesus, Christ Jesus by his bloud will make other ignorances and unbeliefes in those points of doctrine, to which they cannot attain, veniall and pardonable: and surely, our Author is hardly driven to get a shew of proof from Scripture, of this doctrine of division and damnation: The place of Matthew could not serve; for there was only a command to the Apostles, to teach all Nations to observe all Christs Commands. But we have seene above out of Romists, that the breach of some of Christs Commands is not damnable, but veniall; wherefore another place must be forced to confesse it. Accordingly that of Saint Marke is set on the rack; but this place speakes not of not beleeving all and every point of doctrine delivered and decreed by the Pope and his adherents; but the maine scope of the place is a casting of damnation upon men for the great point of not beleeving in Christ: for in the Gospel this is an usuall sense of the word beleeving, especially when it stands upon life and death. And, it seemes, this Author can bring no plain place of Scripture to prove,Joh. 3.36. & 6.29, 35, 40. Joh. 17.3. Act. 10.43. Rom. 3.25, 26. 1 Joh. 5.12. that he who beleeves not every small point of doctrine decided by the Pope, shall bee damned; for if he could, these places had not been so unmercifully racked toward it. But thus still behold a going on of the Mystery of iniquity. Unity unto salvation is urged, thereby to make division unto damnation; Words are taken from Christ the Head, therewith to tear his body into pieces: But hereof wee may make this use, That when a Papist preacheth to Protestants of unity, then let them expect & beware of division.
SECT. IIII.
The place taken out of the 18. of Matth. is cleared, which the Cavalier had perverted to the maintenance of foure Popish grounds: First, The perpetuall visibility of the Church of Rome. Secondly, The absolute authority of this Church, in judging controversies. Thirdly, The Inerrability of this judgement. Fourthly, a Necessity of submission thereunto, whereby their imaginary unity is produced.
I Might here bee at rest for this Chapter, but that this Champion, besides two impertinent places (one of which speaks of unity of Affection, and a second of the unity of Spirit in the bond of Peace,) brings forth a third, even the often answered place of S. Matth. which hee perverts to divers ill uses,Mat. 18. whereof this imaginary Popish unity is one; For, hee assayes hereby to prove the Church to be the judge of controversies, to prove her visibility, to prove her inerrability and thereupon he thinkes presently should follow an unity.
First, to remove the stumbling blocke of visibility, for which the Author went out of his owne way, that hee might lay it in ours: I answer, That this Text may teach what is to bee done where there is a Church, as commonly there is where there is a Brother and a Brother, but it doth not teach that there shall be a Church visible in all places, and at all times.
But notwithstanding this text, a Church may be visible sometimes in one Nation, and somtimes in another, according to the fruitfulnesse of the people, and the just pleasure of God, who sometimes removeth the Gospell and the Candlesticke from a Nation that bears no fruit, to another that shall beare it: And so wee see that there are no Churches now to be seene where there have beene famous Churches in times past. Accordingly the Church may be visible in Greece, in AEthiopia, in Armenia, yea in England, though it be not visible in Rome; and so the visibility thereof may bee true, though there were no Rome, and no Pope. So that neither this, nor any other text, though they say the Church is visible,Potest in aliis Episcopis et quidem firmiter pietas religio …is que inte gr…as conserv…ri. Nilus de Prim. p…pae. yet they doe not say that Rome or the Pope shall still be the visible Church: but contrarily the Scripture giveth us good hope that Rome shall be invisible; yea, it gives us great proofe that shee is now the Scarlet Lady that persecutes the Church, and is now the Mother of abominations.
Secondly, no Scripture doth say that in time of persecution or prevailing Heresie, the Church shall there bee visible where this persecution drives it into corners, that it may escape the fury of it by a kinde of invisibility: And when the Arian heresie had covered the face of the Earth, and the Roman Bishops or Pope had subscribed to it, this Scripture doth not say that then the Pope or his Adhaerents were the visible Church; nor that they shall be so when the Pope turnes Antichrist.
