in the kingdome He is indeed well acquainted with such Imputations as Papist and Arminian and I know not what the ordinary language of of our precise Professors against any man that is not as themselves MORE FURIOSO Calvinista And having had this measure often meted unto him from their verie great Zeale and very no-Charitie hee could have been contented to have contemned their malice the rather because a Scold cannot any better way bee charmed than by contempt but because Authoritie was drawne in to lye at the stake for conniving in points so dangerous but God knoweth how he could not possesse his soule in patience but thought himselfe in duetie and in conscience bound to cleere those points from Error which he delivered lest Sacred Authoritie might come in for Maintenance and Champetry as they would have it To come then to the Inscription Errors delivered must be his Tenents and avowed Propositions one way of these twain eyther by Affirmation or Negation For Errare saith S. AUGUST if yet our Informers and the Side regard what S. AUG saith est verum putare quod falsum est falsumque quod verum est vel certum habere pro incerto incertum pro certo sive falsum sit sive verum Howsoever there passeth omni modo a resolution for the thing erred in by Affirmation or Negation So or not so And therefore we cannot justly say He erreth or at all taxe him for Erring that neither denieth nor affirmeth that which is imputed unto him but only reporteth what he findeth This is the case of M. MOUNTAGU in all at least in the major part of these imputed Errors Hee is but a Narrator of other mens opinions suspending his owne judgement sometime peradventure when hee should not have so done out of a due respect unto Peace and Quietnesse in the Church sufficiently already disturbed and not the least by these Brethren and also because hee would not stirre the Hornets neasts of men affected otherwaies Secondly Error is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respectively against something which is right as being an aberration from a Rule Now I demand of these so forward Informers those delivered Errors by M. MOUNTAGU and published Errors by Authoritie against what common Tenent doe they offend From what Rule are they an aberration I doe not find it expressed by the Informers Contrivers or Subscribers why in what against whose conclusions they are erroneous Against some Rule of Faith they must bee if Errors in Doctrine I know none I am told of none but the private opinions of the Informers or some Classicall resolutions of the Brethren Through all the severall XXI Articles or what you will call them of Popery and Arminianisme I finde no other proofe but Ipse dixit my words are related onely and you must take them upon M. YATES and M. WARD' 's bare words to bee Popery and Arminianisme for other proofe you cannot finde nor must expect So Magisteriall are our Purer Brethren those great Rabbines and Doctors in Israel having annexed unto their Penns and Pulpits infallibilitie of judgement it seemeth as well as the Pope of Rome unto his chayre Popular Spirits have evermore great opinion of their owne singular Illumination And you shall ever observe that each simple Ignoránte a classicall Dictator amongst the Covent tendereth his owne dreames and conceipts Simulachra modis volitantia miris no otherwise but as Oracles upon their owne bare words And such prevailing power have they upon their Proselites none living but Iesuites so great as they that their Sayings are held uncontroleable And hence it is that they vouchsafe us no proofe in their so many false Imputations Better Popery I will abide by it than any one proposition in M. MOUNTAGU For what difference betwixt their Dictates and Papall Decisions an abortive Embryo of the much groned-for Monarchie of our Puritanicall Parochiall would-be Popes over Kings and Kaesars and All that are called Gods Error then is ever against a rule In points of Faith Error is or should bee against the rule of Faith Scripture is they will not deny the rule of Faith as proceeding from Revelation divine the true Constat and Canon of Faith and Manners It is granted aberration from Scripture is Error The farther aberration the greater Error Bring mee in any one point or all points to this Rule Tye mee to it Try mee there Submitto fasceis I fall downe and adore it I would not I will not swerve from it But put the case in application of any Question unto that Rule there be dissents that I say one thing the Informers another the Collectors a third and in conclusion there bee quot homines tot sententiae how many men so many minds For the true and exact decision thereof what shall we do First in equity no man is to be his owne carver and Opinionibus vulgi in errorem rapimur Popular positions are not ever passable Nay rather most commonly it is true that Populus dicit ideò errat Now Private Spirits are of much weaker assurance therefore all that are not unlearnedly madde or insolently wedded unto their owne wills grant that as the Church is Custos regulae so doth it of right apply Examinanda unto that Rule The Church universall in generall causes each