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
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
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
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