THE STATE OF THE NOW-ROMANE CHURCH.  
Discussed By way of vindication of the Right Reverend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of EXETER, From the weak cavils of HENRY BURTON.  
By H. C.  
LONDON, Printed for Nathaniel Butter.  
1629.   

TO THE RIGHT Reverend Father in GOD, JOSEPH, by the providence of God Lord Bishop of Exeter, Grace, mercy, and peace, be multiplied.  
Right Reverend and Honourable,  
MY very good Lord; It was well said of old, Let Baal plead 
judg. 6. 31.  for himself: And it may be said as well now, Let Babel plead for herself: yea let him be blessed that dasheth 
Psalm 137. 9  her little ones against the stones; And let it be done to her as she hath done to others; And let all 
Reuel. 18. 6.  the people of God say Amen.  
Nevertheless, herein (if in any thing in the world) great art and skill is to be used: For it is not for every fresh water soldier to fight against Babel. The Poet saith,  

In vitium ducil culpae fuga si caret arte. 

The want of skill to shun a shame,  
Doth bring a man to much blame.     
And it is a true saying that God loves Adverbs better than Adiectives, so as if a man do good things, and do them not well, he is an offender notwithstanding; so is it in this case: he that will make war against Babel, and will not do more hurt then good, had need to be well provided, and advised. Plutarch makes report of one, who unadvisedly casting a stone at a dog, hit and hurt his own mother; and so many there are who ignorantly and inconsiderately contending against Babel, do grievously wound the Church of God, and (as your Lordship saith truly) do more wrong to their cause, then to their adversaries: If any man be ignorant how this may be, and be willing to learn, you have well informed him in your last Book of the Old Religion; wherein you make it plain, that though Rome be Babel; yet so long as she is Babel, she shall have a people 
Reuel. 18. 4.  of God in her: so that as Saint Paul said, They are not all Israel that 
Rom. 9 6.  are of Israel; so may we in this case, They are not all Babel, that are in Babel, and communicate with Babel. If then a man have not a spiritual eye, to distinguish between Babel, and the people of God in Babel; how much mischief may he do in quarrelling with Babel? I would we had not too much experience hereof in some, who make good your Lordships too just censure, that Zeal transports them to such a detestation of the Roman Church, as if it were all error, no Church, and so that no soul can be saved therein: A fearful and heavy doom; of which a man may say, as Saint Bernard said in another case, Solo auditu contremisco: I tremble at the very hearing of it.  
Now your Lordship (as a good Soldier of jesus Christ, and one of the Colonels of the spiritual Army of the Lord of hosts) endeavouring amongst other errors to reform this, and to bring all into right and perfect order; that is, to train all the soldiers under your regiment according to the old discipline; which is, to intend to cure Babel, and not to destroy her before the time, (that it may truly be said of them, as well as of others, We would have cured Babel, 
jer. 51. 45.  but she would not be cured, the time of curing being not past, so long as it is called to day.) 
Heb. 3. 13.  There are risen up, I know not what hot-spurres, and bold Braggadochioes in the Camp, who mutinouslie do turn their weapons from Babel against you; as if you were therefore become their enemy because you tell them 
Gal. 4 16.  the truth. And amongst others, one Master, Henry Burton, hath publicly taken the quarrel upon himself in the name of all the rest; who being otherwise a man of good parts (as it should seem) and having a good meaning to do God's Church some service, yet overweening himself, and forgetting his place, hath given the common adversary too much advantage against us all. For being defective in Logic (our best engine, after the word of God) and trusting to nothing but mere sophistry, and failing in the truth, or true meaning of all his allegations; he hath not only shamed himself, but put us all out of order, hindered our good proceedings, weakened our own forces by division, and strengthened the enemy.  
Whereupon (it being not any way convenient that your Lordship should enter into the lists with him;) upon an incident occasion of speech about this matter in the beginning of September, it pleased you to accept an offer of my service in this business; although upon beare-say only at that time, and not otherwise, I had notice of his misbehaviour.  
Here therefore, I tender unto your Lordship some testimony, not so much of the old innocent familiarity, which almost from the cradle hath been between us; as of my readiness to perform all parts of that Canonical obedience, which being due to all my Diocesans; I am most joyful to yield unto you above, and before all the men in the world.  
Accept then (I beseech you) and protect, this unworthy seven day's defence of your worthy cause; protect it (I say) though not as your own (being unworthy) yet for your own, in respect of the worthy cause which is your own; And so I shall be encouraged to perform all offices not only to my ancientest, nearest, dearest, and greatest friend; but also to my Bishop, Lord, and Governor: and ever rest,  
Your Lordship's Chaplain in all humility to be commanded, Hugh Cholmeley.   

TO M. HENRY BURTON Rector of St. Mathewes in Friday●●●●● in London; H. C. Rector of the portion of Clare in the Parish of Tyverton in Devon, sendeth greeting.  
MAster Burton, as you are a man I altogether unknown to me, but only by your writings, so I am not desirous to be your adversary in any the least point of truth; I love you in the truth; and I oppose you in love of the truth; And if you can sound and substantially convince me of untruth; I profess before God and the world, that I will yield unto you without any more ado: being already willing to be overcome of the truth in this cause: You need not disclaim the match; I suppose myself your equal for time, studies, or labour; and if your desire be sincere, only to find out the truth; Lo, I am as you are: Pass by our Reverend Diocesan; and let me bear the brunt of this skirmish: Your victory shall be great enough; and your foil far more easy and tolerable.  
Your loving friend, and fellow Labourer in the work of the LORD, H. C.   

