disagreement with ours and agreement with theirs In the last place I will shew the faith of Rome wherein he doth agree with them to be erronious CHAP. II. The point of the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies Mr. Mountague Ch. of Rome Ch. of Eng In Divinitie questions that be in Controversie there must be a Iudge to determine whether partie contending hath law right vpon his side which we say is the Church gagg p. 28. It is the office of the Church to Iudge of the true sence and interpretation of the Scriptures Cancil Trent ses 4. The church is a witness and keeper of the Scriptures arti 20. We make the Scripture the rule of our beleife in plain causes And in doubtfull points that require determination we appeale to the Church for Iudgement in that rule gagg p. 14. 15.  Generall Coūcils may er in things partaining to God arti 21. If a question be moued in controverted matters the Church must decide and setle that doubt by applying and declaring the Scriptures p. 14.  Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation The decision of the Catholicke Church we receiue as the dictate of the holy spirit gagg p. 19.  haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they may be taken out of holy Scripture arti 21. Where the Scripture is hard in case there be a doubt we are to addresse to the direction of Gods spirit and that in the Church gagg p. 6.   CHAP. III. The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed IN the first place the meaning of the terme Iudge must be vnderstood which is thus explicated A Iudge is an office ordained by God to giue sentence in a doubt that is made in things revealed by God This office hath these three properties 1. The sentence thereof must be regulated by the Word of God 2. All parties contending must appeale vnto it And 3. they must rest satisfied with the Iudgement thereof Of which there is no question with him in Divinitie questions that be in Controversie The parts to be debated be three 1. Whether that proposition the Church is Iudge c. be true or not 2. Whether that proposition consenteth with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether that proposition dissenteth from the Church of England or not Touching the first he sayth The Word of God and the auncient practice of the Catholicke Church doth avow it gagg p. 15. I answer Doctor Carleton Bishop of Chichester sayth all contrary in his booke called Directions to know the true Church p. 54. He writeth thus Vndoubtedly the written Word doth suffice to end all Controversies of faith this is the Catholicke determination of the Iudge of Controversies of faith which hath beene in all succession preserved And p. 57. Till the Councell of Trent the Church held the same determination still concerning the Iudge of Controversies in faith Now vnto whether of you too shall credit be given surely vnto him rather then vnto you For he is your superior in learning and authoritie he is your Diocesan whose voyce must you heare but the voyce of your Pastour And you are in the Affirmatiue giving an authoritie to the Church which he denieth you must shew vs the commission for this authoritie for we dare not yeeld the Church that office without knowledge of a commission for it It is your owne rule gagg p. 17. A Nunci◠must goe to his Commission If your proofes be good your Diocesan must stand by 1. Your proofes from the word of God we find p. 17. taken out of Luke 10. 16. thus to be framed Whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. They are Iudge in Divinitie Controversies But the Church That is the Governours of the Church which succeed the Apostles are those whom we are commanded to heare Luk. 10. 16. Therefore the Church is Iudge c. I answer the proposition is false I shew it by many reasons 1. It doth alledge this place of Luke as if that office of a Iudge were instituted by this place in which respect the proposition is false because that office is not instituted in that place And this I take as granted 2. At least the proposition resumes that that office was already instituted when those words Luk. 10. 16. were spoken Which is false also and I could shew it by many reasons but this one shall suffice viz. no place of Scripture doth tender vnto vs the commission for that office 3. The word heare may be vnderstood for the cōmon hearing of the Word of God Preached and read as well as for an appeale thereto and resting in the sentence of a Iudge yea and better also for it is most frequently vsed in that sence but little in this Againe the Text leadeth clearely to that sence but not at all to this The assumption speakes of the governours of the Church severed from other Ministers which are not governours In which sence the assumption doth need proofe but he hath brought none but his owne affirmation Besides the assumption is false by the authoritie of the Text it selfe which sendeth vs to all the Apostles successors joyntly by the terme you which distinguisheth not betweene one successor and another His proofe from the word of God being dispatched The ancient practise of the Catholike Church comes next but he sayes nothing of it therefore I cannot answere any thing to it It may be he lookes for proofe from vs out of former times to shew that The Church is not Iudge in matters of faith Which is vnorderly yet notwithstanding to the end that the Iudgement of Antiquitie in this point might be fully knowne Bishop Carleton in the booke alledged p. 52. c. alledgeth Councels Fathers Popes all pronouncing this sentence The Scripture is Iudge in Controversies of faith Wherefore we must hearken to your Pastour and not to you Lastly if the Church be Iudge of Controversies of faith then God hath assured vnto it an infaillibilitie and freedome from error in Iudgement And assured such a conspicuous being vnto the Church perpetually to the end of the world that it may be fit to be appealed vnto and giue sentence in every Controversie of faith in the time wherein it riseth for without the first it cannot be a fit Iudge for matters of that kinde and without the second some Controversies of faith might rest vndecided But the Church hath neither of these two assured vnto it by God as my answers in the two next Chapters will shew and therefore the Church is not Iudge in matters of faith To the second thing propounded to be debated in this point I presume he will answer that he doth not consent with the Church of Rome in this point and giue this for his reason to wit he and they doe take the word Church in a different sence and giue for instance as he doth gagg p. 19. He takes the Church to signifie a true not a
the Church hath beene in time past The Church hath beene visible particular Church for he saith in the place now alledged it is a part of the Catholike Church And againe Appeale p. 136. He doth call it the Church in Rome and doth range it with a Church in England France Spaine all which doe denote particular Churches That he doth consent with the Church of Rome it cannot be doubted for as much as it hath decreed as a matter of faith that their particular Church is the mother and mistris of all Churches Concil Trent sess 7. de Babâ—is can 3. sess 13. de extrem vnct cap. 3. sess 22. de sacrif missae cap 8. That it doth dissent from the Church of England will easily be manifested which hath reiected by Parliament Law the Popes authoritie in all cases of government hath confirmed a doctrine as belonging to our Church without any relation to the Church of Rome hath set it downe in the booke of Articles and the common Liturgie and hath shaken off the faith of the Church of Rome by reiecting the Decrees of the Councell of Trent and other Councels depending vpon the Popes authoritie All which is also declared by Bishop Iewell in his Apologie in divers places some whereof I will repeat 1. Wee haue departed from that Church saith he whose errors were proved and made manifest to the world which Church also already had departed from Gods Word and yet haue wee not departed so much from it selfe as from the errors thereof par 4. cap. 11. divis 1. 2. We haue renounced that Church wherein we could neither haue the Word of God sincerely taught nor the Sacraments rightly administred and wherein was nothing able to stay a wise man or one that hath consideration of his owne safetie par 5. cap. 15. divis 3. 3. We haue forsaken the Church as it is now and haue so gone from it as Daniell went out of the Lyons den divis 4. 4. Let them compare our Churches and theirs together and they shall see that themselues haue most shanâ—â—fully gone from the Apostles and wee most iustly haue gone from them cap. 16. divis 1. 5. We haue departed from him who is without all doubt the fore-runner and standard-bearer of Antichrist and hath vtterly forsaken the Catholike faith part 6. cap. 22. divis 2. Lastly we haue restored our Churches by a Provinciall Convocation and haue cleane shaken off the yoke of the Bishop of Rome who had no manner of thing like neither to Christ nor to an Apostle And these are the reasons and causes why we haue restored Religion and forsaken these men cap. the last The testimony of this reverend Bishop must be received not as a private opinion but as the voyce and judgement of our whole Church For 1. he himselfe did conceiue it to be so otherwise he would not haue named his Booke An Apologie in defence of the Church of England which he doth 2. This worke of his hath passed for many yeares in the publike knowledge of our Church without the least blame 3. After this long deliberation it is reprinted with speciall direction from authoritie and to the end it might be had in every severall Parish in the Kingdome which is executed accordingly Whervnto I will adde the necessity which the church of England conceived to be of that seperation which it hath expressed by the mouth and pen of the same Author as followeth 1. They haue no cause to call vs againe to beleeue as they beleeue If we should content our selues to returne to the Pope and his errors it should be a very dangerous matter both to kindle Gods wrath against vs and to clogg and condemne our soules for ever part 6. cap. 22. divis 1. 