vseful to ioyne vs together again in one communion The former whereof is false as hath beene shewed in the former answers The latter dependeth vpon the scandals of the Author for the better vnderstanding whereof wee are to know That the reformed Churches neuer made a full and totall separation from the Church of Rome but onely partiall from her corruptions Non tam ab ea quam ab eius erroribus discessimus saith Iewel in his Apologie which is the common voice of all euen of Perkins himselfe in his Reformed Catholike who shâ—wes in euery head of doctrine how farre wee may and must hold communion with that Church and to this and no more hath the Reuerend Author respect in this assertion Now this Calumniator would make the world beleeue that his intent is to vse a meanes by help of this distinction to ioyne vs together againe in one communion in those things wherein we are already separated which as it was far from his heart and meaning for his whole Treatise tends to the contrary so indeed it were a vaine thing for him to endeuour it by this distinction For it would be all one as if hee should say As she is a visible Church wee may communicate with her in her corruptions But as she is Babylon we may not Which is indeede the folly which hee illustrateth by his two similitudes of societie with a strumpet and the deuill Thus you see the honesty and wisedome of the man and by this you may iudge of his zeale for the glory of God Author They haue not well heeded the charitable profession of zealous Luther Nos fatemur c. We professe saith hee that vnder the Papacie there is much Christian good yea all c. I say moreouer that vnder the Papacie is true Christianitie â—â—a the very kernell of Christianity c. BVRTON Luthers speech then was true But euer distingue tempora Luther wrote that before the Councell of Trent till which the Church of Rome had not altered the rule of Faith But now wee that liue after that Councell cannot say so for in that Councell the nut was crackt the kernell reiected yea anathematized and now they haue retained no more but the broken shell of a Church Answer It is a strange thing to see how men are enamoured of their owne conceits Qui amant ipsi sibi somnia singunt saith the Poet I warrant you if M. Burton were braied in a morter yet would not these toyes depart from him Huartus in his Tryall of wits reporteth of a Noble-mans Page in Spaine that being distracted of his wits imagined himselfe to be a King in which conceit he so pleased himselfe that when hee was cured hee was displeased with the Physitian that restored him to his right minde and so I doubt M. Burton will be with those that shew him the vanities of these his imaginations Well howsoeuer it be wee must be content and suffer him to abound in his owne sense till Time the Mother of Truth reueale his grosse mistakings and in the meane while lâ—t it bee sufficient answer to this long discourse that here is nothing but idle repetition of those things which haue beene already answered And hâ—â—herto we haue answered what hee hath obiected to what was said in the Booke of The old Religion concerning this argument Author Nothing can be so well said or done but may be ill taken BVRTON Now God forbid But is it well said or done to affirme that the Church of Rome is yet a true or a true visible Church Now let the Reuerend Author iudge indifferently hauing well weighed the former reasons whether we doe ill or no in taking his saying ill or whether wee had not reason to haue expected an ingenuous Palinodie or Augustine-like Retractation rather then such an Apologie which whether it be rather to be pitied then any vncharitablenesse in the Reader in taking such a saying ill let indicious charitie it selfe iudge Nor need we stretch the saying to imply that the Church of Rome is a true beleeuing Church Suffice it we except against any being yea or visibility of a true Church in the Synagogue of Rome Answer Some men are like Nettles which if a man handle softly they sting him but if hardly and roughly they are not felt Our Reuerend Antistes hauing but glanced at the zeale of some transported to such a detestation of the Romane church as if it were all error no church is deeply censured as if preferment had changed his note and taught him to speake more plausible language of the Church of Rome then eyther hee did or ought Hereupon he frames an Apologeticall milde and Christian Aduertisement to rectifie their iudgement lest their preiudice may turne more to their sinne then to his wrong What 's the issue Nothing but scorne for sooth they expected that the Reuerend Author well weighing the former reasons would haue made a pittifull Retractation and not such an Augustine-like Apologie Nay they will not acknowledge any the least mistaking in the matter yea those words Nothing can be so well said or done but may be ill taken which are the ordinary preamble to reconciliation are taken amisse and so proue themselues to be true through their frowardnesse What then is to be done Haec non succedit alia ineunda