THE STATE OF the Now— Roman CHURCH.  
THere can be no more evident sign of a bad cause, then if it be handled falsely and sophistically: for (as Euripides saith)  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The truth is sound, her words are plain,  
Falsehood is sick; she needs must feign.   
Which being so, we may soon perceive what we are to think of Mr. Burtons' cause; who having taken upon himself to oppose men every way better than himself, about the truth, and true visibility of the Church of Rome; useth all kind of sophistry and deceit: as may appear both by the whole Discourse, and by every part and parcel thereof.  
In the whole you shall perceive two points of notable sophistry common to him with all those that maintain bad causes: One is Beggary, commonly called of the Logicians, Petitio principij, which proveth one obscure or uncertain thing by another; or would have that to be granted which reason denyeth: Another is Disorder, which is Horace's Humano capiti, etc. and Ovid's Rudis indigestaque moles. A confused heap of independencies, like a Lotterers' pitcher, full of scrolls shuffled together, without any reference one to another.  
His Beggary will soon appear, if we resolve this dispute into that Enthymeme, whereof it wholly consisteth; which is this: S. john saith, The second Angel poured out his vial upon the S●a, and it became as the blood of a dead man; and every living soul died in the sea: Ergo, the Church of Rome is neither a true Church, nor a true visible Church. To which I may say far better than Bishop said to Perkins: Apply john Barber, and thou shalt have a new pair of Sizors. Whether I wrong him or no, I refer myself to the censure of every judicious Reader: And if I wrong him not, every man may see, that he beggeth two things which no good Divine may yield unto him: One is, that an Allegorical Prophecy (such as this is) may be laid for a good foundation, whereon to frame an Argument to decide a Controversy in Divinity; contrary to the old Maxim, Theologia symbolica non est argumentativa: Allegories in divinity afford no good arguments. Especially if they be Prophecies, whereof there may be doubt whether they be fulfilled or no: in which case the trial is, to examine the perspicuity thereof: for a Prophecy, as of all Scriptures it is most obscure, before it be fulfilled; so when it is fulfilled it is of all other most clear, and easy: This therefore being an Allegory, and prophetical, and retaining the enigmatical darkness which it had originally (as appeareth by the various interpretations of the Learned, every day renewed) I for my part cannot suppose it to be yet accomplished; and so (to me) it is unfit for that use to which he hath employed it.  
The other point of his Beggary is, That his own private interpretation of these words may be allowed as the true meaning of the holy Ghost: which is, That by the Sea we are to understand the Doctrines of the Council of Trent▪ by the blood, the abominable corruptions thereof: by the Angel, Chemnitius, and other learned men of that time that examined it: and by the pouring out of the vial, their preachings and writings. All which he hath borrowed from Brightman, whom notwithstanding elsewhere he forsaketh. But now what if we deny him this interpretation; and require some proof hereof, what will he say then: Surely he is utterly disappointed, and all his building falls to the ground. If he say we must show some reason for our denial; besides that we have showed some already, it would be known, why we may not as well deny, as he affirm without reason: If this course be good, every man's private fantasy (especially if he can make some show of probability) must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Revelations Revelation: And then why may not Bellarmine's interpretation of the ninth cap. (Oratione in Scholis habita) wherein he turns all upon Luther and the Lutherans) pass for current? But lest I may seem to seek evasions; I will do that against him, which he cannot, or at least hath not yet done for himself: I will show some reason for my denial; and leave it to the judgement of the Learned: And because the ground of all is that the Council of Trent, or the doctrines thereof, are that bloody sea: I suppose it sufficient (if I prove it to be otherwise) to turn up all his fantastical Cavillation.  
First therefore I prove it ex praeconcessis; for he 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 have that third part of the Sea, to be 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 Council of Trent, is not the doctrine of the whole Christian world: Ergo it is not the Sea here mentioned by S. john.  
Secondly, upon the pouring out of this second Vial; this sea is turned into congealed and putrified blood, which (by his interpretation) signifieth that by the conclusions of the Council of Trent, Rome's doctrines are become mortal and damnable: and this puts a difference between the state of Rome's doctrines before the Council of Trent (while as yet they were in their growing) and after it: Before there was some fresh water, etc. but after none at all. So saith he: But I say that the Council of Trent hath not a whit corrupted Rome's Doctrines more than they were along time before: Ergo the Council of Trents conclusions are not here to be understood. I need not take pains in the proof hereof; because the learned do not accuse it of this fault; but that (whereas it promised reformation, and that it was expected there from) it cozened the world; and in stead of reforming confirmed the foul corruptions of the religion and doctrine of the Church which formerly had prevailed: Indeed Master Crashaw (whose memory for old acquaintance is precious to me) noteth one, (and but one) point of doctrine (for the other is only for practice) wherein the Council of Trent hath added some thing to the former corruptions, which is, the equalizing of the Apocrypha with the Canonical books of Scripture: But if we consider how he interpreteth himself (that no Council before had done the like) it will appear, that he denyeth not, but that even that corruption also was inveterate ●efore the Council of Trent.  
Thirdly, I say that the Council of Trent hath reform Rome's doctrine, and made it (at least in one point) better than it was before: Ergo it is not here to be understood. The point is this, that there is no natural ability in a man, to prepare himself 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 days.  
Fourthly, I say that there is as much fresh water in Rome's doctrines since the Council of Trent, as there was before: Ergo it is not here to be understood. This I prove, by the doctrine of the Tridentine Catechism, in every part whereof there is sufficient quantity of saving doctrine for those that (to use your own words) can search and find it out: separating the good from the bad, and truth from error: as may appear to them that will take the pains to read it: yea I dare be bold to say, the Church of Rome had not for many hundred years before the Council of Trent, so good a form of doctrine, as that Catechism containeth: which I speak not to justify the Council, or the Catechism, in any error comprehended therein; but only to show the beggary of the adversary: of which this shall be sufficient.  
His disorder shows itself in three things; First, in not setting the state of the question: Secondly, in misplacing his own arguments: Thirdly, in idle repetitions. For the first: There cannot be a greater fault in a Disputant, then either to leave the question altogether unstated; or else to state it amiss; for by this means it ordinarily falls out, that the contention is nothing else but Andabatarum pugna, the fight at blind man buff (as we say,) so as a man may miss ten times, before he hit once: But of the two the former is the worse, wherein this our adversary offendeth: If he say, he took it as he found it; it will not excuse: For I dare say his pretended adversaries intended not a combat; if they had, they would have deprived him of the occasion of much babbling: And yet, had he not listed to be contentious, he might have picked such a state of the question out of the defenders writings, as might have d●●led the edge of his quarrelsome humour: for the state being set aright, and with perspicuity, it will easily appear to which side the truth inclineth: wherefore that I offend not in that wherein I find him to be faulty; I will do that which he hath left unperformed. First then we 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, have many senses, and significations: The Church of Rome hath at least eight several acceptions: For sometimes it noteth the particular Diocese of the Roman territory, commonly called the particular Roman Church: Sometimes (and most usually) it comprehendeth all the national Churches which communicate with Rome in the same faith, and under the same head, the Pope, commonly called the Catholic Roman Church: Sometimes the Clergy of that Church is only understood by that title, commonly called the Church representative: Sometimes the people only, commonly called the Laity, and of some the popular Church of Rome: Sometimes the whole body of Clergy and Laity: Sometimes the Papacy, or Apostasy in that Church, which is S. john's Babylon: Sometimes the Elect in that Church, still communicating with the Papacy, which S. john calls God's people: And sometimes the hidden Church which is in the Roman Church, and yet communicateth not with her abominations; which some call the Church in the wilderness. Again, A Church is said to be true, diverse ways: As first materially, in that it consisteth of a people comprehended within the compass of God's Covenant of life, and salvation: Secondly, formally, in regard of frame, and constitution: Thirdly, accidentally, in