2. We haue fallen from the Bishop of Rome because the case stood so that vnlesse we left him wee could not come to Christ par 6. cap. 20. divis 2. 3. The holy Ghost Apocal. 18. commandeth vs to depart from the Church of Rome for so it is written Come away from her O my people that yee be not partakers of her sinnes least you be also partakers of her plagues Answer to Hardings conclusion From whence I thus argue The Church of England is departed from the Church of Rome to avoyd damnation Therefore the Church of England Iudgeth the Church of Rome to be no true Church And Mr Mountague doth professe himselfe to be no Child of the Church of England Thus he writeth Appeale p. 112. I professe my selfe none of those furious ones in point of difference now adayes whose profession and rosolution is that the further in any thing from communion with the Church of Rome the neerer vnto God and truth That we ought to haue no coÌ„merce societie or accordance with Papists in things divine vpon paine of eternall damnation Much joy may he haue in that his good temper and communion with the Church of Rome I will harken to the warning given by the Church of England and be furious with it rather then hazard my salvation in imitation of his good temper That this proposition The Church of Rome is a true Church Is false and vntrue will appeare by my answer to his Arguments Before I come vnto that I must set downe what he meaneth by true Church which I find written Appeale p. 140. in these words It is a true Church in respect of the essence and being of a Church not a sound Church every way in their doctrine Although this distinction be liable to many just exceptions yet I passe by it and come to the proposition in question which according to his owne exposition must be conceiud in these termes The Church of Rome hath the essence and being of a true Church His proofes for this we find written in his Appeale p. 113. the first whereof is set downe in these words I am absolutely perswaded the Church of Rome is a true Church c. I answer his perswasion though never so absolute is no compotent rule for any divinitie question much lesse for this which doth so neerly concern an Article of faith as the Church of Rome would haue it It may be the other two reasons which he hath for this matter is the ground for this his absolute perswasion therefore I passe from this and come to the second in these words In essentialls and fundamentalls they agree I answer this is a very riddle and no proofe What he meanes by essentials what by fundamentalls with whom or what they agree he sheweth not nor are the things evident of themselues When he speaketh to humane intelligence he shall haue answer If the Trumpet giue an vncertaine sound none can prepare himselfe to battell Let vs ayme at his meaning it will open the whole Cause the better It may be by fundamentalls he meanes such Articles of faith as must be beleeved explicitly vnto salvation If this be his meaning I deny that they agree in fundamentals for in such
stamp and by it can shew how a church may be a runn away from Christ and a houshold servant vnto Christ How that church which reiecteth Christs law kingdom Scepter and in that respect is a rebell doth also at the same instant reteine obey and yeeld subiection vnto Christ his kingdome and Scepter And this he must doe or els confesse what he built in one place he destroyeth in another This he cannot doe because Christ his kingdome nor his Scepter cannot be devided into parts nor the Church extended therevnto as vnto parts neither can the doctrine of Christ be so obiected vnto the faith and obedience of the Church as that it may reiect some part thereof and beleeue other some but it must obey and beleeue every part thereof actually and intentionally or nonâ— at all There is one God one faith one hope one Baptisme not deviding but composing Christ in his members and profession are his owne words Appeale p. 43. Therefore by his owne authority I may safely conclude against his owne proposition now in question The Church of Rome is not a true Church Bishop Carleton writeth thus in his Booke called Directions to know the true Church The Church of Rome which now is is not the true Church of Christ p. 78. 92. The Church of Rome as now it stands hath no communion with the Catholike Church p. 88. 100. The present Church of Rome is no Church of Christ but an assemblie I say not of heretikes but of farre worse and more dangerous then any heretikes heretofore haue beene p. 65. Touching the danger that they are in which haue communion with the Church of Rome in the Popish doctrine and the receivers thereof he writeth thus These traps are layd with great subtiltie to inthrall their soules let them at least that are seduced lift vp their eyes and see the snares that are provided to catch them and behold the danger that is before them if they will wilfully fall into these snares then may they blame themselues for their owne destruction p. 63. 64. The damage redoundeth to the destruction of their soules This thing the simple people ought more carefully to looke to more exactly to prevent then any damage that can grow in their worldly state p. 43. The meanes to be saved are now taken away by these that are now in the Church of Rome p. 84. Which testimony as it is free from all exception that might any wayes disable it so also it caries with it many circumstances of credit especially to Mr Mountague for he saith Appeal p. 69. Sometimes he was his worthy friend and acquaintance since is his reverend and much reverenced Diocesan his superior in learning and authoritie A thing much vrged by himselfe Appeal p. 28. Vnto all men I find these circumstances yeelding credit vnto him Our Church and state doth take knowledge of him for learning and vertue for it imployed him for our Church in the Synode of Dort and that as the principall of our Divines that were sent thither are Mr Mountague his owne words Appeal p. 69. Since that our Church hath advanced him vnto Diocesan authoritie Lastly his testimony agreeth fully with the testimony of Bishop Iewell set downe before whose doctrine is indeed the doctrine of our Church the booke it selfe is dedicated vnto his Maiestie that now is and thereby hath a Royall Confirmation and Protection But which is most of all this testimony is commended by cleare and evident demonstration which out of the sayd booke is thus to be framed Every particular assemblie that holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church is no true Church of Christ but an assembly of heretickes p. 5. For the Church is but one not two nor many p. 4. But the Church of Rome hath broken off this vnitie with the Catholike Church p. 5. Therefore the present Church of Rome is no church of Christ but an assemblie of heretickes p. 65. The assumption of this argument he proveth thus The Church is one 1. by the vnitie of the body 2. by the vnitie of the head 3. by the vnitie of the spirit 4. by the vnitie of faith p. 6. But the church of Rome doth not hold the vnitie by the body p. 8. nor the vnitie of the head p. 13. nor the vnitie of the spirit p. 19. nor the vnitie of faith p. 22. Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not vnitie with the Catholike Church Although all those are necessarily required to proue a Church to hold vnitie with the Catholike Church as he saith p. 6. he bringeth proofes that the church of Rome holdeth not vnitie in any one of them in the severall places which I haue quoted yet I will content my selfe to bring his proofe for the last because as he truely also saith where one of them is found all of them are found p. 7. And contrariwise His proofe for the last standeth thus They that hold the vnitie of faith with the Catholike Church they haue the same rule of faith with the Catholike Church p. 34. 39. For The faith of the Church is said to be one because the rule of faith is one and the same from the beginning of the Church to the end p. â—4 But the Church of Rome holdeth not but hath changed that rule of faith p. 32. 49. For Whereas the rule of faith was ever confessed to be in the doctrine of the Scriptures now in the Councell of Trent vnwritten traditions were taken into the rule of faith and so they teach that the whole rule is in the Scriptures and traditions p. 33. 49. 50. Therefore the Church of Rome holdeth not the vnitie of faith with the Catholike Church I might adde the severall proofes which this reverend Author bringeth to proue the severall parts of this argument but I forbeare it because the principall doubt lyeth in this that he saith The Scripture is the rule of faith And The Church of Rome hath changd that rule Which needeth no proofe because Mr Mountague avoucheth the same Appeale p. 16. On this wise There is a rule of faith we acknowledge it c. The Scripture is an exact and absolute rule of faith and manners The Pope doth dissent from and reiect that rule proposeth some things as to be beleeved against that rule Which is no lesse then as if he had said expresly The Scripture is the rule of faith and the Church of Rome hath changed it made a word of God of their owne invention Which are the Bishops words in the place alledged In that booke is set downe a second argument for the same purpose thus to be framed They that haue changed the Iudge of Controversies of faith haue changed that whereby the Church is knowne to be a Church But the Church of Rome hath changed the Iudge of Controversies of faith p. 64. 73. For The written Word of God doth suffice to end all controversies of faith and is the Catholike