particular and private Church for speciall and particular and territoriall questions and querees These Informers against M. MOUNTAGU'S Errors unto what Rule will they stand or whither doe they appeale I disclaime as incompetent Popular Cantonings of dismembred Scripture and Private Interpretations of enforced Scripture I will not bee put over unto Classicall decisions nor that Idoll of some mens Reformation unto any Propheticall determinations in private Conventicles after Lectures For when departed The Spirit of God from mee or any other conformable Minister of the Church of England to speake unto them But because the doubts hang in the Church of England unto the Publicke Doctrine of the Church of England doe I appeale contayned in those two authorised and by All-subscribed Bookes of the Articles and Divine Services of the Church Let that which is against them on Gods name be branded with Error and as Error be ignominiously spunged out let the Author be censured as he well deserveth by Authority if there be any thing in that much maligned book of M. MOUNTAGU either against the Rule immediate the Word of God or against the Rule applied or expounded in the Dictates of the Catholick Church in general or the Tendries of our English Church in particular If I so be taken with the fact or evidence be cleer against me or I be convicted per testes idoneos to have erred thus I will recall and recant whatsoever is so exorbitant and further will deal so with my owne writings as they did with their curious books Act. 19. 19. Qui primas non habui sapientiae modestiae poenitentiae habebo secundas But to come at length up to and joyne issue with
when they leave matter and take offence at words The antiquity of Altars A Sacrifice representative and spirituall acknowledged by all The Author herein farther from Popery than the Informers from Puritanisme CHAP. XXX A reall presence maintained by us The difference betwixt us and Popish Writers is only about the modus the maner of CHRIST'S presence in the blessed sacrament Agreement likely to be made but for the factious and unquiet spirits on both sides Beati pacifici CHAP. XXXI The Author's acknowledgement of his error Consecration of the elements causeth a change yet inferrs no Popish Transubstantiation The Informers out of their element Antiquity maintained Figurists and Novellers condemned CHAP. XXXII Touching CONFESSION Information against the expresse direction and practice of the Church of England No new Popish custome but the ancient and pious manner of Confession for the helpe and furtherance of mens true repentance and for the continuing of them in amendment of life is may be and ought to be urged How Confession of sinnes to a Priest is required by the Church before the Receiving of the LORDS Supper CHAP. XXXIII Touching the Sacrament of ORDERS The new religion full of exceptions though but against words only Ordination acknowledged to bee a Sacrament by M. CALVIN himselfe A Sacrament in lato sensu What our Church meaneth in saying there are but TWO SACRAMENTS CHAP. XXXIV Information against the Church-Book of Ordination which acknowledgeth the giving and receiving of the HOLY GHOST in sacred Orders so that Priests have that interior grace and power conferred upon them for the dispensation of divine mysteries which others have not CHAP. XXXV Touching power of Priesthood to forgive Sinnes Priests have power to forgive sinnes not originally but ministerially The doctrine of the Ordination and Communion-Booke for publick and private Absolution The Informers to lose the profits of their livings and to bee imprisoned without bayle for declaring against it CHAP. XXXVI Priests only and none other have commission from CHRIST to forgive sins The Extravagancies of Puritans and Papists both in this point CHAP. XXXVII THE CONCLUSION The issue of YATES and his FELLOW-Informers fond Accusations Other flying reports defamations neglected The Authors humble submission unto the Church of England and to HIS most sacred MAIESTY FINIS The Approbation I FRANCIS WHITE Doctor of Divinity and Dean of Carlile by the speciall direction and commandement of His most excellent Majestie have diligently perused and read over this BOOK intituled APPELLO CAESAREM A just Appeale from TWO unjust Informers by RICHARD MOUNTAGU and finding nothing therein but what is agreeable to the Publick Faith Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England I doe approove it as fit to be printed Dat. 15. Febr. 1624. FRANCIS WHITE APPELLO CAESAREM AN APPEALE FROM THE BRETHREN CHAP. I. Of the Inscription which the Informers made to their severall Articles INFORMERS ERRORS delivered by M. RICHARD MOUNTAGU in his Booke intituled A new Gagg c. and published by Authority this present yeare 1624. MOUNTAGU THese Informers in this Frontispice before their severall suggestions impliedly undertake to make good Three Assertions First that whatsoever They have challenged and articled against in their accusation hath been in terminis so Delivered by M. R. MOUNTAGU in his book as they have tendred it and no otherwise Secondly that all particulars so designed by Them and said