regard of soundness, and outward communion. Thirdly, a Church is said to be truly visible for the true marks of a Church which it hath; either in regard of itself within itself; 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 again, it is said to be visible, either strictly and properly, when the whole Church is visible at once, and all together (which is only true of particular Congregations) or largely and Synechdochically, when the whole cannot be visible together, and at once, but by peacemeale, and succession: and so the Catholic Church here on earth may truly be said to be 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 divers men do set the state of this question diversely, as may best serve for their own private ends and purposes: yet I will take it in the largest extent, and as it may be most favourable for the Church of Rome: Thus; Whether the Catholic Church of Rome (as it is called in opposition to the Diocese) in regard of the whole body thereof compounded of Clergy and Laity, be still within the covenant of Gods saving grace: and have such marks of that covenant still abiding in it, that though properly at once, and all together it cannot be visible, yet by piecemeal, and successively, 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 own arguments; which I take not as if it were done ignorantly, as not knowing what he should have done; (for he excuseth himself for it, supposing it superfluous to do it) but artificially for his best advantage; It seems he trusted more to the gentleness of his adversaries, and to his own ability in opposing them; then to the strength of his own, and his power to maintain them; and so brings them in as it were by way of ambu●●. But howsoever it hath pleased him to proceed; I may not pass them over in this place without trial; unless I would incur the same suspicion: Let us see therefore how he proveth the negative.  
His first argument, (wherein he placeth his greatest confidence) is briefly propounded pag. 24. but more at large pag. 90. of his Advertisement, and it lieth thus. 
That Church which denieth, yea accurseth, the saving faith of jesus Christ unto justification; allowing only such a faith which can never save a man, but is a graceless faith, separable from grace, and which a man may carry with him into Hell; that is an Apostatised Church; utterly fall'n away from Christ, wherein no salvation 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 sophistical: The assumption, because it is false: and I need not then doubt to deny the conclusion. The proposition is sick of that Sophism, which the Logicians call secundum plures interrogationes, or propositiones: that is, when many Propositions are joined 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 utterly fallen away from Christ: a third, that no salvation is to be found or hoped for therein. Of which the first only is true, and the rest notoriously false, and against the Scripture: for first, to deny, yea to accurse saving Faith, & to allow the contrary, is not a point of total & final Apostasy, unless it be joined with malice and obstinacy; and be the sin against the holy Ghost, to which repentance is utterly denied. Else what shall we say of S. Peter who both denied and cursed the knowledge of Christ in himself. Secondly, if this be true, (as it is) then may salvation be found, and hoped for, notwithstanding that denial, cursing, and approbation. Thirdly, it must be remembered, that our question is of the whole body of the Church, that i●▪ neither of the popular part only, nor of the representative only, but of both together: if then the one part only shall do as he saith, and not the whole body, who can say that there is no salvation to be found therein, or that it is utterly fall'n away from Christ. So much for the Proposition.  
In the next place I say the Assumption is evidently false, if not more then slanderous: For first the Church of Rome (whether partially, or wholly understood) never denied, never accursed saving and justifying Faith, nor ever allowed a graceless faith only which cannot save, etc. Look upon all the Canons of the Council of Trent, and see whether any such thing be to be found therein, or gathered therefrom: doth it not distinguish between a living and a dead faith? And doth it not say that the living Faith only justifieth, and not the dead? what is it then that it denyeth and accurseth? It is this, first, the form and manner of justification by Faith: when it is said to justify as the very form of justification, and not as a mere disposition thereto. Secondly this assertion, that a dead faith separate from grace is not a true faith; though it cannot justify: this is that which the Counsel denyeth and accurseth in this case, and no more; yet you say boldly if not impudently, pag. 25. If any dare deny this he will but bewray his shameless ignorance in this point. In what point M. Burton? That the Council of Trent admitteth of no other faith then that which the Devils and damned in hell have? O mouth! O forehead! Have they a living Faith; which is fruitful in good works? Such a Faith as S. ●ames commendeth? And doth not the Council admit of this Faith? yea of this only for justification? Read the latter part of the seventh Chapter of the sixth Session, and be ashamed. Secondly, say the Counsel had done so indeed; Doth the whole Church of Rome do it? Doth the popular part thereof do it? By your own words, page 25. they deny it. Yea but they believe as the Church believes. True, but with a secret condition, If the Church believe well, and in that only wherein it believeth aright: Being deceived in nothing, but that they trust the Church too much; for if they could be persuaded she believeth amiss in any thing, therein they would not believe as she doth. But you will prove that Rome's justifying faith is different in kind from the true saving Faith of Christ. How? Can you tell? Marry thus. 
That faith which Christ commendeth for the only true saving faith, doth so justify a man that he shall never come into condemnation, but pass from death unto life:  
But the only faith which the Church of Rome alloweth doth not so.  
Ergo, Advertisement. pag. 91.   
I answer: A Papist, or Arminian would deny the Proposition; but I grant it, and deny the Assumption: for let the Church of Rome confess what she will in her own wrong; I say, that that faith which the Church of Rome only alloweth for justification (viz a living faith fruitful in good works) doth so save, and justify a man, that he cannot go with it into condemnation: and dare you say the contrary? This is his first Argument.  
The second is this: 
That Church which cleaveth to Antichrist as her head, whence she receiveth all her spiritual life, is no true Church; nor hath any salvation to be found, or hoped for in her.  
But the Church of Rome doth so.  
Ergo. Advertisement. pag. 91. 92.   
I deny the Assumption; Not for that I deny 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 cleaveth not to him as her head in that name: Secondly, because, although some Popes have antichristianly said, that all spiritual grace and life is derived from the Pope, and that some of their Parasites have flatteringly acknowledged it, yet neither the representative church of Rome by itself, nor the popular by itself, much less the whole and entire body did ever yield unto it; but have from time to time opposed themselves against it: especially if the question be of an absolute, foveraigne, and supreme head; and not of a subordinate and ministerial head, as you propound it: Thirdly, because in these spiritual things there is such a conjunction of good and evil 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 receives its life severally from its own head, and not from the head of the other: As it is in the regenerate man, in whom the flesh and the spirit are always companions in this life; yet so, as the flesh receiveth nothing from the holy Ghost, nor the spirit from Adam's transgression. And so is it in the case we have in hand: for in the church of Rome there is an inseparable conjunction of Babylon and the people of God, yet so as Babylon receives no grace from Christ, nor the people of GOD apostasy from the Pope, for being members of both in diverse respects, they have grace from the one, and apostasy 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 marks of a true visible Church:  
But the Church of Rome hath not those true marks. Ergo.   
The Assumption whereof being to be denied, he proveth 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 always three notes or marks whereby it is known: Pure and sound doctrine, etc. Now if you would compare this with the Church of Rome, etc. To which I answer, That these words must receive a favourable construction; or else they make as much against him, as against us; and with such construction they make more for us, then for him. And what is this construction? First, they must be understood of the accidental truth of the Church in regard of soundness, (as the words do expressly import) and not of essential truth in regard of God's Covenant: Secondly, they must be understood even of soundness comparatively, and not simply, that is, in regard of the Primitive Church, and not otherwise. Else he must grant, that the Church of Rome hath not been a true visible Church these nine hundred years: where as he allows it to have been so till the Council of Trent, as appeareth in all this Discourse.  