false that 16. Article doth not say A man may recouer the grace he hath lost But The expresse words of the Article are By the grace of God wee that fall into sinne may amend our liues Which two sentences doe most really differ This man is very willing to abuse the vnderstanding that dareth thus boldly falsify words vpon record against the sight of the eye His fourth argument is set downe Appeale page 36. and thus he beginneth 4 In the publike seruice of our Church you shall finde also as much as falling from grace commeth too I answer he promised positiue and declaratory Doctrine and expresse words affirming his falling from grace and now he paies vs with consequences a fault you reproued very often and many a faire title you gaue your aduersary the Gagger for it Turne backe againe and take a view how many of them belong to your selfe Was there euer any man so senslesse as to send vs to seeke the faith of our Church in consequences Or does hee thinke to finde any so voyd of reason as to beleeue him Surely no for that were a worke endlesse If the faith of our Church be in this consequence why not in second vpon the first and a third vpon the second c And this is enough to satisfie the whole but lest he should haue an ill conceit of himselfe if I should cut him off thus shortly therefore I will set downe what that is which he telleth vs is as much as falling from grace commeth too and this it is Euery Childe duely Baptised is put into the state of grace and saluation by that lauer of regeneration Which must be acknowledged and may not be denied to be the Doctrine of the Church of England being taught first in the forme of priuate Baptisme secondly in the Catechisme thirdly in the rubricke before the Catechisme I answer first this is Bellarmines second reason for this point de Iusti lib. 3. cap. 14. secondly these are not records of the faith of our Church no publike act of our Church hath made them such Besides the Bookes themselues be incompetent for that vse the one being a forme of administration of Prayers and Sacraments the other short precepts for the instruction of Infants Hee was neere driuen when hee catched at this shadow Moreouer hee affirmeth most falsly where he saith this sentence Euery one duely Baptised is by Baptisme put into the state of grace and saluation is taught in the places quoted The words of the places themselues will shew it neither is there any such thing meant or intended in them It may be he will reiect this answer because I make it I reply in his owne words Appeale p. 277. If you will not admit the answer I can name you one who will say and approne as much whom you dare not deny to be of credit or stile as you doc some others Appeale page 294. A poore man that doubtlesse was out of his element and medled beyond his latchet I meane Bishop Iewell whose words are these In the Sacrament of Baptisme by the sensible signe of water the inuisible grace of God is giuen vnto vs Artic. 5. diuis 8. folio 250. Little ones being Baptised and so the members of Christ Artic. 8. diuis 16. folio 291. Thus farre Bishop Iewell is for Mr. Mountagu but let him interpret himselfe and make vp his iudgement full touching the vse of the Sacrament and then wee shall finde him directly against him and for that end he saith thus We confesse that Christ by the Sacrament of regeneration hath made vs flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones that we are the members and hee is the head This merueilous coniunction and incorporation is first begun and wrought by faith afterward the same incorporation is assured vnto vs and increased in our Baptisme wherein must be considered that the holy mysteries doe not begin but rather continue and confirme this incorporation Artic. 1. diuis 13. folio 27. It may be here demanded how this iudgement of Bishop Iewell doth proue against Mr. Mountagu I answer thus If in his iudgement the Doctrine of the Church of England doth diue to the Sacrament of Baptisme no more but the renewing and confirmation of our incorporation into Christ and grace by Christ then in his iudgement the places alleadged out of the forme of priuate baptisme and the Catechisme doe not meane to say Euery Child baptised is thereby put into the state of grace and saluation For he was not ignorant of the doctrine of the Church of England set downe in those places or in any other neither would hee deliuer the doctrine of the Church of England otherwise then hee did conceiue it to be But that hee did so conceiue of it his words doe shew and he addeth that our incorporation is begun first and afterwards assured and increased in our Baptisme which doth not begin it which is so plaine full and direct a contradiction vnto Mr. Mountagu as the mind can deuise or words expresse If yet this testimony will not serue let the Church of England in the 25. and 27. Articles tell vs what effects it doth giue vnto the Sacraments where it assigneth To the Sacraments in generall that they are 1 Tokens of Christian profession 2. Signes of Gods good will 3. He doth by them quicken and confirme our faith Of Baptisme in speciall our Church saith 1 It is a signe of regeneration 2 An instrument wherby we are grafted into the Church 3 By it the promises of forgiuenesse of sinne and adoption are sealed 4. Faith is confirmed and grace increased These no more but these are the effects of the Sacrament of Baptisme assigned by our Church it hath not a word of putting the baptised into the state of grace and salvation by Baptisme If it be answered the Liturgie and Catechisme is a supply to make full the doctrine of the Articles I reply so to say is wholly without authority fondly without shew of reason The Articles were made vpon great deliberation and of purpose to settle an vnitie in matter of Religion therefore it would not omit principall points and set downe others that are subordinate and not called into question If the professors of the faith of our Church publikely and priuately in writing and by word of mouth haue taught and beleeued of the Sacraments no otherwise then is laid downe in the Articles and is maintained by Bishop Iewell and all of them doe deny that the habit of grace is bestowed in baptisme and doe deny it as the erroneous faith of Rome then may we well say that the Church neuer meant to set downe any other faith but that for all the children were not ignorant in their mothers faith nor the mother so carelesse of her faith as to suffer it to be corrupted and her intent to be changed Forasmuch as she could not be ignorant what was done nor wanted power to redresse things done amisse If
Priests and Iesuits were not common Barretters of Christendome for priuate ends this controuersie on foot touching the reall presence might cease Gagg p. 251. They that in the point of reall presence doe make a difference betweene vs and the Papists were bred vp by the deuill in a faction and by him brought vp in a faction and by him sent abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction Gagg p. 253. and Appeale p. 291. The onely difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours is about the manner Appeale p. 289. viz. How it is made the flesh of Christ Gagg p. 256. 255. Namely whether by transubstantiation or not 252. 254. The Councell of Lateran decreed Transubstantiation which wee condemne Gagg p. 252. And in this viz. how it is made the flesh of Christ he placeth the whole difference between the Church of Rome and ours blaming them for this p. 252. and for nothing else and reprouing their proofes because they proue not that the sacrament is the flesh of Christ by transubstantiation Gagg p. 252. and 254. Out of which wee may conclude Mr Mountagu beleeueth as the Councell of Trent hath decreed touching the reall presence and the doctrine of it is his doctrine so as what the Councell saith of reseruing carying about and worshipping of the Sacrament must be accounted the faith of Mr Mountagu because the first doth necessarily inferre the second If Christ be really present then the sacrament must bee so reserued caryed worshipped And so much for the second branch If this be true then Mr Mountagu doth not dissent from the Church of England in the point of reall presence To the end hee might perswade vs that hee doth not dissent from the Church of England he telleth vs Appeale p. 289. The point of reall presence is not Popery in the diuinity of the Church of England That is the Church of England agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence as he doth explicate himselfe a few lines after If that be so then I grant he doth not dissent from the Church of England But all the doubt will be how he will proue that the Church of England doth ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence His proofe such as it is I find set downe Appeale p. 289. c. and may be concluded in this forme Whatsoeuer is taught by the Bishops Bilson Andrewes Morton by Protestants Fortunatus Caluin Beza Sadael is the doctrine of the Church of England But the faith of the Church of Rome touching the reall presence is taught by these c. Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence is the doctrine of the Church of England This forme of disputing may not bee excepted against because all his allegations in the place quoted will be to no purpose if he doth not thus dispute for the allegations doe serue to proue this assumption or can be of no vse at this time To the proposition I answer two things First The doctrine of the Church of England is contained in bookes authorised publikely for that end and subscribed vnto as such But these mens writings are not such For no statute law or ordinance haue ratified them and commanded subscription vnto them as such Therefore your proposition is false Secondly your owne words are these Appeale p. 58. and 59. Whereas you would make the world beleeue that Ecclesia Anglicana Calvinistat as if hee were the father and founder of our faith as if our beleefe were to be pinned vnto his sleeue and absolutely to bee taught after his institutions shew me good warrant for it and I yeeld This is impossible therefore your proposition is false euen by your owne sentence his owne pen giueth Iudgement against his proposition as false that being false this reason cannot be good although his assumption were neuer so true The assumption is vtterly false and I doe admire that shame did not with-hold him from alleadging Caluin and Beza as consenters vnto the Romish faith in the point of reall presence seeing that Bellarmine in his fiâ—st Booke and first Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doth make Caluin and Beza principall opposers thereunto and in the second Chapter he doth apply the Councell of Trent in speciall sort against Caluin and forgetteth him not in no one passage of his disputations in this point The words of the Bishops euen as he hath alleadged them are not so much as like vnto the Romish faith as hee that readeth them will presently iudge I doe not attempt to apply them to his assumption Two of them are yet liuing who will I doubt not by liuely voyce disclaime the decree of the Councell of Trent and their consent thereto touching the reall presence and so fully refute his assumption as false He inferreth further from hence on this wise If this be the Doctrine that the Church of England teacheth and professeth as it is indeed I leaue you to those that must looke vnto you I answer this inference presumes too farre and comes too late I may rather inferre contrariwise If the Romish faith of reall presence bee not the Doctrine of the Church of England as indeed it is not my answer hath shewed it in part and I will shew it to the full hereafter then I leaue you as a corrupter of our faith to be punished as such according to law in that case prouided I finde in his Gagge page 250. he writeth thus Our Catechisme in the Communion Booke saith expresly the body and blood of Christ is taken and eaten in the Lords Supper And a few lines after he concludeth in these words The Protestant is as reall and substantiall as any Papist He seemeth to inferre the latter sentence vpon the former the meaning whereof is this Protestants acknowledge the reall and substantiall presence of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse then Papists What his intent was is best knowne to himselfe It was needfull for mee to propound it and let it bee knowne by my answer thereto that no reall presence is intended by our Church in the words alleadged which answer I will take from Bishop Iewell who hath already made it for mee in his reply vnto Hardings answere Artic. 5. p. 238. whose words be these Christs body and blood indeed and verily is giuen vnto vs that we verily eate it that wee verily drinke it In these words there is as much contained as Mr. Mountagu alleadgeth out of the Catechisme But marke now what he denieth and answereth further for the explication thereof Yet we say not that Christs body is let downe from heauen or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament wee lift vp our hearts to heauen and there feed vpon the Lambe of God thus spiritually and with the mouth of our faith wee eate the body of Christ and drinke his blood euen as verily as his body was verily broken and his blood verily
pretended Church which they doe not And againe Appeale p. 122. He takes the Church for a general Councell with the Pope as a patriarchcall Bishop but without the Pope as head but they doe not so By Church they vnderstand the Pope alone To this I answer this Discourse evidently declares that he agrees with them in the nature of the office of Iudging and in the subject that receiveth it abstracted from particulars namely that Church and differs only in the assigning in particular which is the Church Whereby he agrees with them in the principall thing in question and that is enough But indeed he doth agree in this point with the Councell of Trent to the full which vnderstands by the word Church a true not a pretended Church and the Pastors of the Church not the Pope onely For it calls that Church in the words immediately going before the Mother of all beleevers Which name cannot agree vnto a pretended Church nor to the Pope alone Neither doe the Iesuites expound the word Church by the word Pope but onely doe apply that sentence of the Councell to the Pope by inference and accommodation as is apparent by the whole course of their disputations The summe whereof may be comprehended in such a Syllogisme as this is That office of teaching which belongs to the Church belongs to the Pope and his Councell But this office of teaching viz. Iudging of Divinitie Controversies belongs to the Church Therefore that office belongs to the Pope and his Councell The proposition they say is true because Teaching is formally in the Pastors otherwise then by them the Church cannot teach It must be a Councell because the Pastors singly may erre The Pope must be joynd with them because it belongs to him to gather direct and confirme Councels In the assumption of this reason he consenteth with the Church of Rome and that is the principall part of this Argument In the proposition he consenteth with them thus farre That this â—â—ching belongs to the Pastors of the Church vniversally and to the Pope as one of them and that in a Councell He onely denieth the Popes authoritie to call direct and confirme Councels which is the last and least part of this Argument All which being considered we may safely conclude that he agreeth in the point of the Iudge in Divinitie Controversies with the Church of Rome The third thing to be debated in this question he resolveth gagg p. 13. 14. 15. That it is the sentence of the Church of England and doth alledge the 21. Article for it saying the Church hath authoritie in Controversies of faith But all this is vntrue I haue set downe that Article in the former Chapter the sight whereof will avow it Yea the Article is full for the contrary For 1. It giues the title of witnesse of the Scriptures vnto the Church and the Church cannot be both a witnesse and a Iudge of the Scriptures 2. It calls the Church the keeper of the Scriptures and no more Which it must haue done if it had esteemed it to be the Iudge to apply and interpret the Scriptures 3. It restraines the force of the sentence of the Church To examination and tryall by the Scriptures But so must not the sentence giuen by that Iudge which must be received as the dictates of the holy Spirit The Conclusion is He dissenteth from the doctrine of the Church of England CHAP. IIII. M Mountague The Church representatiue caÌ„not erre in points of faith gagg p. 48. Ch. of England Generall Councels may erre even in things pertaining vnto God arti 21. IN this point and in the two other which follow I haue not any thing to set downe vnder the name of the Church of Rome because I find not the Councell of Trent to haue decreed any thing in them but notwithstanding the Church of Rome doth teach them by the common consent of their Divines for the avowing of the Churches authoritie in Iudging Divinitie Controversies as shall appeare in the particular passages following This being premised I proceed to examine 1. Whether this proposition the Church represensatiue cannot erre in points of faith be true or not 2. Whether this proposition agree with the Church of Rome or not 3. Whether this proposition dissent from the Church of England or not First the sence of these termes 1. Church representatiue 2. erre 3. points of faith must be set downe 1. By Church representatiue he vnderstands a Councell truely generall Appeale p. 121. 2. By error he meanes an abberration from a rule Appeale p. 6. viz. the Scriptures gagg p. 13. 3. By points of faith is meant every sentence to be assented to as true vpon the authoritie of God the revealeâ— thereof Not erring in points of faith supposeth a sentence to be given which is the subiect of not erring in delivering whereof they cannot erre According vnto which sence the proposition may be set downe in these words A Councell truely generall in giving sentence touching a Divinity proposition cannot vary from the Scriptures That he consenteth with the Church of Rome in this proposition himselfe confesseth gagg p. 48. where of it he saith So say they so say we And Bellarmines words doth shew it Which writeth thus The Church representatiue cannot erre de eccle lib. 3. cap. 14. I am quod c. in those things which it propoundeth to be beleeved and done Nostra c. He takes erring to be a varying from Gods Word For he maketh that the first foundation of our faith and the Church the propounder and explicator thereof de verbi dei interpret lib. 3. cap. 10. Respondeo ad hoc c. Wherein is Mr Mountague his sentence just Notwithstanding he denieth Appeale p. 121. that he is in this point a Papist that is as I conceiue that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in this point and giues this reason for it Points of faith be fundamentall or accessory gagg p. 48. Fundamentall are such as the beliefe whereof be so absolutely necessary for the constitution of a true Church as the reasonable soule is for the essentiall being of a man Appeale p. 123. In points accessory there may be error but none in points fundamentall gagg p. 48. Of points fundamentall onely doe I speake and in them onely doe I conceiue infaliibilitie Appeale p. 123. I answer this explication serues well to puzzell the Reader but hath no force to cleare Mr Mountague from agreeing with the Ch of Rome for many reasons The terme fundamentall is borrowed We shall then know the true sence of it when we know what a foundation is in proper speech A foundation is that part whervpon the rest of the building is placed Fundamentall points of faith must be like vnto this they must be such whervpon some other thing is builded which is borne vp and sustained by such points of faith Things accessory are such as are attendants not things principall in being or causalitie