to have beene delivered by Him were Published by warrant of Authoritie Thirdly that all things so Published and so Delivered and by Themselves the Informers insisted on and complained against are Errors actuall in themselves and so stand resolved and accounted of in the Doctrine of the Church The first of these three that is to say Whether or not whatsoever is so insisted on as Error hath beene so Delivered and Published as is suggested must hereafter bee examined in convenient Time and Place For haply all hath not beene so by Him Delivered as They have surmised and informed at least not in that sense as is conceived They may mistake his meaning why not For have they assistance of Infallibility annexed unto their conceipts especially in a prest and short style by him ensued and inclining to Scholasticall Character Or they may wilfully mistake his meaning to their owne advantage for Faction and Affection are too frequently interessed in Oppositions Or lastly they may well enough bee guiltie of misreporting his words I dare not trust their consciences in that point too farre I know their Charitic is not too transcendent But for Publication by Authoritie it may touch them neerer than they are aware of It is not unknowne not Authoritie that Puriritanicall Selfe-conceit and Presumption will square Law and Gospel too according unto that untoward Lesbian rule of their owne Private Spirit and speciall opinion and dare challenge any Authoritie old or new for Errors preaching publishing maintaining Errors viz. whatsoever doth not consort or run with the Tide of their Private Spirits motion And it hath beene found by experience practised of such male-content maligners at States in being Civill as well as Ecclesiasticall that they seldome or never talke of anie misbeing misordering misdemeaning in any point or case but that ever and anon directly or upon the By they can lend a lash unto or pinch upon the credite of Authoritie though most Sacred that great Cordolium and Moate-in-the-eye unto popular irregularitie and puritanicall paritie the Idoll of our Godly Brethren It is more than probable these Informers are of this stamp and making I have bin told and am assured they are two Grandees of the faction as great and turbulent as most bee in the Diocesse of Norwich which is not improbably thought to have of that Sect mo than enow They hold Authoritie interessed as farre at least as connivency goeth both for points of Poperie and Arminianisme if they could bee proved his against whom they are objected If it had not beene their purpose thus to have grated upon and galled Authority with little ado by the addition of but one poor word they might have amended and cleered all Had the Information beene carried and conceived thus and SAID to bee published by Authority the Errors of Popery and Arminianisme if any were must have laid all and every one hard upon M. MOUNTAGU interessed alone no reflection could have resulted as now intentionally upon Authoritie For Publication that gave life and living to these dangerous Errors is said to bee precisely the Act of Authoritie which is more than countenancing them in my understanding and I doubt not according to their interpretation Had this beene done M. MOUNTAGU must have borne all alone and what had it been that Hee erred He who may erre For in many things wee erre all but will be no Hereticke especially against the Church of England to the doctrine whereof established He hath more than once subscribed and therefore disclaimeth all aspersion of Poperie and is farther from it than any Puritan
Nice it was an Error in debating though not fundamentall touching that yoke of single life which they had meant once to have imposed upon the Church but in conclusion they erred not PAPHNUTIUS gave better advice and they followed it The Article may very well have aimed at this difference in Prosecution and Decision in saying ALL are not governed with the Spirit and word of GOD which is most true but some are and those some in all probability ever may prevaile as ever hitherto in such Councels in those cases they have prevailed against the greater part formerly resolved otherwise Againe the Article speaketh of Generall Councels indefinitely without precisely determining which are Generall which not what is a Generall Councell what not and so may and doth conclude reputed or pretended GENERALL Councels univocè GENERALL though not exactly and truely indeed such as was the Councell of Ariminum whereof I did not so much as intend to speak my speech being limitted with true and lawfull of which sort are not many to be found Lastly the Article speaketh of things that are controversae fidei and contentiosi juris I speak of things plainely delivered in HOLY SCRIPTURE for such are the Fundamentall points of our Faith And that it is so the ensuing words of the Article doe insinuate Things necessary unto Salvation must bee taken out of SCRIPTURE alone COUNCELS have no such over-awing power and authority as to tye men to Beleeve upon paine of Damnation without expresse warrant of GOD'S Word as is rightly resolved in the Article They are but Interpreters