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
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
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
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
vpon your mouth and suspend BVRTON And for my part I had rather some fire-sparkling zeale yet guided with right iudgment should euen transport mee with a detestation of the Church of Rome as a false Church then that I wot not what charity without Zeale without sound iudgement should so farre possesse me as to acknowledge the Church of Rome for a true Church yea or yet for a true or truly visible Church Answer Your zeale though transporting you is guided with right iudgement your Author though Reuerend is possessed with a charity without zeale without sound iudgement of the two you preferre your owne it seemes you dwell by bad neighbours Mr. Burton Else you fall within the compasse of Catoes Hoc faciunt stulti c. BVRTON And yet vnder correction I see no such difference betweene these two but that if we yeeld the church of Rome to be a true oâ— truely visible Church we may as well call it a true Church Answere If this will giue you content we will not striue with you though it may be wee might puzzle you And for the next Section it is already answered Author Neither for the chaffe doe we leaue the floore of God neyther for the badd fishes doe wee breake his nets BVRTON Whether that floore and those nets be Antichrists onely and not Gods shall appeare more fully anone Answer Where can you tell you promise it but you neuer performe it Author All truth is Gods wheresoeuer it is found not ours as the Kings coyne is currant though it bee found in any vncleane channell BVRTON True but when the truth of God is turned into a lye and the Kings coyne beaten into a thinne leafe c. the case is altered And so it is in the Church of Rome Answer It is vntrue and contrary to the Apologies of all the Reformed Churches who stand vpon it that they haue not made an innouation or renouation but onely a reformation which could not be if all Gods truth in the Church of Rome were turned into a lye and that Gods coyne the Scripture were vtterly defaced your selfe haue acknowledged it was not so before the Councell of Trent and I haue proued that it is no worse now if so ill as it was before And if some of those Churches which yet abide in the vnitie of the Church of Rome would depart from her and embrace the truth they would doe no otherwise then the Reformed Churches haue done already Author Fundamentall truth is like the Meronean wine which if it be mixed with twenty times so much water holds its strength BVRTON The comparison is pretty if it did hold water but what if into the Maronaean wine twenty times so much poyson be put Againe take the Maronaean wine and extract the spirits out of it what is it then but a dead vappa such is that truth which is now in the Church of Romes keeping c. Answer Here his zeale transports him almost to blasphemy for it is impossible that the fundamentall truth of Gods church should eyther be so poysoned or the spirits thereof so extracted as hee affirmeth if it were otherwise the gates of hell might preuaile against it but Zanchius saith a great deale better in his Preface before his Booke De natura Dei Non potuit Satan saith hee vel in ipsae Romanâ— ecclesia quacunque voluit efficere sicut in Orientals fecer at Invite enim S 〈…〉 ecclesia illa praecipua fidei fundamenta quanquam humanis doctrinis labefactata and this he said since the Councell of Trent Now let euery wise man iudge whether Zanchius or Burton be rather to bee credited Although I cannot dissemble my dissent also from Zanchy himselfe in this point for hee yeeldeth too much in my conceit That Sathan hath effected what hee would in the Orientall Church in abolishing fundamentall truth which vnder correction I suppose to be vntrue for that Church euen to this day holdeth the fundamentall truths of Christianitie as well as the Church of Rome But it may be he speaketh of defection to Mahometry which is not the Orientall Church Author The Sepulchre of Christ was ouerwhelmed by the Pagans with earth and rubbish c. yet still there was the Sepulchre of Christ And it is a ruled case of Papiniâ—n that a sacred place loseth not the holinesse with the demolished walls No more doth the Romane Church lose the claime of a true visible Church through her manifold and deplorable corruptions BVRTON How the Church of Rome may bee proued to be a true visible Church because once it was so by this comparison I see not and how a sound Christian may edifie his faith vpon a comparison from Papinians ruled case I cannot sauour All sound Diuines know that places are not further nor longer sacred then the vse remaineth whereupon at first they began to be sacred Answer Here is much adoe to small purpose he had little to doe to spend his time in confuting similitudes which were vsed of the Reuerend Author for no other purpose then that for which they were originally ordained which is not to proue but to illustrate which if hee had shewed they doe not hee had said somewhat to the purpose but that he could not for they are as apt and fit for the purpose as can be As for edification of any mans faith vpon these or other comparisons I am sure be neueâ— intended The very point wee haue it hand is no matter of faith but of fact Iâ— places remaine sacred so farre and so long as the vse remaineth whereupon at first they beganne to be sacred it 〈◊〉 all we desire for so answerably Rome must still be a true visible Church because the couenant betweene God and her still holdeth which was the thing which first made her to be a true visible Church for it followeth Author If the Church of Rome were once the Spouse of Christ and her adulteries are knowne yet the diuorce is not sued out BVRTON Is not the diuorce sued out Perhaps not in a legall formality but what if this once spouse of Christ not only play the open whore but professeth her selfe to be the maried wife of another man Is this woman still the spouse of her former husband though shee haue not sued out a legall diuorce Thus stands the case with the Church of Rome But what if Christ the first husband come and chalenge his spouse againe seeing this second mariage was a nullity Indeed the Lord is very mercifull Ier. 3. 1 Answer Now Mr. Burton as if hee had seene the head of Medusa seemes to be depriued of his senses Is it not saith he Perhaps not But what if this Is that But what if that Indeed then c. What staggering is this It seemes this argument hath so choaked him that he cannot speake without coughing If he could he should haue done well to haue left the allegory and to haue proued in plaine termes that the Couenant betweene
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