subiection cap. 12. Septimâ— c. This visible Church cannot fayle cap. 13. Which sentence hath these three branches 1. The Church is visible 2. This visible Church cannot fayle 3. The Church is visible by subiection to Pastors in matters of faith In the two first Mr Mountague and the Church of Rome agree expresly In the third they agree in the thing because subiectioÌ„ to Pastors in matters of faith supposeth that there be Pastors to whom complaints may be made and who are fit and haue freedome abilitie to heare complaints in matters of faith He saith there will ever be a Church to whom complaints may be made Bellarmine saith there will ever be a Church wherein there is ruling and obeying in matters of faith cap. 13. Which sentence he presumeth in the beginning of that 13. Chapter is denied by Calvin and others against whom he doth proue it there and defend it cap. 16. That it doth dissent from the Church of England he might as truly haue confessed For if the Church of England had judged that the Church should be perpetually so open vnto the eye of the world as to injoy the libertie to heare Complaints and determine them then it would haue confest it and taught it because it hath taught visibilitie in all other things that they do and it would haue set downe the whole truth in the point but this it hath not done therefore it is most certaine the Church of England doth deny that visibilitie of the Church which they claime he yeelds vnto He is very desirous to perswade the world of his agreement with the Church of England therefore he telleth vs Appeale p. 134. In the 19. Article Church and visible are convertible termes Therefore the 19. Article tendreth no invisibilitie The sence of this Conclusion is The 19. Article doth not teach that the Church is invisible But that is a private opinion of some and so he doth interpret himselfe Appeale p. 133. This Conclusion is nothing to his purpose if he will shew his agreement with the Church of England he must shew vs a record for this proposition There ever will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made For so saith he number 1. 4. Your antecedent is false Church and visible in that definition cannot be convertible termes For they are not predicated one of another Secondly both of them make the subiect part of that definition The terme Church bâ—ing the thing defined is restrained vnto a speciall notion by the word visible 3. Termes convertible are adequate in their essence so are not these Church and visible for visibilitie is but an adiunct vnto the Church Your Consequence is also naught for as your selfe confesse Appeale p. 134. It is a position drawn out from the 19. Article that there is a Church of Christ invisible And indeed so it is for to say the Church is visible is to grant the Church is also invisible els how can there be a divided member vnto visible He labours to shew wherein the Church is invisible p. 135. But I leaue that because it is nothing to the point in hand as I haue shewed The proposition in question is set downe num 4. 6 which is denied to be true and that vpon good ground for God hath never promised to his Church any such freedome libertie and outward estate in the world that it should be able at all times to heare complaints and determine of them Neither doth this freedome and glorious outward estate belong to the nature of a visible Church in the sentence of the Church of England which hath bounded the totall adequate nature of the visible Church within shorter limits And indeed who would be so grossely mistaken as to thinke that the Catholike Church hath no being in the world vnlesse it be in case to meet joyntly together in one court to make lawes that shall bind the whole Church in matters of faith and manners It stood him vpon to proue that proposition num 5. viz. There ever was c. to be true for if it be false then the Church cannot be Iudge in Divinitie Controversies because the Iudge of Divinitie Controversies extendeth vnto and is present at all times to determine all controversies in faith and manners that shall arise in any time But this he hath not done He hath not so much as one sentence peece of a sentence or word that may tend to proue this proposition There ever will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made In his Appeale p. 135. he bestoweth much labour to proue that The Church is alwayes visible First by reasons then by authorities of Doctor Feild Doctor Humfryes Doctor Willet Bishop Morton Bishop Iewell Doctor White with many vaunts much confidence in their authoritie concluding that they are ignorant malicious or factious that thinke otherwise But all in vaine for that was never denied nor never in question between the Church of Rome and any others If another did thus he would call it a man of straw of his owne making and tell him he shot his boult at it when he had done and such like termes But I pardon him the fault I perceiue it is his Custome to proue what all men grant and to take for granted what is denied he cannot leaue it Therefore I leaue this and passe to the next But I make too much hast I find an argument in his Appeale p. 139. which may not be passed over in silence In these words and in this forme he setteth it downe The Church of Rome hath beene ever visible The Church of Rome is and ever was a true Church since it was a Church Therefore the true Church hath beene visible He chargeth that this be remembred that his friends doe Chew the Cud vpon it A good advice A necessary Caution I will as diligently obserue it as he lovingly gaue it I answer the Church of Rome is taken sometimes for one particular Church and other sometimes for all those also which joyne in faith with it In this place it is taken in the first sence otherwise the argument would be ridiculous That being so taken it is manifest This Syllogisme is false for the forme For The Conclusion thereof is vniversall thus The Church c. But it ought to be singular or indefinite thus Some true Church hath beene visible Perhaps he changed the Conclusion wittingly because if he had concluded thus he saw his Conclusion is nothing to purpose he ought to haue concluded The Catholike Church is perpetually visible as appeares num 12. And his Readers poore simple men had not skill enough to find out that fault well let vs chew this good stuffe a little more Let it be as he will take the conclusion as you find it yet the conclusion is nothing to the purpose For he ought to haue concluded what the Church shall be in all times to come The Church shall be visible He doth conclude what
shed vpon the Crosse This answer of Bishop Iewell is full to the purpose and of no lesse authority then the Catechisme alleadged which being taken in this sense we may safely conclude that our Church is no friend to the reall presence in those words of the Catechisme A third thing also is in his Appeale pag. 291. thus set downe Both wee and the Papists confesse This is my Body and that is enough and contend meerely about the manner how it is my Body that is how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ Gagge page 256. The councell of Lateran decreed transubstantiation and wee deny the same Gagge page 252. Which sentence by the course of the place where it is must be applyed to the present purpose in this forme They that agree in this sentence This is my Body there is no cause why they should be distracted in the point of reall presence But we and the Papists agree in this sentence This is my Body and contend meerely about the manner how it is made the flesh of Christ c. Therefore wee and the Papists haue no cause to bee distracted about the point of reall presence That it was his purpose thus to dispute the place it selfe where that sentence standeth will shew where hee bringeth the thing here concluded in the first place and then the words alleadged as a proofe therof and referred thereunto by this word seeing c. I will take my answer vnto this from the same Author and place page 236. from whence I had my former viz. the reuerend Bishop whose words bee these Indeed the question betweene vs this day is not of the letters or syllables of Christs words for they are knowne and confessed of either partie But onely of the sense and â—eaning of his words which is the vâ—ry pith and substance of the Scriptures and he committeth fraud against the lawes that sâ—â—ing the words of the law ouerthroweth the mâ—â—ning If it be true that the onely sense of Christs words is that his Body is really and fleshâ—â—â— the Sacrament it is great wonder that 〈◊〉 of the ancient Doctors of the Church could euâ—r see it This answer is full to euery point of Mr. Mountagu his argument First he saith they agree in words touching this sentence This is my Body and so farre hee grants the assumption Secondly the question is of the sense of those words and thereby denies the assumption and proposition too as if he should say although they agree in words yet differing in the sense there is sufficient cause of distraction and dissent betweene them For the sense is the pith of the Scriptures and hee that ouerthroweth the meaning corrupteth the Law 3 He saith they vnderstand Christs words of a real and fleshly presence of Christs body Which the Bishop denyeth whereby it is euident that he putteth the difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in this viz. that They affirme a reall presence We deny it And this doth directly oppose the latter part of Mr. Mountagu his reason that placeth the difference betweene them and vs meerly in the manner how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ which they say is by transubstantiation The Bishop saith we dissent about the reall presence M. Mountagu saith no for saith he our dissent is meerly about transubstantiation By which it appeareth M. Mountagu his arguments in the behalfe of the Church of Rome were answered long before he was borne It may be he will reply