then himselfe about the truth and true visibilitie of the Church of Rome vseth all kind of sophistrie and deceit as may appeare both by the whole Discourse and by euery part and parcell thereof In the whole you shall perceiue two points of notable sophistrie common to him with all those that maintaine bad causes One is Beggery commonly called of the Logitians Petitio principij which proueth one obscure or vncertaine thing by another or would haue that to be granted which reason denyeth Another is Disorder which is Horaces Humano capiti c. and Ouids Rudis indigestaque moles A confused heape of independencies like a Lotterers pitcher full of scrowles shuffled together without any reference one to another His Beggery will soone appeare if we resolue this dispute into that Enthymeme whereof it wholly consisteth which is this S. Iohn saith The second Angell poured out his viall vpon the Sâ—a and it became as the blood of a dead man and euery liuing soule dyed in the sea Ergo the Church of Rome is neyther a true Church nor a true visible Church To which I may say farre better then Bishop said to Perkins Apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue a new paire of Sizors Whether I wrong him or no I referre my selfe to the censure of euery iudicious Reader And if I wrong him not euery man may see that hee beggeth two things which no good Diuine may yeeld vnto him One is that an Allegoricall Prophecie such as this is may bee laid for a good foundation whereon to frame an Argument to decide a Controuersie in Diuinitie contrary to the old Maxime Theologia symbolica non est argumentatiua Allegories in diuinitie afford no good arguments Especially if they be Prophecies whereof there may be doubt whether they be fulfilled or no in which case the tryall is to examine the perspicuitie thereof for a Prophecie as of all Scriptures it is most obscure before it be fulfilled so when it is fulfilled it is of all other most cleare and easie This therefore being an Allegory and propheticall and retaining the aenigmaticall darknesse which it had originally as appeareth by the various interpretations of the Learned euery day renewed I for my part cannot suppose it to be yet accomplished and so to me it is vnfit for that vse to which hee hath imployed it The other point of his Beggerie is That his owne priuate interpretation of these words may be allowed as the true meaning of the holy Ghost which is That by the Sea we are to vnderstand the Doctrines of the Councel of Trent by the blood the abominable corruptions therof by the Angel Chemnitius and other learned men of that time that examined it and by the pouring out of the viall their preachings and writings All which hee hath borrowed from Brightman whom notwithstanding elsewhere he forsaketh But now what if we deny him this interpretation and require some proofe hereof what will he say then Surely hee is vtterly disappointed and all his building falls to the ground If he say we must shew some reason for our denyall besides that we haue shewed some already it would be knowne why we may not as well deny as he affirme without reason If this course bee good euery mans priuate fantasie especially if he can make some shew of probability must bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Reuelations Reuelation And then why may not Bellarmines interpretation of the ninth cap. Oratione in Scholis habita wherein he turnes all vpon Luther and the Lutherans passe for current But lest I may seeme to seeke euasions I will doe that against him which he cannot or at least hath not yet done for himselfe I will shew some reason for my denyall and leaue it to the iudgement of the Learned And because the ground of all is that the Councell of Trent or the doctrines thereof are that bloody sea I suppose it sufficient if I proue it to bee otherwise to turne vp all his phantasticall Cauillation First therefore I proue it ex praeconcessis for hee granteth that the same Sea whereof cap. 8. r. the third part was turned into blood is here wholly turned thereinto Now Brightman whom in this point he followeth will haue that third part of the Sea to bee the doctrine of Europe the third part of the Christian world And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole sea is the doctrine of the whole Christian world But the doctrine of the Councell of Trent is not the doctrine of the whole Christian world Ergo it is not the Sea here mentioned by S. Iohn Secondly vpon the powring out of this second Viall this sea is turned into congealed and putrified blood which by his interpretation signifieth that by the conclusions of the Councell of Trent Romes doctrines are become mortall and damnable and this puts a difference betweene the state of Romes doctrines before the Councel of Trent while as yet they were in their growing and after it Before there was some fresh water c. but after none at all So saith he But I say that the Councell of Trent hath not a whit corrupted Romes Doctrines more than they were along time before Ergo the Councell of Trents conclusions are not here to be vnderstood I need not take paines in the proofe hereof because the learned doe not accuse it of this fault but that whereas it promised reformation and that it was expected ther from it cosened the world and in stead of reforming confirmed the foule corruptions of the religion and doctrine of the Church which formerly had preuailed Indeed Master Crashaw whose memory for old acquaintance is pretious to me noteth one and but one point of doctrine for the other is only for practice wherein the Councell