For the second point, that the Church is the judge of controversies, I could perchance say, that there appeares very probable reasons why this text doth not speak of the Churches authority in judging of controversies of faith, but of her authority in admonishing her children; and requiring reconciliation & satisfaction from one brother to another, in evident wrongs, even faults without controversie: For the text saith, If thy Brother sinne, or trespasse against thee, go and tell him his fault; So that there is a sinne and a fault without controversie, and such a fault, that the offended Brother himselfe may first judge and tell him of it that hath offended: And according to this beginning may bee the proceeding, that is, that the two witnesses, and so the Church may be not to judge of the fault, whether it bee a fault or no; but to witnesse and condemne the contumacy of the party in denying satisfaction, and reconciliation after an evident fault. And when the offending Brother will not heare the Church thus admonishing, perswading, and injoyning him satisfaction and reconciliation, then hee is to bee cast out of that Church, which hee hath thus contumaciously disobeyed: Agreeable to that of S. Paul, If any man obey not our word, have no company with him.2. Thes. 3.14.
But be it that the Church be the judge of controversies, this also may bee true, in Russian, AEthiopian, and Protestant Churches; And so the Church may judge controversies though there were no Pope, and where the Pope hath no power: Besides, the Romists themselves differ concerning the meaning of the word Church: So that while wee labour in this text to finde a Judge of controversies for reconciling them; wee are left unreconciled, by being at controversie about the Judge of controversies mentioned in this text: For, aHieronymus & glossa nōine Ecclesiae multitudinem intelligunt. vid. Lorcam. in 22. Disp. 46. n. 22.some say, the multitude is this Church; and they have for them the most usuall acception of the word Church in that sense through the new Testament: And the current of the place, seems to him that way, according to proportion: For, first the offended Brother, alone was to admonish his Brother; and next with one or two witnesses; and lastly, hee was to be admonished by the congregation: So it is a doctrine of degrees, from one to two, and from two, to many; And if it be thus, then the Popes power of judging controversies hath no footing here. But thirdly, (and so withall to include and resolve the question of inerrability,) If the Prelates be meant by the Church, (which Lorca saith is the most usuall opinion amongst Romists) yet doth not this place say, that Romish Prelates shall have still an unerring judgement in controversies; especially any single Prelate, as the Pope. Againe, it can hardly bee thought, that when a Brother hath offended a Brother, this text would have him presently to call a Councell or Synod of Prelates, and so complaine to many Prelates at once, and so to the Church. But if it be his owne Prelate of whom hee must aske, doth this place promise that no Prelate shall erre in judgeing of controversies? it is well known that in the Jewish Church, (which was undeniably the true Church before Christ,) Priests did not judge controversies without errour: Yea, God Himselfe complaineth of the contrary,Mal. 2.7, 8. when he saith, The Priests lippes should preserve knowledge, and they should seeke the Law out of his mouth; for hee is the messenger of the Lord of Hostes: But Ye are departed out of the way, Yee have caused many to stumble at the law; Yee have corrupted the Covenant of Levi.
Accordingly wee finde in the Prophets a continuall out-cry upon the Priests for mis-leading the people; yea, the Priests are chiefe in false judgements,Jer. 26.8. and injuries of the true Prophets. Accordingly, Pashar both prophecied lies,Jer. 20.1.2, 6. and did cast Ieremy into the stockes for prophecying truth: yea,Mat. 26.6, 5. the High Priest himselfe falsly judgeth Christ to have spoken blasphemy; And S. Peter tells the High Priest and his associates, that they were the builders that despised the Corner stone, and crucified Christ. And thus wee see it plaine in the Scripture, that the Priests and Prelates did erre, even when our Author ascribes that inerrability to them by which hee would prove the inerrability of Rome; yea, we see farther that this same opinion of inerrability was the cause of their Error, as it is even now in the Romish Papacy. Their presumption of not erring, was so far from being an Argument of inerrability, that it made them to runne into error, and to lead the people after them, (blinde after blinde) into the ditch of error. This wee see in their owne words;Jer. 8.18. for thus they say, Come let us devise devices against Ieremiah, for the law shall not perish from the Priest; yea, this presumption of not erring was thought a very sure ground of erroneous judgement in this strange controversie, whether Christ be Christ: Do any of the Rulers, or of the Pharises beleeve on him? Joh. 18.…8.as if they should say, The Rulers, and the Pharises, the Priests and the Doctors cannot erre; and they have judged this controversie, that Christ is not Christ: And therefore without controversie men ought not to beleeve in Christ.
