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
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
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
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
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
seated in him then he beleeueth that thereby those sinnes are so done away that no being thereof remaineth and that all the powers and faculties of man are disposed and fitted vnto obedience as amply and largely as the Law appointeth and prescribeth obedience and consequently is in danger of damnation for such a man resteth in his owne Iustice to keepe him from hell and to order him to heauen and thereby trusteth vnto a sliding foot and a broken tooth for asmuch as God hath laid out the way vnto them in another line Hee that beleeueth that the continuance of grace whereby man is fitted vnto holinesse in this life and happinesse in the life to come by Gods appointment is so contingent and vncertaine that euery man that hath it may be and some men are depriued thereof and left in the state wherein hee was first borne and wholly destitute of all inward fitnesse to holinesse and happinesse he is in danger of damnation for such a one beleeueth that some men at this instant are in the way to heauen and holinesse beautifull and glorious in the eyes of God but in a moment ignominious and hatefull vnto God and in themselues tending vnto nothing but wickednesse and damnation and consequently is or may bee in this condition of in and out euery moment and instant of his life so also he beleeueth that all men may and some men doe retaine their sanctitie in their inward disposition and outward actions for many yeares but in the last moment of their life are depriued thereof and are cast into hell Which faith can in no sort agree vnto the ioy and consolation of heart which the sanctified doe enioy Nor vnto that loue of God and the righteousnesse of his Kingdome which euery such a man doth find by experience Nor vnto that great loue and delight which God beareth vnto and taketh in his Saints so largely expressed in the Scriptures Nor vnto the diuine prouidence which gouerneth the world with infinite wisdome He that beleeueth Images are profitable to the stirring vp of deuotion and may bee had in Churches and imployed for that vse is in danger of damnation for such a man will not cease till he hath them and so imploy them and thereby is in danger of worshiping of them through their fitnesse and mans corruption and hee that doth worship them doth commit idolatry and idolatry is punishable with damnation He that beleeueth honour is due to Images beleeueth that in giuing honour vnto them hee doth an action supernaturall acceptable to God and that leadeth to heauen seeing that no honour can be due vnto them but by Gods reuealed appointment and consequently he is in danger of damnation because such a man indeuoureth to serue God and to come to heauen by an obedience deuised by himselfe forasmuch as God hath not appointed any honour to bee giuen to Images Hee that beleeueth that Christ is really and substantially present in the Sacrament will honour the Sacrament with honour due to God which that I may speake in the words of Bishop Iewell in his Reply the 8. Article p. 283. cannot bee attempted without great danger for it is Idolatry seeing Christ is not there really and substantially and all Idolaters shall haue their portion in the second death Reuel 21. verse 8. Hee that beleeueth hee assenteth vnto God that calleth and exciteth freely so as hee can reiect and dissent from that calling and excitation if hee will is in danger of damnation for such a one beleeueth that he so consenteth out of the liberty and dominion that his will hath to doe or not to doe to consent or dissent and not yeeld that consent in obedience vnto any preuiall worke and true efficiency of grace disposing him thereunto and consequently that himselfe doth first and originally make the difference betweene himselfe and another that dissenteth from that grace of God that calleth and that he hath of himselfe something which he hath not receiued whereof he may boast contrary to the word of God that saith Who hath made thee to differ from another And what hast thou that thou diddest not receiue Now if thou diddest receiue it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not receiued it 1 Cor. 4. and 7. verse By the like deduction the danger of your Doctrine of Predestination will appeare which is no lesse against the place of the Apostle now alleadged then the point of Free-will for the Apostle speaketh in termes that comprehend Gods purpose or decree eternall as well as actions wrought in time I might shew the like danger to arise from the rest of the points deliuered by you and vrge the danger of these other waies but I thinke this sufficient to make it apparent that they are dangerous vnto a mans soule Touching the danger which of themselues they are apt to breed vnto our outward estate I shall need to say little because what you say of your selfe Appeale page 42. I say for my selfe I am loath to touch here or to meddle beyond my slipper the State is not the subiect of my profession I pray for the prosperity of Prince and Policie but let their courses alone to whom they concerne Yet notwithstanding I hope I may with license and good leaue alleadge what is manifest to all men and deliuered by your selfe Thus you write Popery is for tyranny Appeale p. 321. And so say I with the generall consent of all those that know Popery and are not subiect thereunto By tyranny you meane tyranny ouer Kingdomes for you oppose it in the place alleadged vnto Anarchie now I hope euery man will say Tyranny is a notorious euill to any State or Kingdome If you had not said thus the thing it selfe would haue said it for you for Tyranny is where one man doth rule the whole by an vnbrideled and vnlimited will and pleasure Now this the Pope claimeth ouer all Kingdomes whose will is accounted a law to whom no man may say This is not well done nor call his actions into question If you say you haue not taught this therefore your Popery is not for tyranny I answer this must follow vpon the Popery which you haue taught for you giue to Councelâ— an authoritie to determine matters of faith and require all men to receiue their sentence as the dictates of the holy Ghost You allow the Church of Rome a share in such Councels by granting that it hath the essence of a true Church you also allow the Pope himselfe a place in those Councels Vpon which it will follow that the Pope must call direct and confirme all such Councels and consequently that the Pope hath such authoritie ouer temporall States and Kingdomes as is aforesaid for that authority of the Pope ouer Councels hath bred and confirmed this authoritie of his ouer temporall States and Kingdomes as he that readeth Bellarmine de Rom. Ponti lib. 5. cap. 1. Tertia sententia c. and cap. 6. to the end of that
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