of Trent hath added some thing to the former corruptions which is the equalizing of the Apocrypha with the Canonicall books of Scripture But if we consider how he interpreteth himselfe that no Councell before had done the like it will appeare that hee denyeth not but that euen that corruption also was inueterate â—efore the Councell of Trent Thirdly I say that the Councell of Trent hath reformed Romes doctrine and made it at least in one point better then it was before Ergo it is not here to be vnderstood The point is this that there is no naturall ability in a man to prepare himselfe for grace and so no merit of congruity in which regard Stapleton saith Meritum ex congruo explosum est a point of no small moment in these dayes Fourthly I say that there is as much fresh water in Romes doctrines since the Councell of Trent as there was before Ergo it is not here to bee vnderstood This I proue by the doctrine of the Tridentine Catechisme in euery part whereof there is sufficient quantity of sauing doctrine for those that to vse your owne words can search and find it out separating the good from the bad and truth from errour as
may appeare to them that will take the paines to reade it yea I dare bee bold to say the Church of Rome had not for many hundred yeares before the Councell of Trent so good a forme of doctrine as that Catechisme containeth which I speake not to justifie the Councell or the Catechisme in any errour comprehended therein but only to shew the beggery of the aduersarie of which this shall be sufficient His disorder shewes it selfe in three things First in not setting the state of the question Secondly in misplacing his owne arguments Thirdly in idle repetitions For the first There cannot be a greater fault in a Disputant then either to leave the question altogether vnstated or else to state it amisse for by this meanes it ordinarily fals out that the contention is nothing else but Andabatarum pugna the fight at blind man buffe as we say so as a man may misse ten times before hee hit once But of the two the former is the worse wherein this our aduersary offendeth If he say he tooke it as hee found it it will not excuse For I dare say his pretended aduersaries intended not a combat if they had they would haue depriued him of the occasion of much babbling And yet had he not listed to be contentious hee might haue picked such a state of the question out of the defenders writings as might haue dâ—â—led the edge of his quarrelsome humor for the state being set aright and with perspicuity it will easily appeare to which side the truth inclineth wherefore that I offend not in that wherein I finde him to be faulty I will doe that which he hath left vnperformed First then wee are to know that the words whereof the question consisteth are full of ambiguity For both the Church of Rome and a true Church and a Church truly visible haue many senses and significations The Church of Rome hath at least eight seuerall acceptions For sometimes it noteth the particular Diocesse of the Romane territory commonly called the particular Romane Church Sometimes and most vsually it comprehendeth all the national Churches which communicate with Rome in the same faith and vnder the same head the Pope commonly called the Catholique Romane Church Sometimes the Clergy of that Church is onely vnderstood by that title commonly called the Church representatiue Sometimes the people onely commonly called the Laity and of some the popular Church of Rome Sometimes the whole body of Clergy and Laity Sometimes the Papacy or Apostacy in that Church which is S. Iohns Babylon Sometimes the Elect in that Church still communicating with the Papacy which S. Iohn calls Gods people And sometimes the hidden Church which is in the Romane Church and yet communicateth not with her abominations which some call the Church in the wildernesse Againe A Church is said to bee true diuers wayes As first materially in that it consisteth of a people comprehended within the compasse of Gods Couenant of life and saluation Secondly formally in regard of frame and constitution Thirdly accidentally in regard of soundnes and outward communion Thirdly a Church is said to be truly visible for the true markes of a Church which it hath either in regard of it selfe within it selfe in which respect the Churches in persecution are truly visible though their enemies and others which are not of their number see them not Or in regard of the world abroad whether Christians or Infidels which know her assemblies And in this latter sense againe it is said to be visible either strictly and properly when the whole Church is visible at once and all together which is onely true of particular Congregations or largely and Synechdochically when the whole cannot bee visible together and at once but by peâ—cemeale and succession and so the Catholique Church here on earth may truly be said to bee visible Thus you see how great ambiguity there is in the sense of these few words The Church of Rome is a true and truly visible Church Now in the second place to apply all this to our present purpose Although diuerse men doe set the state of this question diuersly as may best serue for their owne priuate ends and purposes yet I will take it in the largest extent and as it may bee most fauourable for the Church of Rome Thus Whether the Catholike Church of Rome as it is called in opposition to the Dioces in regard of the whole body thereof compounded of Clergy and Laity bee still within the couenant of Gods sauing grace and haue such markes of that couenant still abiding