of the Law they are not absolute to make such a Law Interpretation is required but in things of doubtfull issue our Fundamentals are no such COUNCELS are supposed not to exceed their commission which warranteth them to debate and determine questions and things litigiosi status If they doe not hoc agere sincerely if they shall presume to make lawes without warrant and new articles of Faith who have no farther authority than to interprete them lawes without GOD'S word that shall binde the conscience and require obedience upon life and death our Church will not justifie their proceedings nor doe I. Non debet se Ecclesia CHRISTO praeponere cùm ille semper veraciter judicet Ecclesiastici autem Iudices sicut homines plerunque fallantur saith S. AUGUSTINE against CRESCONIUS the Donatist but he speaketh not there of Fundamentals indeed not of the Church representative as I explaine my selfe Nor doth that principall place of all make against me which is in him contra Donatistas concerning the erring of Generall Councells Et ipsa Concilia quae per singulas regiones provincias fiunt plenariorum Conciliorum authoritati quae siunt ex universo Christiano orbe cedunt ipsaque plenaria saepè priora à posterioribus emendantur cùm aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum er at cognoscitur quod latebat For he taketh Councells in a generall acception as it is plaine by him and hee speaketh not of Fundamentall points of Faith as both the cause it selfe argueth and his assigning of better information in tract of time to direct consequent Councells in determining contrary to precedent who for any thing he saith to the contrary might have truely determined as things then stood To conclude this Information is a meer cavill De tali Concilio saniori parte conclusionibus in fide probabile est No more CHAP. III. Strange accusations Antiquity reverenced not Deified Fathers accused of some error by Iesuites The occasion of their enlarged speeches concerning Free-will The Author acquitted of Popery INFORMERS AGaine speaking of the Fathers in generall hee professeth his opinion to bee that Those worthy Lights did not any way faile nor did darkenesse possesse their cleere understandings CHAP. XVI pag. CXIII The which is a saying more Popish than learned Papists durst ever affirme MOUNTAGU NAy more sottish than any Puritan but your selves would ever quarrell Malice and Ignorance whither wilt thou As if M. MOUNTAGU had affirmed that no Father ever Erred in any point whatsoever Masters Informers you may goe range this calumny under some other head for Popery will not admit nor entertaine it No ignorant Papist lesse learned than your selves nedum LEARNED Papist either taught or thought that no Father ever Erred And as for M. MOUNTAGU he utterly disclaimeth it Though no man living carrieth a more awfull regard and reverent respect unto Antiquity than hee doth yet never did hee so doate upon them It is more than ever entred into the compasse of his thoughts so to overlavish transcendently in their commendation as to give them prerogative of not erring at all and so to advance them unto their MAKERS seate It belongeth not to these Ancients but to the Ancient of Dayes not to Erre And so much M. MOUNTAGU had expressed in that former passage of his penne Take them at large and they lavish so farre sometimes that the greatest Patrons of the power and efficacy of Free-will dare not joine issue with some of them Then followeth that calumniated piece by those Pure Ones Not as if those worthy Lights had at any time failed or darkenesse possessed their cleer understanding Now you Promoters could your Christian charity be so defective or your common wit sense or understanding at so low an ebbe or your honesty so little or none at all as out of these premises so laid together to inferre so mishapen a calumny that M. MOUNTAGU Delivered and Published this Error that the Fathers none of them eyther did or could Erre at all as if he had erected to himselfe a new frame and fabrick of Popery never heard of in the world Whatsoever became of their Lights and Understandings deep Malice possessed your malignant Passions thus shamelesly to slander him with indeed more than the grossest Popery Thus it is M. MOUNTAGU speaketh not of all the Fathers in generall nor of their opinions in any one point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but onely of their opinion in and concerning Free-will who have meddled with and written about Free-will This then is the first untruth by false suggestion fastned on him Secondly he professeth plainly that in and concerning this point of Free-will those Fathers did so farre outlavish and speak sso inlargedly that the very IESUITES post mot a certamina PELAGIANA for feare of seeming to Pelagianise dare not say so much as they have said at least wise some of them for which I have the warrant of Bishop MORTON in his Appeale to bee according to the confession of most learned Papists SIXTUS Senensis MALDONATE TOLET and PERERIUS His words are that In the roote of the doctrine of Free-will CHRYSOSTOME CYRILL THEOPHYLACT EUTHYMIUS OECUMENIUS AMMONIUS and most of others especially in the Greeke Church did yeeld too much unto the power of Nature in the Free-will of man These tearmes are farre from acquitting and discharging the Fathers of all Error in