to this answer of the Bishop that it is not sufficient and giue the reason for it which he alleadgeth in the like case in his Appeale pag. 291. viz. The Devill bred him vp in a faction and sent him abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction And thus hee must reply or blot out of both his bookes that bitter sentence which was written against all such as make any difference betweene the Romish Church and ours in the point of reall presence I reioyne to it in the Bishops words p. 237. If he be of God he knoweth well he should not thus bestow his tongue and hand Moreouer if he hath the vnderstanding of a man he knoweth it is euidence of truth not bitternesse of rayling that carieth credit in a diuinitie question let him first take away the Bishops proofes and shew wherein hee is a lyar or an ignorant man and then there may be some excuse for this railing till then it will be held a ruled case his will was good but his cause nought He must raile because hee had nothing else to say And with this I conclude all the pretences that he hath for his agreement in the point of reall presence with the Church of England I will now deliuer some reasons to proue that the Church of England doth oppose the church of Rome in the point of reall presence as followeth 1 Many of our nation haue giuen their bodies to the fire for denying it 2 It hath beene proclaimed against by our Ministers without any blame from authoritie or knowne opposition from any of ours 3 Our Church hath determined what is to bee held touching the nature and effects of this Sacrament and hath not a word of the reall presence Our Church hath determined that the Sacrament is to be eaten taken and giuen only after a spirituall manner and by faith and denyeth worship to it Arti. 28. That the wicked receiue the signe but are not partakers of Christ Arti. 29. That it ought to be administred to all men in both kinds Arti. 30. which it would not haue done if it had granted the Popish reall presence Lastly Bishop Iewell in the name and defence of the Church of England denyeth it and maintaineth that that Article of the Popish faith is erroneous first in his Apologie beginning at Chapter 12 the 2 Part and so forward and againe in his Reply to Harding Arti. 5. And this I hope is sufficient to proue that the Church of England reiecteth the popish reall presence It remaineth in the third place that wee examine whether the popish reall presence be true or not but of that I find nothing in him it was meet for him to haue proued it before he had pronounced the opposers thereof were bred by the Deuill as he doth in the words which I haue alleaged That he proued it not in his Gagge it is no meruaile for there he goes hand in hand with his Aduersary That he did it not in his Appeale was because hee could not for there hee had good cause to shew all his strength Onely I find in his Gagge pag. 250. these words Hee gaue substance and really subsisting essence who said This is my body this is my blood These words are little other then a riddle yet I will make the best of them My answer thereunto will explicate the matter and take away that which might seeme to fortifie the popish reall presence thus it may be framed If Christ gaue substance
and an essence really subsisting when he did administer the sacrament to his Disciples and said This is my body c. then the body of Christ is really and substantially present in the Sacrament But Christ gaue substance and an essence really subsisting c. Therefore the body of Christ is really present I answer The word substance c. in this place may be taken for the substance of Bread and wine or for the substance of Christs body That Christ gaue the substance of bread and wine I grant and so the assumption is true and hee must grant it likewise or else say with the Councell of Trent Sess 13. can 2. That it doth not remaine but is changed c. which I presume he will not doe But the word substance being thus vnderstood he must thus argue Hee gaue the substance of bread therefore the substance of his body was present These two doe hang together like harpe and Harrow so the consequence of the proposition is naught If by the word substance hee meant Christs body then the substance of his body is affirmed to be giuen but not explicated how hee gaue it nor proued yet that he gaue it This is his old vaine you must go seeke his meaning for the sense and take his word for the truth or else his is no man of this world I will bestow some paines to finde out both To giue may be after an humane sort that is when I deliuer a thing in my possession into the possession of another I had it then another hath it now hee is seized I am dispossessed of it If Christ gaue the substance of his body thus then the substance of his body was present But Christ did not giue the substance of his body on this manner If hee will say Christ gaue the substance of his body in this sort hee must proue it by the word of God for it is impossible vnto naturall vnderstanding that Christ should deliuer the substance of his owne body out of his owne possession into the possession of his Disciples Furthermore Giuing may be after an heauenly and spirituall manner that is to say vnto faith If he say Christ gaue the substance of his body in this sense Then he saith true and thus he must say or disclaime the faith of the Church of England for so saith our Church in the 28 Article But then Christ might so giue and yet not be really and substantially present in the Sacrament For we lift vp our hearts to heauen and there feed vpon the Lambe of God Thus spiritually with the mouth of our faith we eate the body of Christ and drinke his blood c. as I haue alledged out of Bishop Iewel in his reply to Harding p. 238. see Defen Apolog. p. 234. and 264. for this answer I hope no man will require mee to proue that Christ is not really present in the Sacrament that belongs not to me but because they affirme that hee is present and tels vs we must beleeue that God hath reuealed it therefore it is enough for vs to call for a sight of that diuine reuelation and in the meane time to with-hold our beleefe thereof euen vpon that ground which Bishop Iewel hath laid in the defence of his Apology part 2. cap. 12. diuis 1. p. 220. namely Christ nor his Apostles neuer taught nor the Primitiue Church neuer beleeued that reall presence Thus haue I ended this argument and the whole point of reall presence and I hope haue made it appeare that it is neither the doctrine of the Church of England nor a true doctrine CHAP. XV. The point of Images Master Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church of England Images and Idols may be two things vnto Christians they are not vnlawful in all manner of religious imployment The Images of Christ of the Virgin Marie and other Saints may bee had and kept in Churches honour and worship is due and must be yeelded vnto them Taken out of the Homilies against perill of Idolatry printed 1576. the second Tome The pictures of Christ the blessed Virgin and Saints may bee set vp in Churches Not that any diuinity or power is beleeued to bee in them for which they are worshipped or that anie thing is desired of them or that a trust is placed in them The words Idoll and Image bee words of diuers tōgues and sounds yet vsed in the Scriptures indifferently for one thing alwayes p. 27. to bring Images into the Churches is a foule abuse and great enormitie page 27. Be forbidden and vnlawfull p. 84. Not things indifferent nor tolerable pag. 96 97. There is a respect due vnto and honour giuen relatiuely vnto the picture of saints Christ they may be vsed for helps of piety in rememoration and more effectuall representing of the prototype Gagg p. 318. For the instruction of the vnlearned renewing the remembrance of the history and stirring vp of deuotion Gagg p. 300. But because the honour that is exhibited vnto them is referred to the prototype which they represent so as by the Images which wee kisse and before whom we vncouer the head kneele downe we adore Christ worship Saints whose images they beare Bishops ought diligently to teach so as 1 The people be trained vp in the articles of faith by the histories of our redemption expressed in pictures or other similitudes 2 Be put in mind by Images of the benefits and gifts which are bestowed vpon thē by Christ 3 To giue thankes to God for the Saints by whom mirales are wrought and good examples set before them and to follow their life manners  For instance in remembring more feelingly and so being impassioned more effectually with the death of our Sauiour when wee see that story represented vnto vs by a skilfull hand Appeale p. 254. Concil Trent Sess 25. de inuoca c.  CHAP. XVI The point set downe in the former Chapter is discussed HEre we enquire of three things 1 Whether his doctrine of Images bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth therein with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissenteth therein from the Church of England or not His consent with the Church of Rome is sufficiently testified by their words and his He saith Images may be had in Churches and Honour is due and to be giuen vnto them So saith the Councell He saith Honour is due and giuen relatiuely The Councell saith The honour exhibited to Images is referred to the prototype which is the same with his He saith They may be vsed for the instruction of the ignorant recalling the memory of the history and stirring vp of deuotion The Councell saith The articles of faith may be learned by them men put in mind of the benefits by Christ and stirred vp to giue thankes for the miracles and to imitate the vertuous actions wrought by the Saints Which differeth nothing from him He concludeth the point of Images thus Let practice