Now for Bellarmine▪ I am sorry such a superficial. Reader should meddle with him, to the shame of our whole Nation: Mark how he reasoneth; Bellarmine disclaimeth these three as proper marks of the Church: Ergo the Church of Rome hath them not. I pray what consequence is here? First may not a man disclaim that which he hath, for some si●ister respects best known to himself? as pride, and presumption in meddling in causes, and with persons too high for him, and the like? Secondly, doth Bellarmine disclaim them simply, and not only in comparison of mere proper marks? Thirdly, may not the Church of Rome have them as marks 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 himself) put these three into the definition of the Church? and doth he not by them distinguish the Church from all other sorts of men whatsoever? Professione verae fidei, Sacramentorum communione, subiectione ad proprium Rastorem? Fiftly, is it not a Maxim of Bellarmine's, 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 inveniantur? 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 find pag. 35. to this purpose: 
If the Church of Rome cannot demonstrate itself to be a true Church, than it is no true Church:  
But it cannot: Ergo 〈…〉   
To this many things are to be answered; because both propositions are to be denied: 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 have no being, or not be that which they are; even the Scripture itself should not be the word of God, because it cannot be demonstrated so to be, to a natural man. Secondly, because want of ability to make demonstration, especially of the parties own being, is much less able to do 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 utterly unable to demonstrate themselves so to be? The latter proposition is to be denied, because it is untrue: for if by demonstration, you mean, the proof of those three marks mentioned in the Homily; the church of Rome can by them demonstrate herself to be a true Church (according to the kind and proportion of truth) as well as any other Church: And all that will acknowledge her to be a true Church, will and must acknowledge her to have the true marks of the true Church, in the same degree of truth, wherein she is acknowledged to be a true Church.  
But you can prove by two arguments, that she cannot do it: First, because Bellarmine is constrained to confess, that all his 15. marks cannot make it evidently true, but only evidently credible that it is a true Church: I answer, First this is not true; Bellarmine saith no such thing: he hath not the word Only: but thus he speaketh; Though they make it not evidently true, yet do they make it evidently credible: yea he distinguisheth between Heathens which admit not the Scriptures, and Christians which do; and saith, that to them it makes them evidently credible; but to these evidently true as well as evidently 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 do it by these his fifteen marks (say you:)  
Ergo, he cannot do it at all.  Is this a good kind of reasoning? Indeed it argueth his folly, or rather madness in forsaking those marks, which can demonstrate it, and cleaning to those which cannot do it; but it doth not prove that he cannot do it by any other means.  
In the second place therefore you endeavour to prove it by Rome's own doctrine, and confession: about her baptism, (the only relic (say you) which some suppose is sufficient to prove her a true Church) which is this, That the efficacy of baptism depends upon the Priest's intention: whereof because no man can be certain, therefore no man can be certain whether he were rightly baptised; and so cannot be certain 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 himself to be a true member of the Church: Ergo, not all together.  And what the? 
That Church whose members either severally or together cannot demonstrate themselves to be members of the true Church, cannot demonstrate herself to be a true Church:  
But the members of the Church of Rome, neither severally, nor together can do it:  
Ergo, She herself cannot do it.  That I may give a full and sufficient answer to this large argument, which is taken from Rome's own doctrine and confession: I must signify unto him; that it seems to me that he knows not what Rome's doctrine and confession in this point is: First therefore he 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 virtual intention is sufficient, without the actual, or habitual: But what is that virtual intention? Some say, that the very pronouneing of the words, I baptise thee, etc. are sufficient thereto; Nec aliud requiri ex parte ministri, and that there is no more required on the behalf of the Minister: So Thomas, Part. 3. de Sacr. qu. 64. art. 8. ad 2. and so Catharine the Bishop of Minori in the Council of Trent, held and affirmed: And Bellarmine himself though of the contrary opinion, (viz. that the inward intention of the Priest is required) yet is constrained to distinguish the perfectione Sacramenti; simpliciter, & absolutè; & de perfectione eiusdem coram hominibus: and so agreeth, that if we 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, he must know what certainty it is which the Church of Rome meaneth, when she confesseth that no man can be certain of the intention of the Priest: for she distinguisheth of certainty in this case: One is certainty of faith, which is infallible; another humane, and moral; the former she confesseth cannot ordinarily be had: but the latter may: which she accounteth to be sufficient; and this comes full to Vega; who denieth infallible certainty of salvation; because no man can have infallible certainty of the truth of his baptism, for want of the like certainty of the Priest's intention: but on the contrary, for moral and conjectural certainty, he acknowledgeth that a man may and aught to have it of the Priest's intention, (unless he declare his naughty mind by some outward sign) and so of the truth of his baptism; and lastly of his own salvation. For which distinction see Bellarmine ubi supra. §. Respondeo, non debere hominem.  
These things premised, his Arguments are easily answered. First therefore the Assumption of the last is denied: for they profess themselves able to demonstrate both severally and together that they are true members of the true Church; because they have sufficient certainty of the truth of their Baptism; because they have a like sufficient certainty of the Priest's intent on; leaning secrets unto God; and so all that is builded hereon, that the Church cannot demonstrate herself to be a true Church, falls flat to the ground; which may also be said of the intention of the Bishop in ordaining. Secondly, how can he prove the Assumption, unless he go 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 Baptism. It is twenty to one, but some one or other can show a Revelation, that the Priest had an actual intention to do as the Church doth in baptising him: Thirdly, they say they can say as much to assure them of the Priest's intention in their Baptism, as we which are baptised in our infancy, can say to assure us that we were baptised: which is only the Church book, and testimony of our Parents, Godfathers, Godmothers and other friends, which is only humane, moral & conjectural assurance, and not divine and infallible, See Bellarmine ubi supra. § Et Nota. So much for the fourth.  
The last Argument pag. 32. is this: 
That Church which wants the ordinary means of salvation, is no true Church:  
But the Church of Rome wants the ordinary means of salvation, the preaching, and hearing of the Gospel: yea it teacheth hers, to hate and abhor it, and to call it heresy.  
Ergo.   
I answer they want it, & they want it not: They hate it, and they hate it not: They want and hate the soundness, and purity thereof, as it is enjoyed in the Reformed Churches; but they neither want nor hate it, as it is corrupted by their own traditions; which cannot wholly deprive it of all saving virtue, as hath been already proved. And why (I pray) should we not be content in common commiseration to bear with them in this case; as we do with those people which dwell in fenny, foggy & marish grounds, and countries, who coming into places of fresh air, and healthy diet, do complain that it is not good nor wholesome, because it agrees not with their more gross constitution? If another man live by poisoned meats, I will not envy him, so long as I feed on that which is sound, and man's meat (as we say.) And so much for his Arguments.  
Thus have I showed Mr. Burtons' second point of disorder in misplacing his Arguments; and have (as well as I can) righted it, and answered them. The third and last follows, which are his idle Repetitions, and Tautologies; which if they were taken out of his book, it would be by the one half, less than it is: as will appear by the answer to the particulars.  
Now here I must crave favour of the Christian Reader, that (being constrained by the misbehaviour of our adversary, to lay open his foul oversights, in charging the Church of Rome, the Council of Trent, and Bellarmine with untruths, which he ought not to have done) he would not suppose me to be any whit inclining or addicted to Popery (as the manner of the world is now-a days.) No: I praise God I am as far from Popery, as M. Burton himself is or can be. But I would not have men either to maintain bad causes against the Church of Rome, or to maintain good causes with bad arguments, and least of all to maintain bad causes with worse arguments, (as I know too many have done to our no little disadvantage). It is an excellent point of manhood to let the enemy have his utmost due; and not to silly to overcome him by base and cowardly means. This I desire, and have always endeoured; and this is all which hitherto I have done in this Treatise, or purpose to do hereafter. And if the good Reader will be placed to believe me, and to grant me this reasonable motion; I hope he shall perceive that I have not abused either him, or mine adversary, or my cause, or my Lord, (whose cause I have undertaken) or myself in undertaking it: and so I proceed.  