est via The Reuerend Author must vse them like hounds which the more a man beateth the better they loue him or like the wilde Irish which are most seruiceable when they are most slauishly vsed And so they shall haue their desire a Palinodie or Retractation which is That is repenteth him that hee hath dealt so fauourably with them For as for their reasons if they were not as bold and blinde as Bayard himselfe they would be ashamed to commend them to the iudgement of iudicious Charity Author Who sees not that visible referres to outward profession true to some essential principles of Christianitie neyther of them to soundnesse of beleefe BVRTON Is outward profession a sufficient marke of visibilitie for a Church This is none of those markes which the Church of England takes notice of a Church by Answer No Are not they the preaching of the word administration of sacraments and Ecclesiasticall discipline And what outward profession of Christianitie can any visible church make without these Outward profession therefore comprehendeth them all and so is a sufficient marke of visibilitie for a Church BVRTON Againe the Scripture calls them the Synagogue of Satan which call themselues Iewes and are not Answer True yet were they true Iewes in the flesh and outwardly Rom. 2. â—8 29. and so may a true visible Church of Christians be also BVRTON The Samaritanes sometimes professed themselues to bee of the Iewes religion and professed the worship of the Lord were they therefore a visible Church Answer The reason is not like because they neuer were in the Couenant of Gods grace but were aliens from the Common wealth of Israel
hate all he deceiues himselfe and others with his old fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter And if he say their preaching cannot breed true sauing faith I pitie him BVRTON As if a Papist though neuer so simple could be humble there can be no greater pride then that which hee takes in his ignorance and can he be peaceable whose chiefe article of his Creed is to beleeue the Pope to be supreme â—uer all Kings and princes c. Answer If the thinke all Papists to bee such as he speakes of hee is not onely vncharitable but foolish Those simple and silly ignorants of which the Author speaketh both may be and 〈◊〉 humble and peaceable notwithstanding the pride and rebellion of the Po 〈…〉 orants and besides how doth their 〈◊〉 perie hinder them froâ— humilitie and peaceablenesse when their Kings and Princes themselues will haue them so to beleeue and hold BVRTON This is the beasts marke which who so receiueth shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God Reuel 14. 9. No Papist then as a Papist can be saued Answer That the beleefe of the Popes supremacie in all spirituall things and causes is the Beasts marke is Petitio principij And that all Papists doe receiue the Beasts marke is false vnlesse hee will say none of them all are written in the Lambes booke of life A Reuel 13. 8. Which I 〈…〉 not say The Conclusion iâ— altogether without premisse 〈…〉 if hee will-conclude any thing 〈…〉 That 〈◊〉 apist can be saued and not that No Papist 〈…〉 Papistoan be saued For the Ang 〈…〉 〈…〉 No 〈…〉 marke Ergo No papist can be saued BVRTON And of Babylon saith God Come out of her my people left ye be partakers of her sinnes Reuel 18. Babylon the dominion and religion of the beast of Antichrist Nothing then therein to be expected but the punishment of Babels sinnes Answer Babylon doth not alwayes signifie the dominion and religion of the beast sometimes it is taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the very Citie that is the seate of his dominion the Citie of Rome and so is it to be vnderstood Reuel 18. And for the Conclusion I say the same I said of the former that it hath no premisses for all that can well be concluded is this That God calleth his people out of the â—itie of Rome when 〈◊〉 is vpon the point of destrsction that they may not bodily perish with the wicked 〈◊〉 I hope hee will noisay that Gods people may 〈…〉 ingly pelish with them though for a time they pa 〈…〉 with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinnes and temporall punishments as often and ordinarily they doe So much for the first question and for the first Author The second question and Author May not a simple Papist miss-led by education or long custome or ouer-valuing the soueraigntie of the Romane Church Io in the simplicitie of his heart imbracing them find mercy at Gods hands by a general repentance and faith in the merit of Christ attended with charitie and other vertues BVRTON Here the state of the former question is quite altered by Faith and Repontance no doubt not onely an ignorant Papist but euen an Infidell may finde mercy c. Answere It is not true the state it still the same for the humble 〈…〉 able obedience of the former question implyeth the Faith and Repentence required in this question for without true faith and repentance there can be no humble and peaceable obedience And so it is true which I said before that hee diuideth one