is matters of manners all of them are not matters of faith and therefore they doe not all containe resolutions of faith but some of them bee matters of manners He grants them to be godly therfore true for falshood cannot tend to godlinesse They are subscribed in some things therefore in this that I haue alleadged because it is not a rhetoricall enforcement nor a Tropicall kinde of speech but the conclusion enforced which is set downe in words that haue no other sense but as they lie without interpretation This is enough to proue my proposition and thus I dispute from it Euery exhortation propounded inforced esteemed godly commanded to be subscribed vnto by our Church is the Doctrine of our Church But the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged cap. 15 is an exhortation propounded inforced c. by our Church Therefore the Doctrine of the Homilie alleadged cap. 15. is the Doctrine of the Church of England Thus hee confirmeth the obiection which hee is desirous to thrust off The sight of truth may bee hindered but the being of truth cannot be defeated hee that attempteth to conceale it in the euent makes it more apparent Now we come to see what truth there is in his Doctrine touching Images but I finde no proofe for that It may be hee expecteth arguments to proue that Images in Churches are vnlawfull and that no honor is to be giuen vnto them but that should be vnorderly for hee that will haue vs beleeue that wee are bound to giue honour to Images by the diuine reuelation ought to shew vs record for it and mee thinkes it had beene comely for him to haue borrowed proofes from Bellarmine de Relig. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 7. 8. 9. 10. and 11. 12. As well as hee fetched positions from the Councell of Trent To answer Bellarmine is but labour lost for I know not how farre hee will ioyne with him in his proofes and it would be too tedious for he brings much more then will sort with this occasion and present businesse Let Mr Mountagu vrge what he liketh best and hee shall haue answer till then I rest satisfied with the Homilie that disputeth thus against Images in Churches 1 If the worshipping of Images doe alwaies befall Images set vp in Churches then it is vnlawfull to set vp Images in Churches But the first is true perpetuall experience doth shew it and the affinity that is betweene mans corruption and the worshipping of Images doth procure it pag. 128. Therefore the last is true also 2 That thing which is vsed in order vnto supernaturall actions and is not warrantd in the diuine reuelation for that end is vnlawfull But Images in Churches are so vsed and are not warranted c. pag. 88. Therefore Images in Churches be vnlawfull Let not M. Mountagu say these are rhetoricall enforcements and no Doctrine of the Church of England I will saue him that labour I doe alleage those arguments for the truth that is in them not for the authoritie that doth commend them Let him shew wherein they be vntrue or confesse they are true and it sufficeth But he is not able to shew this and therefore wee may safely conclude this man was strangely transported when he wrote on this manner in these words If the Church of Rome had giuen no more to Images but an historicall vse our Church would not haue departed from them about that point as I suppose for so our doctrine is Appeale p. 251. Our strictest writers doe not condemne it p. 253. Furious ones in our Church would proceed but they are singular illuminates let them gang alone I answer what the doctine of our Church is in this point of Images I haue declared in the foregoing Chapter If you can bring any record for any other passage in the doctrine of the Church of England that putteth vpon Images this historicall vse namely of suggesting vnto mouing or affecting the mind euen in pious and religious affections which you father vpon it p. 253. you may doe well to bring it forth that the world may see it But because you cannot I must intreat you to take the words of Bishop Iewell vnto Harding in the defence of his Apology p. 350 without offence which are as followeth Leaue leaue this hypocrisie dissemble no more it is not manly your credit faileth ouermuch your word is no sufficient warrant If you will fall into your wonted fury it is the Bishop that must beare it They are his words not mine and vttered vpon the like occasion that you offer here I could adde a farther refutation and pull off this false imputation from the shoulders of the Church of England by the testimony of Bishop Iewell but I defer it vnto the next passage where the reader shall find it He wanted proofes for his doctrine of Images but hee will make amends by his confident affirmation thereof and negation of the contrary For thus hee writeth There is no Popery in the historicall vse of Images Appeale pag. 252. I answer There is Popery in it for it is the faith of the Church of Rome as I haue shewed in the chapter going before and it is contrary to the word of God as I will shew anon both which are sufficient to make it Popery euen in your owne iudgement for thus you write Popery is contrary to the word of God Appeal p. 310. But he doth deny that this vse of Images is contrarie the word of God for thus he writeth 1 The historicall vse of Images is true doctrine in it selfe Appeale p. 251. 2 That Images may be made for ornament memory history no law of God forbiddeth Appeale p. 265. I answer Bishop Iewell is a witnesse so competent to shew vs what is true or not true what is forbidden or not forbidden in this case that I shall need to produce none but him Thus he writeth in his answer to Harding the 14 Article p. 378. c. 1 The first end of Images is the attaining of knowledge although perhaps somewhat may bee learned by them yet is not this the ordinary way appointed by God to attaine knowledge Saint Paul saith faith commeth by hearing not by gazing This seemeth to be no handsome way for to teach the people for where greatest store of such Schoolemasters be there the people are most ignorant superstious and subiect to Idolatry 2 I grant Images do oftentimes vehemently moue the mind but euery thing that may moue the mind is not meet for the Church of God Gods house is a house of prayer not of gazing Whoeuer adoreth or maketh his prayer beholding an Image is so moued in his mind that hee thinketh the Image heareth him and hopeth it will performe his prayer Alleadged out of S. Augustin p. 318. 3 Touching remembrance it is like the first and therefore is already answered Thus farre the reuerend Bishop If old learning can satisfie this illumination the Bishop must gang alone If it cannot old learning shall haue
a writ of dotage The Bishop shall haue the Church of England that furious one and all her children to beare him company The Homilie concludeth p. 132. That Images ought to be abolished so doth the Bishop p. 383. But Master Mountagu will none of that Appeale p. 255. The reason which our Church and the Bishop doth alleadge is this viz. because they are the cause of much euill M. Mountagu saith no they are sometimes profitable Gagg p. 318. But I will follow the Church of England and the Bishop let him gang alone for me By these arguments of our Church propounded and defended against his exceptions it doth euidently appeare that Images in Churches and imployed as he appointed are vnlawfull and from thence may necessarily be inferred against the Church of Rome and M. Mountagu that Honour is not due to Images If hee doth not rest content with this proofe it stands him vpon to shew vs the diuine law which inioyneth man to giue honour to Images forasmuch as without such a law the honouring of them is an humane inuention a seruice done vnto God which he reiecteth as odious and abhominable and consequently the faith decreed by the Church of Rome and receiued by M. Mountagu touching the hauing imploying and honouring of Images is erronious CHAP. XVII Of workes of supererogation M. Mountagu The Church of England A man may doe with the assistance of Gods grace things as counselled onely and not commanded Voluntariâ— works besides ouer and aboue Godâ— commandements 1 are works of supâ—rerogation 2. Canâ—â—t bee taught without pride arrogancy and impietie A man in some one point may doe more then is exacted  A man may doe more then he needed to haue done out of strict command Gagg p. 104.  A man may doe more then he is tyed vnto by any law of God Gagg pag. 105.  CHAP. XVIII The former point of workes of supererogation is disputed ACcording to our former course three questions are to bee handled 1 Whether there be any such workes or no. 2 Whether in affirming of them hee consent with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissent from the Church of England therein or no. In this Chapter I haue brought no Doctrine vnder the name of the Church of Rome because hitherto I haue followed the Councell of Trent which hath decreed nothing in this point Therefore the faith of that Church in this point is to bee taken out of the Doctrine commonly receiued amongst them touching it and because there is no Author amongst them fitter to report what that is then Bellarmine I will set downe what he saith of it it is this Holy men may doe such things for Gods sake which they are not bound to doe and these are workes of supererogation de Indul. lib. 1. cap. 4. Respondeo non c. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. 9. 