BURTON.  
Before we proceed to the third Vial, for the fuller confirmation of what hath been said of the estate of the church of Rome, whose Sea of doctrines is all turned into mortal blood in the second vial: it will be very requisite here to discuss one question:  
Whether the Church of Rome be either a true Church, or a true visible Church?  

Answer.  
Here is a long Exordium to a short Cause: of which it may truly be said, Causaanceps, Exordium vitiosum: Such a Cause, such an Exordium; Such a Cup, such a Cover In which (containing a whole lease) he craveth favour and attention, after the manner of the Orators, from three Rhetorical arguments; The quality of the question His own good handling there of and The condition of his own person, The question affords him two favourable arguments: One, for that it is requisite to be discussed in this place: Another, for that it is weighty and of great moment. The necessity of the discussion is for the fuller confirmation of that he hath said of the Church of Rome. And indeed it is very necessary that he prove, and that very substantially and sound (as he saith in the words following) That the Church of Rome is neither a true, nor a true visible Church; or else all he hath said is nor worth a rush. For if it be, then is not her Sea of Doctrines turned into mortal blood in this second Vial: nor the Council of Trent this Sea of mortal blood, nor Chemnitius the Angel, nor any thing so as he hath said. But mark here (I pray) his Circulation: Before, he proved the Church of Rome to be no true Church, because all her doctrines are mortal: and now he proves all her doctrines to be mortal, because 〈◊〉 is no true Church, which manner of reasoning goes for currant with him, 〈◊〉 all this part of his Treatise. But let that pass. Now if his answers prove no better than his arguments have done (as I doubt they will not,) it had been far more requisite for him to have left this question altogether indiscussed in this place, and to have proceeded directly to the third Vial without any more ado; for so both he and his followers might have fallen into the ditch without any observation; whereas now all the world must take notice thereof to their shame and discredit.    