in it that though properly at once and all together it cannot bee visible yet by peece-meale and successiuely it may truly be said so to be And so much for the state of the question and his first disorder His second point of disorder is in misplacing his owne arguments which I take not as if it were done ignorantly as not knowing what hee should haue done for hee excuseth himselfe for it supposing it superfluous to doe it but artificially for his best aduantage It seemes hee trusted more to the gentlenesse of his aduersaries and to his owne abilitie in opposing them then to the strength of his owne and his power to maintaine them and so brings them in as it were by way of ambuâ—â— But howsoeuer it hath pleased him to proceed I may not passe them ouer in this place without tryall vnless I would incurre the same suspition Let vs see therefore how hee proueth the negatiue His first argument wherein he placeth his greatest confidence is briefly propounded pag. 24. but more at large pag. 90. of his Aduertisement and it lyeth thus That Church which denieth yea accurseth the sauing faith of Iesus Christ vnto Iustification allowing only such a faith which can neuer saue a man but is a gracelesse faith separable from grace and which a man may carie with him into Hell that is an Apostatized Church vtterly falne away from Christ wherein no saluation is to be found or hoped for But the Church of Rome doth all this Ergo. To which I answer by denying all I deny the proposition because it is sophisticall The assumption because it is false and I need not then doubt to deny the conclusion The proposition is sick of that Sophisme which the Logicians call secundum plures interrogationes or propositiones that is when many Propositions are ioyned together in one whereof some are true some false as here are at least three One that the Church so bablingly described is an apostatised Church another that it is vtterly fallen away from Christ a third that no saluation is to be found or hoped for therein Of which the first onely is true and the rest notoriously false and against the Scripture for first to denie yea to accurse sauing Faith to allow the contrary is not a point of totall finall Apostasie vnles it be ioyned with malice and obstinacie and be the sinne against the holy Ghost
full to Vega who denieth infallible certaintie of saluation because no man can haue infallible certainty of the truth of his baptisme for want of the like certainty of the Priests intention but on the contrary for morall and coniecturall certainty he acknowledgeth that a man may and ought to haue it of the Priests intention vnlesse hee declare his naughty minde by some outward signe and so of the truth of his baptisme and lastly of his owne saluation For which distinction see Bellarmine vbi supra § Respondeo non debere hominem These things premised his Arguments are easily answered First therefore the Assumption of the last is denied for they professe themselues able to demonstrate both seuerally and together that they are true members of the true Church because they haue sufficient certaintie of the truth of their Baptisme because they haue a like sufficient certaintie of the Priests intent on leaning secrets vnto God and so all that is builded hereon that the Church cannot demonstrate her selfe to bee a true Church falls flat to the ground which may also be said of the intention of the Bishop in ordaining Secondly how can hee proue the Assumption vnlesse he goe through all the Church of Rome from man to man and from woman to woman and examine what they can say for the truth of their Baptisme It is twenty to one but some one or other can shew a Reuelation that the Priest had an actuall intention to doe as the Church doth in baptising him Thirdly they say they can say as much to assure them of the Priests intention in their Baptisme as we which are baptised in our infancie can say to assure vs that we were baptised which is onely the Church booke and testimonie of our Parents Godfathers Godmothers and other friends which is onely humane morall coniecturall assurance and not diuine and infallible See Bellarmine vbi supra § Et Nota. So much for the fourth The last Argument pag. 32. is this That Church which wants the ordinary meanes of saluation is no true Church But the Church of Rome wants the ordinary meanes of saluation the preaching and hearing of the Gospell yea it teacheth hers to hate and abhorre it and to call it heresie Ergo. I answer they want it they want it not They hate it and they hate it not They want and hate the soundnes and puritie thereof as it is enioyed in the Reformed Churches but they neither want nor hate it as it is corrupted by their owne traditions which cannot wholly depriue it of all sauing vertue as hath been already prooued And why I pray should wee not bee content in common commiseration to beare with them in this case as we doe with those people which dwell in fenny foggy marish grounds and countries who comming into places of fresh ayre and healthy dyet doe complaine that it is not good nor wholsome because it agrees not with their more grosse constitution If another man liue by poysoned meates I will not enuie him so long as I feede on that which is sound and mans meate as wee say And so much for his Arguments Thus haue I shewed Mr. Burtons second point of disorder in misplacing his Arguments and haue as well as I can righted it and answered them The third and last followes which are his idle Repetitions and Tautologies which if they were taken out of his booke it would bee by the one halfe lesse then