question into two and maketh his Authors differ which agree in one Besides I would desire him to tell why there hee denyed humilitie and peaceable behauiour to all Papists and yet here affords them Faith Repentance to saluation To this he answereth BVRTON But withall this silly Papist beleeuing and repenting must necessarily repent him of all his Idolatry as well as of all his other sinnes yes saith the Author by a generall repentance and faith what a strange doctrine is this for a learned Doctor to teach Surely Bellarmine himselfe with the whole rabble of Pontificians could doe no more c. Answer See here how Sarcastically hee writeth of the most wholsome and Catholike doctrine of generall Faith and Repentance and of the Author for teaching it who if hee be a Doctor of the Church of England his fault is the greater for why should this be Popish doctrine in his mouth which in Perkinses is sound and orthodoxe Doth not he say plainly in his Treatise of Repentance cap. 1. § Neither is this to trouble any That as God requires particular repentance for knowne sinnes so he accepts a generall repentance for such as be vnknowne And doth he not say also in the same place That sound Repentance for one speciall sinne brings with it Repentance for all sinnes And doth hee not say elsewhere Booke of Cases lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 3. paragraph But some may say That The greater this simple ignorance is the lesser is the sinne and that if we be carefull to obey God according to our knowledge hauing withall a care and desire to increase in the knowledge of God and his will God will haue vs excused And is not this the selfe-same mutatis mutandis which this Author or Doctor hath deliuered If the Pope and Bellarmine and the whole rabble of Pontificians would say no worse then so it would be the best daies worke wee did these seuenty yeares to be reconciled BVRTON But doth this generall repentance include Idolatry with all popish trumpery as things to bee repented of If not such repentance shall neuer bring him to saluation Answer Wee grant all This Repentance includeth all vnknowne sinnes and so all Idolatry and all other popish trumperie BVRTON If it doe include them then by faith in Christs merits he comes to be saued not as a Papist but as a true beleeuer renouncing Popery and then no Godamercy to his popery or to his silly ignorance Answer Loc here is the vpshot of all this is his strong hold wherein hee puts his whole trust in this question And yet God knowes it is but a meere starting hole as poore a shift and euasion as euer man can vse Here then let it be obserued that hee vseth two points of Sophistry and one of Folly of Sophistry first in the word Papist secondly in the word renouncing The word Papist is ambiguous sometime it is vsed sensu composito as the Schoolemen speake or largely sometimes sensu diviso or strictly In the compound sense it signifieth to inuert the words of Perkins an vnreformed Catholike that is one that holds the same necessary heads of Religion with the Protestant Churches yet so as he retaines all errours in doctrine whereby the said religion is corrupted in the Church of Rome ignorantly supposing them to bee the truth of God In the diuided sense it fignifies one that holds the errours of the Church of
BVRTON And for the essentiall principles of Christianity the Iewes at this day hold the Old Testament and if it bee said They deny Christ expressely the Papists doe so too implicitely and by their owne expresse doctrines of Trent haue no more communion with Christ then the Iewes haue Nay Papists doe expresly abiure the doctrine of Christ as wee shewed before in the Popes owne Bull. Answer The tongue that lyeth slayeth the soule Such comparisons are not onely odious but damnable If this zeale do not transport you to sinne I doubt not but euill-speakers raylers and slanderers may finde an easie passage into the kingdome of heauen Author Grant the Romanists to be but Christians how corrupt soeuer and wee cannot deny them the name of a Church BVRTON But why should we grant them that which neuer a Papist is able to demonstrate to vs or yet vndoubtedly to perswade himselfe of Answer This fond conceit is sufficiently answered already BVRTON Although for the bare name of Christians and of a Church wee will not much stand with them so they do not hereupon or any for them incroach and challenge the beeing and realitie yea or the very visibility of a true Church Answer You are very liberall of that which is none of your owne Can you bee content to afford the precious name of a Christian and of a Church of Christ to them which in mans iudgement not partially affected are not so The Iews would neuer doe it neither will the Papists doe it neither will the Reformed Churches doe it neither will any well informed Christian doe it But you will not much stand vpon it Author We are all the same Church by vertue of our outward vocation whosoeuer all the world ouer worship Iesus Christ the onely Sonne of God the Sauiour of the world and professe the same common Creed BVRTON Doth the Church of Rome worship Iesus Christ who for Christ worship the Beast and his Image bearing his mark Answer Doe all in the Church of Rome doe so what they whose names are written in the Lambs booke of life Reu. 13. 