BURTON.  
A question of so much the greater moment, by how much some, by their ●o small authority, and no less renowned opinion in the Church, do so sway the balance on that side, that many ill affected, & of the adverse party, taking the advantage, are apt to catch the word out of their mouth, and to say, Thy mother Church of Rome, etc.  

Answer.  
This is the second Argument by which the Question begs him some favours for indeed it cannot be d●●yed to be very weighty, tending either to the admission or expulsion of many millions of souls either into, or out of the Church of Christ. But both his comparative amplification, and his Rhetorical anticipation (by the one whereof he would breed envy to his adversaries, not only for oppressing the truth with their authority, and estimation in the Church; but also for giving a perilous, and unseasonable advantage to the Papists, and popishly affected: and by the other would free himself and his from fault) I say both of these do admit many, and those very just exceptions. For first, who are those some in authority in the Church, of whom he speaketh? I doubt not but he meaneth his elect adversaries, & other reverend Fathers, and Ministers of our Church, who are of a contrary opinion to him: But our worthy fellow, and friend, M. William Bedle (now Rector of the College and University of Dubline) in his Letters to Waddesworth, pag. 75. tells him, and that in truth, That this opinion is not only favoured of many great Scholars in England, but is the common opinion of all the best Divines of the Reformed Churches that are, or have been in the world. And it is so well known to the common Adversaries, that Brierley in his Apology of the Roman Church, Tract. 1. Sect. 6. Subdivis. 3. And Smith in his book of the Author and essence of the Protestant Church and Religion, Lib. 1. cap. 2. have made whole Catalogues of them; wherein you shall find truly billed, The Augustane Confession, Luther, Calvin, junius, Zanchius, Plessaeus, Bucanus, Polanus, Saravia, Boysseul, Vorstius, and Martyr: And of our own, King james, Andrew's, Hooker, Covell, Whitaker, Moreton, Feild, Powel, Reinolds, White, and Hall our reverend Diocesan, our joy & crown, and your meek, and sweet spirited adversary, as you truly call him, pag. 52. To whom they add by necessary consequence many more, as Beza, Melancthon, Pappus, Schusselburge, joannes Regius, Leonardus Crentremius, Whitgift, Lubbertus, Brentius, Magdeburgenses, Da●aeus, jewel, Fulk, Bale, Zuinglius, Bucer, Molinaeus, Bell, Mason, Sadeel, yea and Perkins himself, who of all the rest seems to be furthest off from this opinion; but these they add, because they allow them the Covenant, the calling of Pastors, the holding of all the necessary points of the foundation, and salvation itself, which being granted, the true Church cannot be denied unto them.  
Lo these are the some, which sway the balance on the contrary side to you, being indeed of no small authority, and ●o less renowned opinion in the church; And not some few in our Church of note and authority, as you would insinuate.  
Secondly, who are those many ill affected, and of the adverse party, who take advantage hereof? and when did they do it? you would make the world believe that this were a new thing occasioned by these some in authority, whom you have made your adversaries: But they are no less than the whole Church of Rome, and that even from our first separation from her; as may appear by the Apologies of all the reformed Churches; and by Bellarmine: thirteenth note of the Church de Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 16. Sect. Idem de Haereticis, herein therefore you are greatly to be blamed.  
Thirdly, what is the advantage which they take? and what is the peril thereof? doubtless some extraordinary thing (I warrant you) never heard of, before these men gave it in these lukewarm, indifferent, neutralizing days; Thy Mother Church of Rome; forsooth: A perilous advantage, I promise you; To acknowledge that truth in lukewarm times, which was always openly known and professed: For whoever denied, but we were sometimes members of that Church? and with what face can it be denied? of which I may well say, (as Saint Paul said in another case) if it be perilous, it is perilous to them that perish, in whom the god of this world hath blinded their eyes that they should believe lies, because they never entertained the truth in love; and if to them it be perilous, let it be perilous; their blood be upon their own heads: If we testifying our love and good opinion of them in the bowels of Christ jesus; they turn it to their own perdition; we are not under bondage in this case: But if any advantage be to be taken in this respect, undoubtedly (saith worthy Bedel, ubi supra) we have it of them, and not they of us, in that what we do, we do it of charity; but they of ignorance, or malice, or both.    

BURTON.  
Popery hath learned to get over the style again fast enough without our help.  

Answer.  
Master Burton; do we help Popery (as it were an old dog) over the style again, in acknowledging this truth? No, this is Non causa pro causa: If this would have helped, the style had never been made; that which helpeth it over is the just judgement of God for our sins; and especially for the contempt of the sincere truth of the Gospel: and not the maintaining of any truth: let us truly repent of them, and I dare be bold to say in the name of God, that, This shall never help Popery more either now, or hereafter, than it hath done always heretofore.    

BURTON.  
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.  

Answer.  
Indeed you are the only religious Politician of these times, and know better what is to be done in these cases, than they that sit at the stern: There is no man so senseless (I suppose) but he knows, that all truths are not either to be published, urged, or countenanced at all times. There is a time for all things, (saith Solomon) A time to keep silence, and a time to speak: But when these times are, it were far better for you, and me, and all private persons to leave to the wisdom of our Governors, then to prescribe any thing to them therein: But now a days all men will be Privy Councillors; and he is a very dolt, that cannot govern the whole State, Church, and Kingdom, far better than now it is governed. So much for the amplification.    

BURTON.  
But why then (say they) do others cry down the Church of Rome for no true Church at all 〈◊〉 Surely, this was a fault, if it were an untruth: For give the devil his due (as we say.) It is good therefore that all men be well advised in this point, in speaking of the Church of Rome Pro or contra, as a true church or no; it being a matter not to be maintained by fineness of wit, or acquaint rhetorical discourse, but upon sound ground, & substantial demonstration.  

Answer.  
This is your anticipation; wherein you answer a supposed objection, thereby to free yourself from fault in crying down the truth, and true visibility of the Church of Rome; It is no fault (say you) because it is no untruth: But you know that is the question: And beside, have you so soon forgotten your own policy? That though it were true, yet the countenancing, or pressing of it in these times might very well be spared? Can you imagine that in these lukewarm, indifferent, neutralizing days, you shall not find enough that will take up the bucklers against you? will you give the onset, and be faultless? and shall they only that oppose you be the offenders? there is no reason at all for that; In a mutiny it is hard but both sides will be found faulty: well then; Let the Devil have his due (say you; and so say I too) yet it is good (say you) that all men be well advised in this point, etc. Let this word stand: Only I crave that it may not be taken for granted (which you rhetorically beg of your friends,) that you have the sound grounds, and substantial demonstrations; and that we have nothing but fineness of wit, and acquaint rhetorical discourses: and upon these terms let the cause be determined: And so much for the quality of the question.    

BURTON.  
Now for the more clear and full, yet brief discussion of the point, it shall suffice only to answer such arguments as are used for it; whereupon the positive truth will easily be concluded.  

Answer.  
Now you come to the second argument of your Exordium, by which you scrape acquaintance with your Readers; which is, a promise to handle this question well; that is, clearly, fully, and briefly; to which end you think it sufficient to answer such arguments as are used against you: But how you offend herein I have showed already.    

BURTON.  
Wherein I must crave pardon, having to deal in so weighty a cause, and with such mighty Authors, as have already tanquam e Cathedra defined it. But God forbid that the try all of truth should depend upon the opinion of any man's person; though never so great, or esteemed in the opinion of the learned. My brethren (saith Saint james) have not the faith of our Lord jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons: And 〈…〉 Saint Augustine against Maximinus an Arrian Bishop, said) Nec ●u mihi Ariminense, nec ego tibi Nicenum Concilium objiciam, etc.  

Answer.  
This is the third argument taken from the condition of your person, being so weak and unworthy to deal in such a cause, and with such Authors: wherein first you crave pardon of your boldness, and after clear yourself of such imputations, as may be laid to your charge: For the former; it is counted the part of an unwise man to crave pardon of a fault, when it is in his own power not to offend: If it be a fault, why would you run into it? if it be none, why do you crave pardon? But indeed it cannot be denied to be a great fault for any man to meddle in matters too high, and with persons too great for him, if David, Psalm. 131. 1. and Siracides, Ecclus, 8. 1. say true: For as Py●●acus counselled his friend in the case of marriage to do as the ●●ies playing with top & scourge, said one to another, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: T● tibi so 〈…〉 rem: Take to thyself thy peer 〈…〉 is it good 〈◊〉 every man to contend with his match, and not to meddle with his betters, unless he will befool himself in the end But it is the trial of truth (you say) and God forbid that should depend upon the opinion of any man's person: True: But first a man must be sure of a warrant for his doing; for every man may not contend with his betters in trial of truth upon his own head. Secondly, he must not behave himself lawe●ly (as you do here) saying they have defined the contrary, tanquam è Cathedra: Else it may fall out (as you say to the Papists, pag. 24.) that God forbid will not serve the turn: neither will S. james (who would not have many mast 〈…〉 s) speak for you: nor Saint Augustine (who contended with his fellow Bishop) plead for you. And so much for your petition.    