it is as will appeare by the answer to the particulars Now here I must craue fauor of the Christian Reader that being constrained by the misbehauiour of our aduersary to lay open his foule ouer-sights in charging the Church of Rome the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine with vntruths which hee ought not to haue done hee would not suppose me to be any whit inclining or addicted to Poperie as the manner of the world is now-a dayes No I praise God I am as farr from Popery as M. Burton himselfe is or can be But I would not haue men eyther to maintaine bad causes against the Church of Rome or to maintaine good causes with bad arguments and least of all to maintaine bad causes with worse arguments as I know too many haue done to our no little disaduantage It is an excellent point of manhood to let the enemy haue his vtmost due and not to â—eelie to ouercome him by base and cowardly meanes This I desire and haue alwayes endeoured and this is all which hitherto I haue done in this Treatise or purpose to doe hereafter And if the good Reader will be placed to beleeue mee and to grant me this reasonable motion I hope hee shall perceiue that I haue not abused either him or mine aduersary or my cause or my Lord whose cause I haue vndertaken or my selfe in vndertaking it and so I proceede BVRTON Before wee proceede to the third Viall for the fuller confirmation of what hath beene said of the estate of the church of Rome whose Sea of doctrines is all turned into mortall blood in the second viall it will bee very requisite here to discusse one question Whether the Church of Rome be eyther a true Church or a true visible Church Answer Here is a long Exordium to a short Cause of which it may truely be said Causaanceps Exordium vitiosum Such a Cause such an Exordium Such a Cup such a Couer In which containing a whole lease hee craueth fauour and attention after the manner of the Orators from three Rhetoricall arguments The qualitie of the question His owne good handling there of and The condition of his owne person The question affords him two fauourable arguments One for that it is requisite to be discussed in this place Another for that it is waightie and of great moment The necessitie of the discussion is for the fuller confirmation of that hee hath said of the Church of Rome And indeede it is very necessary that hee proue and that very substantially and soundly as hee saith in the words following That the Church of Rome is neyther a true nor a true visible Church or else all hee hath said is nor worth a rush For if it be then is not her Sea of Doctrines turned into mortall blood in this second Viall nor the Councell of Trent this Sea of mortall blood nor Chemnitius the Angell nor any thing so as hee hath said But marke here I pray his Circulation Before he proued the Church of Rome to bee no true Church because all her doctrines are mortall and now hee proues all her doctrines to be mortall because 〈◊〉 is no true Church which manner of reasoning goes for currant with him 〈◊〉 all this part of his Treatise But let that passe Now if his answers proue no better then his arguments haue done as I doubt they will not it had beene farre more requisite for him to haue left this question altogether indiscussed in this place and to haue proceeded directly to the third
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
to which repentance is vtterly denyed Else what shall wee say of S. Peter who both denyed and cursed the knowledge of Christ in himselfe Secondly if this be true as it is then may saluation be found and hoped for notwithstanding that deâ—iall cursing and approbation Thirdly it must be remembred that our question is of the whole body of the Church that iâ— neither of the popular part onely nor of the representatiue onely but of both together if then the one part onely shall doe as he saith and not the whole body who can say that there is no saluation to bee found therein or that it is vtterly falne away from Christ. So much for the Proposition In the next place I say the Assumption is euidently false if not more then slanderous For first the Church of Rome whether partially or wholly vnderstood neuer denyed neuer accursed sauing and iustifying Faith nor euer allowed a gracelesse faith onely which cannot saue c. Looke vpon all the Canons of the Councell of Trent and see whether any such thing bee to bee found therein or gathered therefrom doth it not distinguish betweene a living and a dead faith And doth it not say that the liuing Faith only iustifieth and not the dead what is it then that it denyeth and accurseth It is this first the forme and manner of Iustification by Faith when it is said to iustifie as the very forme of Iustification and not as a meere disposition thereto Secondly this assertion that a dead faith separate from grace is not a true faith though it cannot iustifie this is that which the Counsell denyeth and accurseth in this case and no more yet you say boldly if not impudently pag. 25. If any dare deny this hee will but bewray his shamelesse ignorance in this point In what point M. Burton That the Councell of Trent admitteth of no other faith then that which the Deuils and damned in hell haue O mouth O forehead Haue they a liuing Faith which is fruitfull in good workes Such a Faith as S. â—ames commendeth And doth not the Councell admit of this Faith yea of this onely for Iustification Reade the latter part of the seuenth Chapter of the sixt Session and bee ashamed Secondly say the Counsell had done so indeed Doth the whole Church of Rome doe it Doth the