8. or are you sure that none of the Church of Rome liuing and dying professed members thereof are written therein BVRTON Doc they hold the same Creed that deny the faith without which they cannot say the first words of the Creed I beleeue in God Answer And dare you say that all and euery one in the Church of Rome doth so Author Rome doth both hold the foundation and destroy it she holds it directly destroyes it by consequent BVRTON What foundation doe they hold directly with vs wee shewed before that they haue nothing of Christ but the shell the shadow the Pope is the kernell if any Answer You said so indeed but you shewed it not yet if they haue the shell that is the outward profession of the foundation directly it is enough to make them be said to hold the foundation directly BVRTON Nay doe they hâ—ld more of Christ directly then the very society of Deuils doe yea or so much as they Answer They doe if your selfe say true for you say that To hold the foundation directly is to hold Iesus Christ so to be come in the slesh as therein to suffer and satisfie for our saluation becomming our Christ our Iesus redeeming vs from our sinnes by imputing his merits to vs that our sins might not be imputed to vs which were imputed to him by whose stripes wee are healed by whose righteousnesse imputed wee are perfectly iustified in the sight of God And all and euery point of this the Church of Rome directly holdeth BVRTON Nothing lesse yea she directly not by consequence onely directly I say shee denieth and destroyeth this foundation How and where in the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 10. Siquis dixerit homines per ipsam Christi iustitiam formaliter iustos esse Anathema sit Is not this a direct and flat expresse denyall of the foundation Answer Is this an expresse flat and direct denial of the foundatioÌ„ then Melancthon Caluin Illyricus and all sound and good Protestants doe expresly flatly and directly deny the Foundation for all of them doe and must hold this doctrine for accursed and all the Ministers of the Church of England haue cause to be ashamed of your ignorance boldnesse Mr. Burton who dare challenge the Church of Rome to denie the foundation directly in that wherein she holdeth and confirmeth the truth of the Gospel you must know therefore that in these words is condemned the damnable doctrine of Andrew Osiander and his followers who taught and held that a man is formally iustified by the very Righteousnesse by which Christ himselfe is essentially iust and righteous being partakers thereof by inhabitation This allegation therefore is a notable abuse not only of the Councel but of your selfe and the Reader See Bellarmine de Iustif. lib. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 2. His verbis though himselfe offend therein also afterwards BVRTON And in the 11th Canon If any shall say that men are iustified by the sole imputation of Christs righteousness or by sole remission of sins otherwise then by inherent righteousnesse by vs obtained thereby or also that the grace of God whereby wee are iustified is onely the fauour of God let him bee accursed What more direct deniall of the foundation Answer I might here challenge you for altering and changing the words of the Councell but I will not take all aduantages I answer therefore that it seems you know not the true meaning of the Councell for taking the word Iustification in the Councels owne sense this Canon containes very sound and Christian doctrine What then doth it mean by Iustification A compound of Protestant Iustification and Sanctification for so it defines Iustification cap. 7. of this Session in the first words Iustificatia est non sola peccatorum remissio sed sanctificatio renouatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae donorum and so the true sense and meaning of the Canon is this If any man shall say that men are so iustified by the sole imputation of Christs righteousnesse or by sole remission of sinnes that they are also sanctified thereby without inherent grace and charity or also that the grace whereby wee are so iustified is onely the fauour of God Let him bee accursed and let him be so indeed for me You will say this is nothing but meere iugling I grant it but it is not direct denyall of the foundation for here as Chemnitius acknowledgeth is both remission of sinnes and imputation of Christs righteousnesse included which though it be sufficient to iustification in the Protestant sense yet in the popish sense wherein sanctification is also required it is not sufficient BVRTON Is not this the foundation That Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners and how who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his owne bodie on the tree that we being dead to sins should liue