recited none so heer I may bee supposed to tell him why not that I could supply him with some experimented effects out of the same or the like Fathers whereunto his small reading could not I am sure hath not led him And what if I meant some experimented effects of my owne knowledge What then Can you controll or convince me I am not bound to confesse my self to you but what if upon diverse extremities I have found ease and remedy by using that ejaculatory prayer of our Letanie PER CRUCEM c. By thy CROSSE and when I said it what if to testifie my faith I made the signe of the Crosse and by thy Passion good LORD deliver us I cannot tell what you will say but you know well that some of your lewd Forefathers have accounted this and a great deal more of that heavenly Prayer to be no better than conjuring If you will bee rightly informed Master-Informers it is not by the bare signe of the Crosse that any such effect cometh but by the vertue and force of CHRIST'S death and passion then remembred and at that time represented by the signe of the Crosse It is true miracles are ceased But what if this be none What if so ceased that notwithstanding GOD can and may and will and doth sometimes work even miracles in these dayes CHRYSOSTOME saith they were ceased in his time To. 5. pa. 605. yet hee elsewhere relateth many miracles done even in his daies His meaning was they were ceased from the frequent and ordinary use some extraordinary use of them might then and yet may bee for ought you knowe or are able to proove the contrary The Crosse of our SAVIOUR in the externall signe thereof beeing as much vilified and despised by furious Puritans in these daies as ever it was by frantick Pagans in those why may not GOD to teach men better manners and to check this exorbitancy against the signe of our deare REDEEMER'S death antiquum obtinere do now as hee hath done in the daies of old and shew some signe and token to magnifie the thing so much despised Sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You have enough Take it which way you will all is one to me It commeth next in the Rere which also formerly did advance in Front Heare an argument of my Informers presumption against almost the current of Antiquity out of ignorance at least if not folly extreme CHAP. XXVIII The Informers presumption against the Current of Antiquity INFORMERS IN another place hee saith IOSUAH in fight prevailed against AMALEC through the signe of the CROSSE rather than by the sword Chap. VIII pag. 66. MOUNTAGU ISAY so indeed and were not you either ignorant or insolent you would not oppose or censure my saying so for Popery For almost which of the ancient Fathers hath not said it To instruct your ignorance or else to abate your arrogance take a particular of some of them for the purpose IUSTIN MARTYR against TRYPHO pag. 95. and 99. edit Graec. ROB. STEPHANI TERTULLIAN contr Iudaeos pag. 102. and lib. 3. against MARCION in the same words and in other places CYPRIAN lib. 2. cap. 21. Testimon adv Iud. S. AMBROSE Tom. 5. Ser. 52. in diem Parasceves HIERON Tom. 5. in XII OSEE pag. 71. CHRYSOST Tom. 5. pag. 662. and else where NAZIANZ Orat. 6. pag. 137. and those remarkeable Verses of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was also intended by ATHANASIUS the Great Tom. 1. pag. 406. in this close couched maner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who by his people ISRAEL working by his secret and mysticall grace and power did vanquish AMALECH in fight In a point of this nature I can be contented to be censured for a Papist with these and the like Worthies in the meane time you may blush for your ignorance and presumption CHAP. XXIX Touching the SACRAMENT of the ALTAR The Informers drawne low when they leave matter and take offence at words and phrases The Antiquitie of Altars A Sacrifice representative and spirituall acknowledged by all The Author herein farther from Popery than the Informers from Puritanisme INFORMERS OF the Sacrament of the LORDS Supper hee writeth very Popishly MOUNTAGU I Verily doth hee indeed lo. Our deer Brethren are heere cleane out of Patience Hitherto their progresse hath beene from savouring to saying and writing marry it was but simple Popery Now upon improvement he writeth VERY Popishly For first he calleth the Supper of the LORD in expresse tearms not as using their phrase but his owne The Sacrament of the Altar Very Popish forsooth to use a word no stranger in the world And my good Brethren have not your selves as holy and precise as you would seeme used the like phrase Have you not named the Masse and Purgatory and Transubstantiation and the like without any adjection of As they call it or so Mo times than you have fingers and toes I doubt not Then sure out of your owne mouthes you speak very Popishly and which must follow in your inferences against Mast MOUNTAGU are very Papists in suffering such prophane words to flee over the hedge of your teeth And yet