13. The Gâ—gger hath the same thing reported by Mr. Mountagu in his Gagge page 104. in the margin in these words Man by assistance of Gods grace may doe some things counselled and these we call worke of supererogation That hee doth consent vnto this Doctrine of the Church of Rome hee professeth plainely and fully Thus he writeth I willingly subscribe vnto the point of councels Euangelicall Gagge page 103. and further he saith of the definition of workes of supererogation which I haue reported out of him no 1. giuen by his aduersary the Gagger If these were your workes of supererogation and no otherwise I would not contend with you page 104. Hee doth agree with them likewise in explicating and setting downe the nature of a Councell euangelicall as he cals it Bellarmine saith thus of it It is a good worke shewed not commanded it differeth from a Precept in this a Precept bindeth of its owne force a Councell is committed to mans free choyce when a precept is obserued it hath the reward being not obserued it hath punishment but if a Councell bee not obserued it hath no punishment if it bee obserued it hath the greater reward de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 7. Iust on this manner writeth he Imperious lawes require exact obedience vpon paine of punishment Appeale page 219. A Councell is a mandat not properly but with condition left vnto a mans choyce to doe it or not to doe it page 221. lastly he saith the obedience to Councels procureth reward to him that obeyeth them Gagge page 105. and hee that keepeth them not is without danger of punishment therefore Gagge page 103. A man would thinke by this that hee would not sticke to confesse that he agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of workes of supererogation but indeed he doth deny it for thus he writeth You call workes of supererogation such as be laid vp in store for imployments the treasure and stocke of the Church to satisfie for other mens offences not the things done as counselled onely these are only titular those are indeed workes of supererogation which you mean but these I deny Gagge page 103. c. I answer this excuse is headlesse what hand ruled his pen when hee wrote thus passeth my skill to iudge he doth heare the Church of Rome with one consent to affirme voluntary workes are workes of supererogation and the Church of England saith the same expresly and in so many words and yet forsooth he will needs beare them both downe they giue voluntary workes the name onely of workes of supererogation but they meant it not But I pray who told him so he nameth no Author for it nor can name I am sure Well he had it by speciall illumination and therefore hee might know their meaning without them and you must beleeue him for such knowledge is certaine and cannot deceiue you Be it so he doth disagree in the name but that will not inferre his disagreement in the thing Hee hath confessed his subscription to Euangelicall Councels that is to voluntary workes as I haue shewed in the former Chapter and that is all which is sought after now we find his agreement with them in the thing let him giue what name he will vnto voluntary workes But he saith It is an errour in Diuinitie not to put a difference betwixt such workes as a man may doe or not doe without guilt of sinne or breach of law and the Papists workes of supererogation If any man not knowing or not considering the state of the question hath otherwise Written or Preached or Taught it was his ignorance or fancie or misunderstanding or misapplying Appeale page 215. I answer in stead of proofes wee haue euill language I will scumme off the froth and examine what hee saith in good sober sadnesse This is the summe of his sentence He that saith voluntary workes in the iudgement of the Church of Rome be workes of supererogation is ignorant or fantasticall Vnto which proposition I may adde this assumption and conclusion But the Church of England saith the Church of
your dealing be not afraid good Reader of all this smoake for thou shalt see it suddenly blowne all to vanity from whence it came Thus hee writeth in his Preface before his Defence no 6. Touching some of the particulars I haue my answer out of the same Bishop too in these words You say we read neither the old writers nor the new but are vtterly ignorant and void of all learning it were a very ambitious and childish vanitie to make vaunts of learning For asmuch as you seeme desirous of the â—ame of great reading ye shall haue the praise and glory of it Mr. Mountagu without contention we will rather say with St. Paul wee know nothing but onely Iesus Christ crucified vpon his crosse yet notwithstanding wee are neither so ignorant but that we are able and haue leasure to read as well the old Doctors and the Fathers of the Church as also your light vnciuill pamflets and blotted papers which God wot in all respects are very new and we are much ashamed of your papers and nouelties to see them with vntruth other vncourteous speech so fully fraughted I answer further you say we haue no learning capacitie or vnderstanding but these are your owne words you haue brought nothing that hath shewed it or that is fit to try whether you say true or not you haue brought some arguments but they are so silly that a child may answer them you please your selfe with some Latine Greeke Poets History Fathers Councells but they serue to no purpose for they neither proue nor disproue any thing in question If you will bring arguments that sauour of vnderstanding or dispute from Latine or Greeke words Poets Historie Fathers Councels in a Logical forme of true Sylogisme then shall you readily find where reading learning capacitie resteth Till then you may vse them and brag of them but he that hath his eyes in his head will say there is no cause You say we are Puritans which you esteeme a reproachfull name but you tell vs not what you meane by it therefore you would faine speake ill but no man can vnderstand you I thinke that name belongs to your selfe rather for a Puritan is hee that is pure in his owne conceit and is not washed from his filthinesse according to the sentence of the holy Ghost Prouerb 30. 12. Now this seemeth to agree to your selfe for you say you haue receiued the earnest of your saluation App. p. 48. Therefore you are pure in your own conceit Now you are not washed froÌ„ your filthiness except your vnmeasurable railings formerly related be no filthinesse If you will say they be not filthinesse then must you resolue vs what Salomon meant when hee said There is a generation whose teeth are as swords and their iaw teeth as kniues Prou. 30. 14. And Dauid when he said Their throat is an open Sepulcher c. Did Salomon and Dauid commend or discommend those of whom they spake You tel vs that Puritans do refuse some of the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England or both Appeale p. 118. and this doth fitly agree to your selfe for in all the points now disputed you reiect the faith of the Church of England and bring vs the Popish faith in stead of it as hath beene euidently declared You tell vs the things obiected against you are collected out of diuers places and layed together for aduantage In both parts you intend to blame the pleadings against you but the first part is against your selfe for Art and plaine dealing required you to set your opinions together An obiection is well made when it is truly made though it be gathered out of many seuered places You meane they are layed together vniustly but the seuerall places out of which they are brought will say that is false diuers sentences brought into one place doe make each other the cleerer vnto vnderstanding to that end are they now layed together and for no other as the reader may find To scatter them into diuers places with the intermission of other things was a good meanes to conceale the snake till a fitter time was offred he that giueth poison must conceale it To gather them together was the labour diligence and faithfulnesse of him that did it He that discouers a hidden euill is more worthy then he that suggesteth that which is overt and lyeth aloft You wold fain Tridentize it so go on hanging hoof against hoofe that I may vse your owne words Appeale p. 270. As the fearfull Hare doth double and redouble her course and intricate her passage to conceale her selfe euen so doe you hee therefore that would find you out must take you where you are to be had seeing you are not wher and how you ought to be You tell vs of the points in question 〈◊〉 are not â—â—gerous Of themselues In the event vnto vs. Because They are scholasticall speculations meerly The author is No fomenter of Faction Schisme A Patriâ—t Reconciler Appeale p. 42. 43. They that thinke not so Make clamors of they know not What. Wherefore Are Franticke fellowes Frighted with Pannicke feares Haue without cause fired the Beacons disturbed the Countrey Esteeme a field of Thistles to be a battell of Pikes Appeale pag. 320. I answer It is no meruaile though you set your whole strength to remoue the suspicion of danger from the points you haue deliuered yea it would be much meruaile to see you doe otherwise for hee that layeth a snare must conceale it least his purpose be frustrated but your labour is spent in vaine a weake sight may see them full of danger That they are dangerous to our eternall estate and of themselues fitted to bring sad euents is manifest for all of them are articles of erronious faith Now an erronious faith is an addition vnto the diuine reuelation threatned by God to bee punished eternally Reuel 22. 18. verse Some of them bee articles of the erronious faith of Rome and that they bee dangerous vnto our saluation wee haue the testimony of Bishop Iewell who saith expresly That they are dangerous to kindle Gods wrath and condemne our soules for euer Apol. part 6. c. 22. diuid 1. And c. 20. diuid 2. he saith vnlesse we leaue them we cannot come to Christ With whom agreeth our reuerend Bishop Carleton in his directions to know the true Church p. 63. 64. For of the Romish faith he saith That it is traps and snares dangerous and tending to mans destruction Your selfe doe no lesse when you say Popery is originall of superstition enemie vnto pietie Appeale p. 321. The particular points whereof wee haue disputed doe say no lesse For if wee must take our faith in all matters of doubt from the sentence of a Councell then can we haue therein no diuine faith and consequently no saluation If a man beleeue that a sinner is iustified from the actuall sinne which he hath committed by a created being that remaineth setled and