popular part therof doe it By your owne words page 25. they denie it Yea but they beleeue as the Church beleeues True but with a secret condition If the Church beleeue well and in that onely wherein it beleeueth aright Being deceiued in nothing but that they trust the Church too much for if they could be perswaded shee beleeueth amisse in any thing therein they would not beleeue as she doth But you will proue that Romes iustifying faith is different in kinde from the true sauing Faith of Christ. How Can you tell Marry thus That faith which Christ commendeth for the onely true sauing faith doth so iustifie a man that hee shall neuer come into condemnation but passe from death vnto life But the onely faith which the Church of Rome alloweth doth not so Ergo Aduertisement pag. 91. I answere A Papist or Arminian would denie the Proposition but I grant it and deny the Assumption for let the Church of Rome confesse what she will in her owne wrong I say that that faith which the Church of Rome onely alloweth for iustification viz a liuing faith fruitfull in good workes doth so saue and iustifie a man that hee cannot goe with it into condemnation and dare you say the contrary This is his first Argument The second is this That Church which cleaueth to Antichrist as her head whence she receiueth all her spirituall life is no true Church nor hath any saluation to be found or hoped for in her But the Church of Rome doth so Ergo. Aduertisement pag. 91. 92. I denie the Assumption Not for that I denie the Pope to be Antichrist or for that I would support the church of Rome in any of her abominations but first because the church of Rome doth not acknowledge the Pope to be Antichrist and so cleaueth not to him as her head in that name Secondly because although some Popes haue antichristianly said that all spirituall grace and life is deriued from the Pope and that some of their Parasites haue flatteringly acknowledged it yet neither the representatiue church of Rome by it selfe nor the popular by it selfe much lesse the whole and entire body did euer yeeld vnto it but haue from time to time opposed themselues against it especially if the question be of an absolute foueraigne and supreme head and not of a subordinate and ministeriall head as you propound it Thirdly because in these spiritual things there is such a coniunction of good and euill in this life that though the one cannot be separated from the other yet the one is not confounded with the other so as each of them receiues its life seuerally from its owne head and not from the head of the other As it is in the regenerate man in whom the flesh and the spirit are alwaies companions in this life yet so as the flesh receiueth nothing from the holy Ghost nor the spirit from Adams transgression And so is it in the case wee haue in hand for in the church of Rome there is an inseparable coniunction of Babylon and the people of God yet so as Babylon receiues no grace from Christ nor the people of GOD apostafie from the Pope for being members of both in diuers respects they haue grace from the one and apostasie from the other which in them are indeed nothing but flesh and spirit And so much for his second Argument The third pag. 34. hereof is thus framed A true visible Church hath the true markes of a true visible Church But the Church of Rome hath not those true markes Ergo. The Assumption whereof being to be denyed hee proueth it partly from the doctrine of the Church of England and partly from Bellarmine the mouth of the Church of Rome For the Church of England the Homily for Whitsunday saith The true Church of Christ hath alwayes three notes or marks whereby it is knowne Pure and sound doctrine c. Now if you would compare this with the Church of Rome c. To which I answer That these words must receiue a fauourable construction or else they make as much against him as against vs and with such construction they make more for vs then for him And what is this construction First they must bee vnderstood of the accidentall truth of the Church in regard of soundnesse as the words doe expresly import and not of essentiall truth in regard of Gods Couenant Secondly they must bee vnderstood euen of soundnesse comparatiuely and not simply that is in regard of the Primitiue Church and not otherwise Else hee must grant that the Church of Rome hath not beene a true visible Church these nine hundred yeares
where as he allowes it to haue beene so till the Councell of Trent as appeareth in all this Discourse Now for Bellarmine I am sory such a superficiall Reader should meddle with him to the shame of our whole Nation Marke how hee reasoneth Bellarmine disclaimeth these three as proper markes of the Church Ergo the Church of Rome hath them not I pray what consequence is here First may not a man disclaime that which he hath for some siâ—ister respects best knowne to himselfe as pride and presumption in medling in causes and with persons too high for him and the like Secondly doth Bellarmine disclaime them simply and not onely in comparison of meere proper markes Thirdly may not the Church of Rome haue them as markes common to all Churches true and false though not as proper to the true Church Fourthly doth not Bellarmine De Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 2. § Nostra autem sententia contradicting himselfe put these three into the definition of the Church and doth hee not by them distinguish the Church from all other sorts of men whatsoeuer Professione verae fidei Sacramentorum communione subiectione ad proprium Rastorem Fiftly is it not a Maxime of