M. MOUNTAGU speaketh by way of concession you have let those words slip from you absolutely Sir Carnifex of words and tormentor of phrases I could answer you as TERTULLIAN and ATHENAGORAS did the elder Pagans You draw low upon the lees of malice detraction when you have nothing left but words and phrases to calumniate But I rather chuse to speak in our B. MORTON'S words apologizing for Protestants against Papists It may be I have taken licence in use of tearmes but no error in doctrine can you finde for to put off your imputation from farther fastning I beleeve no such Sacrifice of the Altar as the Church of Rome doth I fancie no such Altars as they imploy though I professe a Sacrifice and an Altar In the same reverend Bishops words The LORDS Table being called improperly an Altar can no more conclude a Sacrifice understood properly than when as S. PAUL calling TITUS his sonne according to the Faith which is improperly a man may contend S. PAUL was his naturall father according to the flesh So it is The LORDS Table hath been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning not as some falsly teach by succeeding Fathers S. PAUL himselfe may seeme to have given authoritie and warrant to the phrase Heb. 13. 10. IGNATIUS S. IOHNS Disciple useth the word in the Christian use and Liturgie more than thrice So doth CLEMENS the APOSTLES Canons DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA IRENAE us lib. 4. cap. 20. speaketh of the Ministers of the New Testament not the Old that they doe DEO ALTARI deservire These Altars were not of Stone at first untill the dayes of CONSTANTINE that the Church came to have rest and peace nor then frequently and in ordinarie Churches but in Cathedrall only or in great Cities But of Stone they were it is certaine and I prove it
for Papists because wee are not so contentious nor brabbling as you would have us For heer what need you quarrell the not excepting against the terme Sacrament It was not proposed whether Ordination were a sacrament or not but whether in that which they call the Sacrament of holy Orders and the Church of England at least holy Orders any interior Grace were given by imposition of hands Iust as not long since you sought a knot in a rush for using the like phrase of sacrament of the Altar So if being to say somewhat against Transubstantiation I doe not quarrell the word I am a Papist though I dispute never so earnestly against the thing See how apt and disposed men are that love faction and division to take hold and fasten upon any thing to maintaine it But I can otherwise excuse my selfe and I beleeve shall not finde them in the excepting humor for it Know then Sirs Informers I durst not except against the phrase for feare of drawing more fists about my eares than my owne viz. of all YOUR DIVINES and they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom you call CALVINISTS For have you not read it or doe you not remember it what BELLARMIN hath said that CALVIN admitteth Ordination for a Sacrament And BELLARMINE doth not belie CALVIN for he doth so indeed These are his words lib. IV. ca. 19. sect 31. Superest Impositio manuum quam ut in veris legitimisque ordinationibus Sacramentum esse concedo ita nego locum habere in hâc fabulâ c. How that is and in what sort he expresseth himself lib. IV. cap. 14. sect 20. Nam impositionem manuum quâ Ecclesiae Ministri in suum munus initiantur ut non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum ita inter ordinaria Sacramenta non numero He admitteth it a Sacrament but not an ordinarie Sacrament No Papist living I think will say or desire more It is not for all but for some Which Saying of his is semblably expressed in that short small but perfect Catechisme in our Communion Book where the Question being asked How many SACRAMENTS are there the Answer is made TWO onely as generally necessary unto salvation not excluding others from that name and designation though from the prerogative and degree For touching sacramentall unction it is observed out of M. HOOKER that in the Writings of the antient Fathers all Articles peculiar unto Christian faith all Duties of Religion contayning that which sense or naturall reason cannot of it selfe discerne are commonly called Sacraments And this is not denied by B. MORTON For if wee should speak of improper Sacraments saith hee which are mentioned by the antient Fathers our Adversaries would not deny that not onely seven but seventy times seven Sacraments might bee named Therefore for the Church of England's sake be good to Master MOUNTAGU in this sinne of omission and unto the Church of England for the antient Fathers sakes unto them and unto all for B. MORTON'S and M. CALVIN'S sake who is the Father of your Divines called Calvinists who for Orders will you suffer them to bee called Holy goeth as farre as may be both for force and for forme of administration as if Ordination did in his opinion consist in relation unto some such gift or grace supernaturall as onely GOD can bestowe being the powerfull meanes of GOD though in different degrees unto eternall life It followeth CHAP. XXXIV Information against the