BURTON.  
Nor let any man here impute presumption to the weakness or unworthiness of my person, as though I took a pride to be 〈…〉 edling with such high matters, and wherein great ones are interessed: Alas, God knows, I take so little pride herein, etc.  

Answer.  
Come we now to your purgation, wherein you clear yourself of pride and presumption by way of anticipation: Some man perhaps would say, Vbi dolour, ibi digitus; and that where men are guilty of greatest weakness, there they make greatest preparation; and that when a man clears himself without an accuser, Aliquid latet, quod non patet: But seeing you call God to witness, I had rather believe you, then suspect you; yet give me leave to tell you what I could say against you, if I were disposed; notwithstanding all you can say for yourself to the contrary. First, David, ubi supra, makes it an infallible note of pride to be exercised in matters and with persons of this quality. Secondly, many passages in this your second Vial (to go no further) do send forth a rank savour of some such thing: as first, those words, Though it were true, that the Church of Rome were a true Church, yet the countenanting, or pressing it in these times, might very well be spared; which are very high: So those; It is good for all men to be well advised in this point, it being a matter not to be maintained by fineness of wit, etc. wherein you covertly praise yourself, and dispraise your adversaries intolerably. So those, I must crave pardon, having to deal with such Authors, as have already tanquam 〈◊〉 Cathedra defined the cause. Insolent words. Then those, Cucullus non facit Monachum; which is as much as if you had said, A Rochet makes not a Bishop. And those, What a strange doctrine is this for a learned Doctor (and more than so) of the Church of England) to teach? Doth he not deserve to be the Pope's white son for it? which are words of reproach. Finally those, Now let the Reverend Author judge indifferently, having well weighed the former reasons, whether we do ill or no in taking this his saying ill; or whether we had not reason to have expected an ingenuous palinody, or Augustine like retraction, rather than such an Apology; which whether it be rather to be pitied, than any uncharitableness in the reader in taking such a saying ill; let judicious charity itself judge: where may a man find pride, if here be none? yet for all this, you profess many things to the contrary; as first that    

BURTON.  
My heart is even torn in sunder, to see the rueful rents of the Church of God, and the truth so opposed, so oppressed.  

Answer.  
But jeremy tells you, the heart is deceitful above measure; and the learned say, that it is not so deceitful in any thing as in pride; in so much as if it were possible to be without pride, yet would it be proud that it is not proud: and so even while your heart is torn in sunder with sorrow, you may be proud in exercising yourself in things, and with persons that be too high, notwithstanding.    

BURTON.  
And when God's glory suffers, pardon me, if I profess myself a poor defendant.  

Answer.  
What? without a calling? might not Vzza put forth his hand to stay the shaking of the Ark, and may you do it? But wherein (I pray) doth God's glory suffer any thing in our case? Is it any dishonour to God to be faithful in keeping his covenant for ever, even with his enemies? Is not this the highest point of his glory, wherein of all the rest he most glorieth? O Master Burton, pretend not the glory of God, against the glory of God, there is nothing more easy, more usual, more dangerous.    

BURTON.  
Yea, my profession, not only as a Christian, but much more as a Minister of the Gospel, binds me to it.  

Answer.  
Then let all Christendom go together by the ears, and let Ministers be the Ringleaders and Boutefewes.    

BURTON.  
And I know that God regardeth no man's person.  

Answer.  
True: But he will have all men to be sure of a warrant for their doings.    

BURTON.  
And as the proverb is, Cucullus non facit Monachum.  

Answer.  
Neither doth the wearing of a Lion's skin, make a Lyon.    

BURTON.  
And were it not a matter so nearly concerning the glory of God, and the salvation of men's souls, I had far rather sit me down in safe and sweet silence, wherein I should have the more opportunity to pray for the peace of jerusalem, than any way stand up to contend.  

Answer.  
Indeed this is the thing which of all other you had most need to purge yourself of. This contentious humour which (some say) is predominant in you: for (if Solomon say true) a man so qualified must needs be presumptuous: And how do you do it? You pretend again the glory of God. But you have heard that that may be but a colour. Next, the salvation of men's souls: But how can that be, when you damn all Papists to the Devil? Thirdly, your choice of private retiredness: But that is questionable. Lastly, your devotion: But Quid verba audiam, cum facta vidiam?    

BURTON.  
But it is God's quarrel, and that against Babylon.  

Answer.  
First, let that be proved: then let God be a God of order, and not of confusion.    

BURTON.  
Peace is beautiful indeed; but there is a what peace? In which regard Christ the Prince of peace said, I came not to send peace into the earth, but a sword. As fair as peace is, we must not make an Idol of it, we must keep Christ's peace.  

Answer.  
God forbid else: But we must know then of what spirit we are. We have had late experience of the too 〈◊〉 desire of many forward spirits to break our peace, and to unsheathe the sword, but I cannot be persuaded, that either this is Christ's sword, o● that that was not Christ's p●●be.    

BURTON.  
And in these perilous days it being almost as dangerous to be ignorant of the mystery of iniquity; as of the mystery of Godliness; let no man think it labour superfluous, or presumptuous, to search out the true mystery of Popery.  

Answer.  
You say well: But first you must not do it like Skogan, as well where it is not, as where●● is: Then, you must not do it so, that you take away all the mystery thereof at one blow, by denying the Roman Church to be a true, or true visible Church of Christ: ●or where then is any mystery? Is there any mystery in judaism, turkism, or Paganism.    

BURTON.  
But (I say) in this 〈◊〉 kind of 〈…〉 upon 〈◊〉.  