Bellarmines lib. 1. de Sacrament in genere cap. 26. § Respondeo Sacramenta that the Sacraments and the word of God and the rest semper solius esse Ecclesie etiamsi interdum extra Ecclesia in inueniantur what dealing then is this to play the Sophister so palpably à dicto secundum quid ad 〈…〉 This is his third Argument The fourth you shall finde pag. 35. to this purpose If the Church of Rome cannot demonstrate it selfe to bee a true Church then it is no true Church But it cannot Ergo 〈…〉 To this many things are to be answered because both propositions are to be denyed The former because it is inconsequent First because want of demonstration takes not away the truth and true being of any thing if it did there are infinite things in the world which should haue no being or not be that which they are euen the Scripture it selfe should not be the word of God because it cannot be demonstrated so to be to a naturall man Secondly because want of ability to make demonstration especially of the parties owne being is much lesse able to doe it for how many millions of men and women are there in the world which should cease to be that they are if that were true being vtterly vnable to demonstrate themselues so to be The latter proposition is to be denyed because it is vntrue for if by demonstration you meane the proofe of those three marks mentioned in the Homily the church of Rome can by them demonstrate her selfe to be a true Church according to the kinde and proportion of truth as well as any other Church And all that will acknowledge her to bee a true Church will and must acknowledge her to haue the true markes of the true Church in the same degree of truth wherein she is acknowledged to bee a true Church But you can proue by two arguments that she cannot doe it First because Bellarmine is constrained to confesse that all his 15. markes cannot make it euidently true but onely euidently credible that it is a true Church I answer First this is not true Bellarmine saith no such thing hee hath not the word Onely but thus he speaketh Though they make it not euidently true yet doe they make it euidently credible yea hee distinguisheth betweene Heathens which admit not the Scriptures and Christians which doe and saith that to them it makes them euidently credible but to these euidently true as well as euidently credible Lib. 4. de not is Eccles. cap. 3. § Dicimus ergo This therefore is not good dealing Secondly this is the same fallacy of arguing à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter wherein you offended afore He cannot doe it by these his fifteene markes say you Ergo he cannot doe it at all Is this a good kinde of reasoning Indeed it argueth his folly or rather madnesse in forsaking those markes which can demonstrate it and cleaning to those which cannot doe it but it doth not proue that he cannot doe it by any other meanes In the second place therefore you indeauour to proue it by Romes owne doctrine and confession about her baptisme the onely relique say you which some suppose is sufficient to proue her a true Church which is this That the efficacy of baptisme depends vpon the Priests intention whereof because no man can be certaine therefore no man can bee certaine whether hee were rightly baptised and so cannot bee certaine that he is a true member of the Church From which confession you reason thus That which no one Papist can demonstrate all of them put together cannot demonstrate But no one of them can demonstrate himselfe to be a true member of the Church Ergo not all together And what the That Church whose members either seuerally or together cannot demonstrate themselues to bee members of the true Church cannot demonstrate her selfe to be a true Church But the members of the Church of Rome neither seuerally nor together can doe it Ergo She her selfe cannot doe it That I may giue a full and sufficient answer to this large argument which is taken from Romes owne doctrine and confession I must signifie vnto him that it seemes to me that he knowes not what Romes doctrine and confession in this point is First therefore hee must know that the Church of Rome hath not yet determined fully what the intention of the Priest in baptising or of the Bishop in ordaining is They say indeed that a virtuall intention is sufficient without the actuall or habituall But what is that virtuall intention Some say that the very pronouneing of the words I baptise thee c. are sufficient thereto Nec aliud requiri ex parte ministri and that there is no more required on the behalfe of the Minister So Thomas Part. 3. de Sacr. qu. 64. art 8. ad 2. and so Catharine the Bishop of Minori in the Councell of Trent held and affirmed And Bellarmine himselfe though of the contrary opinion viz. that the inward intention of the Priest is required yet is constrained to distinguish de perfectione Sacramenti simpliciter absolutè de perfectione eiusdem coram hominibus and so agreeth that if wee respect the perfection of the Sacrament before men the outward prolation of the words is sufficient Lib. 1. de Sacr. in genere cap. 28. § Ad locum obiectum Secondly hee must know what certainty it is which the Church of Rome meaneth when she confesseth that no man can be certaine of the intention of the Priest for shee distinguisheth of certainty in this case One is certainty of faith which is infallible another humane and morall the former shee confesseth cannot ordinarily bee had but the latter may which she accounteth to be sufficient and this comes
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