Church-Booke of Ordination which acknowledgeth the giving and receiving of the HOLY GHOST in sacred Orders so that Priests have that interior grace power conferred upon them for the dispensation of Divine mysteries which others have not INFORMERS BUt denieth our Church to hold any such opinion These are his words This indeed is contrary to expresse words of our Bible and therefore directly contrarie to our opinion doctrine practice CHAP. XXXVIII fol. 269. MOUNTAGU COunterfeyting at length will be dismasked and Hypocrisie appeare in the true comportment For heer Sorex suo se indicio The Ape discovers himselfe to bee so by cracking of nuts so doe these men who what and what Side they are of Puritans in Faction and engrayned in their affection that way howsoever pretending conformity by subscription For what is that trowe ye that M. MOUNTAGU denieth our Church to hold which these Informers and their Abbetters hold not which they deny which in their opinion is Popery The Gaggers imputation upon us and our Church was that in the doctrine of the Church of England no interior Grace is given by imposition of hands in the Sacrament of holy Orders In effect that when it is formally and solemnly said RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST this is but idle and without effect This imputation M. MOUNTAGU denieth to be true and just and affirmeth that in the resolution and doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND by imposition of hands internall Grace is conferred Now this these good Informers have presented to be a Popish error namely the publike and by Parliament established and authorised doctrine of our Church So said their grand Patriarches and Fathers before them the Puritan Vndertakers and Complayners unto Parliament also against the doctrine and discipline of the CHURCH Papisticus quidam ritus are their owne words stultè quidem ab illis sine ullo Scripturae fundamento institutus à disciplinae nostrae authoribus pace illorum dixerim non magno primum judicio acceptus minore adhuc in Ecclesiâ nostrâ retinetur Eccles discipli pag. 53. They say Wee cannot give the HOLY GHOST and therefore we doe foolishly to bid men RECEIVE it And yet these men that are of the Clergy M. YATES and M. WARD have subscribed I hope That interior Grace is given that is the HOLY GHOST is given in Ordination who present M. MOUNTAGU as a Papist for saying so How can these Priests answer the one Act or the other When they entred into Priesthood their profession was then amongst other things acknowledged and subscribed that the booke of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons contayneth nothing contrary unto the Word of GOD and yet now it contayneth For this is expressely contayned there which M. MOUNTAGU amongst other points of Popery delivereth That interior Grace that is the HOLY GHOST is conferred in HOLY ORDERS and that this is the opinion doctrine and practice of the Church of England I may and do conclude with the VIII Canon against them leaving the execution which I hope will not be neglected unto Authority The Canon is Whosoever shall hereafter affirme or teach that the forme and manner of making and consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons contayneth any thing in it contrary to the Word of GOD let him be excommunicate IPSO FACTO These men have affirmed it in most publick maner for Popery is contrary to the Word of GOD and they have imputed Popery to me for saying as I and they have subscribed I referre it to Them unto whom it belongeth
whether they stand not therefore excommunicate not to bee restored untill they repent and publickly revoke such their wicked rerors the Censure of the Canon But I proceed from Ordination to Execution of Priesthood from the Originall denied unto the Ministeriall part rejected also by them and so I shall have done with them CHAP. XXXV Touching power of Priesthood to forgive Sinnes Priests have power to forgive sins not originally but ministerially The Doctrine of the Ordination and Communion Book for publick and private Absolution The Informers to lose the profits of their livings and to be imprisoned without baile for declaring against it INFORMERS THis is the Doctrine saith hee of our Communion-Booke and the practice of our Church accordingly that Priests have power not only to pronounce but to give Remission of sinnes CHAP. XI Pag. 78. 