But is there then no use of judgement of the Church? yes surely very great; The Church, yea, the Priests or Ministers of the Church, according to the covenant of Levi, ought to speake the Law of God to the people, and judge controversies thereby. And then as the Thessalonians hearing Saint Paul, wee must not thinke that wee doe so much heare their word, as the very word of God: And this word being followed, will make a true and inerrable judgement, and truth ever being one, it will ever cause unity.
And so are we come to the fourth point, and indeede the point most proper to the present question, though the place bee not proper to prove the Popish unity, which this Author would picke out of it.
For whereas to raise this unity out of this text, he would thereby enforce an absolute yeelding to the judgement of the Church, without appealing to Scripture, hee must remember that in this judgement of the Church, the Scripture is implyed and included: And the including of it is the onelyonly right meanes of causing true christian unity; For the case wherein a man, not hearing the Church, is to be accounted an Heathen, is sinning against a brother: Now sinning against a brother is plainly forbidden by Scripture, being contrary to that Royall law of love, which commands a man to love his Neighbour as himselfe: So that not to heare the Church in a case of sinning against a brother, is not to heare the Church advising or judging according to Scripture: And so upon the matter it is a not hearing of the Scripture speaking by the mouth of the Church; and then see how unhandsomely ariseth the Inference of this Author; That he that will not hear the Church judging according to Scripture, may not appeale to the Scripture, that is, he may not appeal from Scripture to Scripture.
But much more right and reasonable is this consequence,Heb. 13.7. Obey your Rulers, &c. Take with you this Limitation; Which have spoken to you the Word of God; which S. Paul giveth even in the same Chapter. B. Bilson… difference, &c. part. 2. That if a man shall wilfully not hearken to the Church in a case thus evidently judged by Scripture, let such an one bee accounted as an heathen. And indeed, I can scarce thinke, that if this man who is questioned and accused by his brother were guiltlesse, and so by the Word of God should bee acquitted, that this Author himselfe would have him taken for a heathen, being judged by the Church, against Gods Law and Scripture, to bee an offender. But in this case the aHac caeci exclusione Pharisaei, sibi ipsis plus damni intulerunt quàm caeco; per hoc enim seipsos separârunt & à Christo, & ab omnibus fidelibus, &c. Ferus in Ioh. 9.curse lights on the false Judges that call good evill, as it doth on those that falsely damne Protestants.
And thus also the Cavaliers imaginary contrariety of two Churches judging one against another, is prevented and removed through this stedfast rule of unity: for two Churches judging one case, according to one right rule, (and such is the Scripture) cannot pronounce of one case more then one judgement. And so the man whom hee would affright is put out of feare, for being tossed betweene two damnations by two contrary judgements; for there is but one right judgement according to the Scripture, and so but one damnation to bee feared, which any man may avoyd by hearing the Church judging uniformely according to the Scripture: for if the Church make a man a heathen against the Word of God, we have seen that bEjectus quidem est à Templo, sed à Templi Domino inventus est. Ferus ibid.Christ did not take such a one for an heathen; for Christ tooke the blinde man into his company, whom the Jewish Prelates had unjustly excommunicated, and made like an heathen. And no wonder; for Nicodemus, Christs Disciple, takes it for a confessed ground; neither is it denyed by the Pharisees, That the Law is Judge, and from the Law all Judgement should proceed:Joh. 7.51. Doth our Law (saith hee) judge any man? Accordingly, S. Paul tels the High Priest,Act. 23.3. That hee sits to judge after the Law. Therefore when the Judgement is contrary to the Law, it hath in it a nullity: Now, in all Judgements according to the Law, as there is a power and efficacie, so there is an harmonious unity.
But when there are two Popes, a Pope and an Antipope, or two successively, that Judge one against the other, how are the poore Popish souls that depend on a Popes word as a divine Law tossed miserably between two damnations? But this while the children of the Church are safe from this distraction by the unity of that judgement which proceedeth from the constant unity of verity in the Scriptures.