Rome without respect to the orthodoxe truth maintained therein Now to apply this to our purpose when wee say a papist may bee saued wee vnderstand it in the former more large sense And when the saith a papist cannot be faued he vnderstands it in the latter and more strict sense and so we are all agreed for as a theefe or a murderer or any other malefactor cannot be saued as he is such a one no more can a Papist as hee holdeth his errours for no vncleane thing shall enter into the kingdome of heauen this is the former point of his sophistrie The other is in the word renouncing For there are two kindes of renouncing One actuall and expresse another virtuall and infolded The actuall is when a man doth both in word and practice separate himselfe from the religion of the Church of Rome The virtuall is when in preparation of minde a man is ready to doc it so soone as it shall appeare to him to be sinfull and damnable when therefore he requireth that a Papist that must be saued should renounce his popery if he vnderstand the actuall renouncing thereof we acknowledge that it is necessary so soone as hee shall know and be conuicted of the euill of Popery but if he neuer be conuicted thereof so long as he liueth then we say the virtuall is sufficient which is included in generall repentance otherwise wee must confound sinnes knowne with vnknowne and generall repentance with particular This being considered a man may easily perceiue how a simple ignorant Papist whether learned or vnlearned may bee said to renounce his poperie and to be saued though he liue and die in the communion of that faith and religion So much for Sophistry Now his folly appeareth in this that he would haue us to hold that a Papist which we say may be iaued by a generall faith and repentance is saued as a Papist by vertue of his Popish ignorance idolatry and other trumpery and not as a true beleeuer by faith in Christs merits And that wee would haue some Godamercy to be giuen to Popery or silly ignorance for his saluation which ought to be so farre from the conceit of any well disposed Christian that all of vs must acknowledge that no Protestant as a Protestant communicating with the corruptions of seuerall Churches Dutch French Germane or the rest none of which are free from some enormities No Protestant I say as a Protestant can bee saued without this generall faith and repentance so as there can be no God amercy giuen to our Protestancy but onely to faith in Christs merits by which we come to be saued not as Protestants but as true beleeuers renouncing the corruptions of seuerall Churches And so a Protestant liuing and dying a Protestant may bee damned and a Papist liuing and dying a Papist may be saued BVRTON My conclusion is to be briefe No Papist as a Papist whether learned or ignorant can be saued My reason is because Popery denyeth the sauing faith of Christ and they want the meanes of faith therefore if they bee saued it must be extraordinarily c. Answere All this which followeth in this Section is nothing but an idle repetition of those things which haue beene formerly vrged and answered at large and therefore with reference thereto I pass it ouer The same also I say to the next wherein he takes it for granted that he speakes the truth and that his aduersaries do diuorce themselues from sound iudgement and right reason and haue no right charity but such as calleth euill good Because they say It is an hard sentence yea malicious and rash to say That in the Church of Rome there is no saluation All which I leaue to the discretion of the Reader So much for the two questions and the two former Authors BVRTON But others would not have it denyed that the Church of Rome is a true visible Church though not a true beleeuing Church Answer Hauing rid his hands of his two former Authors with a kinde of neglect as I said afore hee comes now to his meeke and sweet spirited Author a Reuerend Antistes of the Church of England our diuine Seneca c. against whom he bends all his forces and yet like Iudas as you see betrayeth him with kissing May not I say to him as Horace to Lydia in another case Lydia dic per omnes Te deos oro Sybarim cur properas amande Perdere So Burton for Gods sake tell me I thee pray Why thou so louingly dost Exon flay I acknowledge my poetry may bee blamed but the conceit may bee prety and tolerable though I say it my selfe for to say the truth he laboureth to kill him with kindnesse in that as much as in him lyeth hee blemisheth his well deserued Reuerend and Honorable name in the Church with his flattering opposition But he must be pardoned for he hath done it to the glory of God and the confusion of Babylon which if it might proue to be true I dare bee bold to say his Author would not only be ready to make an humble and ingenuous palinody or retractation as he sawcily requireth but euen to sacrifice his goods good name soule and body for euer But I doubt hee hath done Gods glory more hurt and Babylon more good then any Babylonian Papist hath done these many yeares Author That which Laertius speakes of Menodemus that in disputing his very eyes would sparkle is true of many of ours whose zeale transports them to such a detestation of the Romane Church as if it were all errour no Church affecting nothing more then an vtter opposition to their doctrine and ceremonies because theirs BVRTON What if we should deny this that the Church of Rome is a true visible Church Must we at the first dash be censured as men transported with zeale out of the detestation of the Church of Rome as if it were all error no Church c Answer How are you not ashamed to