79. MOUNTAGU FIRST be pleased whosoever shalt view or reade this Apologie to take the true state and Tenent in the point informed against by these Promoters It was imposed by the Gagger as a doctrine authorised in our Church None but GOD can forgive sinnes or retaine them It was answered by me that in some sense it was true None else can doe it viz. by authority and right originall because all sinne is properly committed against GOD Tibi soli peccavi and that in some sense also it was not true For by delegation others also might doe it ministerially GOD doth forgive them by the ministery of men The Priest to doe this hath power conferred upon him by GOD in as ample sort as he or any man can receive it And that this was indeed the doctrine of our Church I proved by the witnesse of an enemy and therefore the stronger producing the verdict of a Papist who confesseth that Protestants hold that Priests have power not only to pronounce but to give remission of sinnes Which seemeth to bee the doctrine of the COMMUNION BOOKE in the visitation of the fick where the PRIEST saith AND BY HIS AUTHORITY COMMITTED UNTO MEE I ABSOLVE THEE FROM ALL THY SINNES This is my relation hitherto of what I finde So that heer is committed crimen falsi by these Informers I relate what one of that Side saith I say it not my selfe but only recognize the truth of his relation which I could not deny For in the visitation of the sick in the Communion-Booke the doctrine and practice is as hee relateth it So that were it not justifiable which is heere reported these honest faithfull Brethren had put a trick upon mee namely an Assertion for a bare Relation as if I had justified what I doe but report But it is justifiable it is the doctrine and practice of the Church of England The Bishop of Meath was of that opinion Pag. 109. against a Iesuites challenge HE hath done us open wrong in charging us to deny that PRIESTS HAVE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS And hee giveth a reason irrefragable Whereas the very formall words which our Church requireth to be used in the Ordination of a Minister are these WHOSE SINNES THOU DOST FORGIVE THEY ARE FORGIVEN AND WHOSE SINNES THOU DOST RETAINE THEY ARE RETAINED The execution of which authority accordingly is put in practice in the Visitation of the sick And no man can say more or come more fully home unto Popery in this point than Bishop MORTON in his Appeale Pag. 270. And indeed the POWER OF ABSOLUTION whether it be GENERALL or PARTICULAR whether in PUBLIKE or in PRIVATE it is professed in OUR CHURCH where both in our PUBLIKE SERVICE is proclaimed pardon and Absolution upon all penitents and a PRIVATE applying of PARTICULAR ABSOLUTION unto Penitents by the office of the MINISTER And greater power than this no man hath received from GOD. In as much then as these Informers declare and speake against some part of the Communion-Booke in the Visitation of the sick for Absolution in remission of sinnes and that they stand convicted thereof per evidentiam facti by statute of 1. of Elizab they are to lose the profits of all their spirituall promotions and benefices for one yeare unto the KING and without baile or maineprise to suffer imprisonment for halfe a yeare If they are not beneficed their indurance is the longer the punishment alotted is one whole yeares imprisonment which it were not amisse that Authority would deservedly inflict upon them to teach them better manners heereafter than to call that a point of Popery which is apparant and confessed to be the expresse and avowed doctrine and discipline of the Church confirmed for performance by Act of Parliament I leave the censure of their deserts unto Authoritie whom it toucheth and proceede to the next Information upon the same point though with some addition CHAP. XXXVI Priests onely and none other have commission from CHRIST to forgive sinnes The extravagancies of Puritans and Papists both in this point INFORMERS ANd a little after It is consessed that all Priests and none but Priests have power to forgive Sinnes CHAP. XII Pag. 83. MOUNTAGU ANd is it not so confessed when by publick warrant in Ordination that power is given unto all Priests to do so in those solemne words of Ordination WHOSE SINS YOU FORGIVE THEY ARE FORGIVEN and unto none but Priests because none have else such Ordination If this bee not confessed I will put my selfe to you to school to learne and to know what is confessed The fact is apparant you cannot say nay haply you will nay certainly you do question Quo jure quà m rectè it is confessed The truth is you cannot deny the thing But with you Puritans this doctrine and practice of the Church is held to be Popery And heer you inferre necessarily that Priests have no more power to doe this than Lay-men have For what else can you mean by And none but Priests but eyther that neyther one nor other have that power or else that one as much and as great as other To which you incline I cannot say assuredly No great difference for both are exact Puritanisine you cast Confession upon both one and other Any Lay-man may heare it as well as a Priest and therefore it is probable you will not be very precise for Absolution to conferre it on a Lay-man as well as on a Priest So the power of the keyes are to both alike in equall assise But Sirs Absolution is a part of that Priestly power which could not be given by Men or Angels but onely and immediately by Almighty GOD himself a part of that paramount power which the GOD of glory hath invested mortall men withall In which respect and not otherwise as some claime it hath beene said The head of the EMPEROR hath been subjected unto the PRIEST'S hands In which regard no earthly power is of equall value and assise unto it as not onely the ANCIENTS you shall have a Catalogue of them if you desire it but Bishop MORTON confesseth None can arrogate this power and authority unto himself none