abuse your Reuerend Author doth hee censure all of them that deny the Church of Rome to be a true visible Church in this sort and manner are not his expresse words that it is true of many of them not of all Master Burton this dealing beseemes not one that contends for the glory of God and confusion of Babylon In my conscience no truly religious wise man will deny but many of them doe well deserue this censure and you for one BVRTON Because theirs that 's not it but because wholly Antichristian therefore we detest the whore Answer Is not that it M. Burton why then said you before in the depth of your policy that though it were true that the Church of Rome were a true Church yet the countenancing or pressing of it in these times might very well be spared haue you so soone forgotten your selfe and are the doctrine and ceremonies of that Church wholly Antichristian when you haue proued it say so but till then lay your hand
vnto righteousnesse by whose stripes we are healed Nay saith the Councell of Trent directly wee are iustified by our inherent righteousness and so our stripes are healed and not by the righteousnesse of Christ simply imputed Thefore come out of her my people Answer How the Councell is to bee vnderstood I haue shewed already and being so vnderstood there is no direct denyall of the foundation Therefore although Gods people must come out of Babylon yet not vpon this ground And so I conclude as I beganne Apply Iohn Barber and thou shalt haue a new payre of sizors For marke the argument The foundation is Iesus Christ came to saue sinners c. But the Councel of Trent saith We are so iustified that wee are also sanctified by inherent righteousnesse Ergo Come out of her my people Author Thus I wrote well neare twenty yeares agone without clamour without censure If any of you be otherwise minded I dare boldly say hee shall doe more wrong to his cause then to his aduersary I differ not from the iudgement of our best Orthodoxe and approuedly Classicall Diuines BVRTON Let not antiquity in the holding of an opinion prescribe against truth Opinions Ancient O that S. Ambrose his words alledged by our Reuerend Author might here take place Nullus pud or est ad meliora transire then I hope he will be otherwise minded then to say He that denyeth the Church of Rome to be a true Church or a true visible Church shall doe more wrong to his cause then to his aduersarie Then he will no longer stand vpon the iudgement of particular persons in a point wherein our Reuerend Mother Church of England hath in her publique doctrine resolued the contrary So shall our diuine Seneca partake also of great Saint Augustines praise while by an humble and ingenuous Retractation he shall both purge away the staine and put a more glorious lustre to his most sweet pious and for their kinde vnparalleld workes And for me a poore vnworthy Minister I hope his meeke and sweet spirit hauing well weighed my reasons and pitied my weaknesses will be pleased to excuse me of any transportation of zeale vnlesse herein I haue exceeded the bounds in presuming so farre vpon the patience of such a Reuerend Antistes of our Church But I trust he will not impute this to any arrogancy of spirit when it shall appeare it is to vindicate Christs truth and glorie against the Synagogue of the proud Antichrist Answer It is well obserued that this fellow hath a notable dexterity in dedicating Epistles before his Bookes and in Prefaces Digressions Epilogues and the like but that in his Tracts Discourses and Disputations he is as hungry and dry as Famine it selfe This as it is true in all his writings so especially in this as I hope I haue in good measure made it appeare by the premisses And for this his conclusion All the glozing thereof â—ends to obtaine two requests One that the Reuerend Author would be brought to humble himselfe to him in an ingenuous Retractation And the other that he would hold him excused for his presumption Both are vnreasonable vnlesse hee will take that for a Retractation which before hath beene tendred and for an excuse that he supposeth it ignorant arrogance rather then zeale that hath transported him He would strike an impression into the innocent soule of the Reuerend Author that he hath contracted some stain by this assertion That the Church of Rome is a true or truly visible Church And indeed it is too well knowne that such companions as he is haue for a long time taken vpon them to bee the Censors of all mens doings and to cry vp and downe euery mans credit and reputation at their pleasure But God bee praised he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of their gunshot for it is well knowne to God and man that all his courses from the cradle haue beene such that Fame her selfe may lay her hand vpon her mouth so as he need not endeauor to purge away any staine which they shall impute vnto him The close of his Aduertisement will so possesse the soules of all good and honest men that the strife of tongues shall neuer bee able to molest him Thus saith he in a desire to stand but so right as I am in all honest iudgments I haue made this speedy and true Apology beseeching all Readers in the feare of God before whose barre we shall once giue an account of all our ouerlashings to iudge wisely and vprightly of what I haue written In a word to do me but iustice in their opinions and when I beg it fauour FINIS Iudg. 6. 31. Psalme 137. 9. Reuel 18. 6. The want of skill to shun a shame Doth bring a man to mickle blame Reuel 18. 4. Rom. 9. 6. Ier. 51. 45. Heb. 3. 13. Gal. 4 16. * See the 7. Chap. of the same Sess.