Answer.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est Necessity, with a great N. hath imposed this task upon you, and woe be to you if you do it not: If you had said so much a first, it had been enough. This is that I expected all this while: but I hope I shall make it appear, that this Necessity was never of God's imposition. And so much for your Preface: Let us now examine your sound and substantial Answers.  
But here I must admonish the Reader, that he dealeth with three several Authors: with two he contendeth very briefly, and with a kind of neglect, about salvation in the Church of Rome: with the third (being a Reverend Antistes of the Church of England) he findeth himself more to do: & that (as I suppose) because a kind of Necessity hath imposed this task upon him.    

BURTON.  
The first main Argument, which would conclude the Church of Rome to be a true Church, is, because (say they) a man in that Church may be saved: for out of the Church no salvation; Therefore the Church of Rome must be a true Church.  

Answer.  
These words, (as should seem by the words say they) are common to both the former Authors: who (if they have framed their main argument no better) are worthy to be blamed; unless it were done popularly without suspicion of opposition; as it may very well be supposed: The argument is this. 

Out of the true Church of Christ there is no salvation:  
In the Church of Rome there is salvation Ergo,  
The Church of Rome is not out of the true Church of Christ.      

BURTON.  
Who are they that may be saved in the Church of Rome? My Author expresseth, An bonest ignorant Papist, or some ignorant silly souls etc. yea, and this is delivered in the name of our Church, or at least of all those, that being affected to the Church of Rome in some good measure, would seem to be the Church of England.  

Answer.  
Whether you deal well with your Authors or no I know not: for you do not sever them so well as you should; and indeed we shall find in the end, that you might well have joined them together as one man; for any disagreement that can be found between them: It seems here you have to do with one only: for I must go by guess; not knowing well what to make of your answer: you seem to deny the Assumption of the Argument, by demanding who may be saved in the Church of Rome? and than bring in your author answering in the name of the Church of England: and indeed (taking the words you have related, in a good sense, as I doubt not but the Author meant them, and not as you misconstrue them) they may well be delivered, not only in the name of our Church; but of all the reformed Churches in the world.   

Author.  
We acknowledge an honest ignorant Papist may be saved; and we have not so learned Christ, as to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls, whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men, that profess the foundation Christ.    

BURTON.  
This makes well for Popish ignorance when all fails. This also gives liberty to any Religion, so it profess the foundation Christ, that therein a man may be saved.  

Answer.  
First, here is a good beginning with a notable point of sophistry, ex compositione dividendorum: for he confounds two kinds of ignorance, which are as different one from another, as membra dividentia can be: for better understanding whereof, we are to remember, that there are two kinds of ignorance: one negative, another privative, (as the Schoolmen speak) The former is the ignorance of that which was never revealed; or not revealed sufficiently to procure distinct knowledge: The latter is the ignorance of that which a man might have known distinctly if he would. These two are commonly called simple, & affected ignorance: Simple because a man is always ready to embrace the knowledge of the truth, when it shall please God to reveal it: Affected, because a man delights in darkness more than light, that his evil deeds may not be reproved: and both of these may befall the learnedest man in the world: As the former did Saint Paul before his conversion; and some of the Rulers of the jews, as Saint Peter testifieth, Acts 3. 17. and as the latter did other of those Rulers who closed their eyes that they might not see, Mat. 13. 15. Now of these, the Author means the former only, which is protestant ignorance as well as popish; and the Answerer abuseth him in understanding him of the latter; which indeed is true popish ignorance, and no other; for then a man is popishly ignorant, when he pleaseth himself in his ignorance, and is taught so to do; and not when he is willing to know, if he had the means: and who doubteth but there are many millions of such in the Church of Rome, which are those ignorant ●illy souls of whom the Author speaketh.  
Secondly, he changeth the state of the question; for whereas the Author saith such ignorants may be saved among any part of mankind that profess the foundation Christ; that is, in any Christian Church; he turns it into any Religion professing Christ; which is not the question: for the question is of the Church, and not of the Religion: and from hence he proceeds cunningly to his first question: Whether any ●apist may be saved by his religion: But here let it be acknowledged, that we agree with S. Augustive, lib. 1. de Baptis▪ contra Donatistas': That the societies of all Heretics, so far as they retain the profession of saving truth, and the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptism, are so far forth still conjoined with the Catholic Church of God; which in and by them bringeth forth children unto God: Mark his words, Ecclesia Orthodoxa (saith he) non Haeresis per Christi Baptismum generat, qui generantur filij Dei etiam inter Haereticos.    

BURTON.  
But here two questions would be resolved: First whether any Papist by his religion may be saved.  

Answer.  
Here he divideth one question into two, and maketh two Authors differ in opinion, which agree in one: And for the first question, it was never moved by any thing I can perceive from his Authors. The question is, Whether any man living and dying a Papist, or member of the Church of Rome may be saved; and not, Whether any Papist may be saved by his religion. This therefore is a trick of Leigerdumaine, worthy such as pretend God's glory in hypocrisy.    

BURTON.  
For resolution, The Author ranks all Papists into two sorts; either learned, or silly ignorants. For the learned, he confesseth it is very hard for them to be saved; but if ignorant more easy.  

Answer.  
If his Author do as he saith; he mars a good cause in the handling; but I doubt he belies him, especially if this which he hath related be all that he saith. For these word● do not imply a division of all Papists into learned and silly ignorants; but of ignorant Papists into simple, and wilful ignorants; and for the wilful, he confesseth it impossible for them to be saved, (if they so abide,) whether they be learned or unlearned; but the simple, whether learned or unlearned (in his opinion) may be saved: and so think I too.    

BURTON.  
So than if a Papist be saved, he may thank his ignorance.  

Answer.  
Was there ever any man in the world which would make such an inference? Saint Paul was a persecutor, blasphemer, and wrong doer, but he obtained mercy because he did it ignorantly in unbelief: So than that Saint Paul obtain 〈◊〉, he may thank his ignorance and unbelief. Apage. No, this is all that can be inferred there from; that such ignorance as this, 〈◊〉 not ponereobicem (as the Schoolmen speak) that is, lay a block in the way to salvation, as the other doth; he may be saved, notwithstanding this ignorance, though not for this ignorance, because it excuseth à tanto though not à totp: from the degree of sin, though not from all sin.    

BURTON.  
But Christ the foundation is there processed well: but how with popish ignorance teach a man to be saved by Christ? Faith comes by 〈…〉 ting, and without faith no salvation by Christ: But all Papists are taught to hate and abhor 〈◊〉 preaching of the word; how then is it possible they should be saved? be they never so humble and peaceable Men.  

Answer.  
The farther, the worse: doth it follow upon any thing that hath been said, that Popish ignorance will teach a man to be saved by Christ, when it hath been renounced as damnable? Nay we should show ourselves idiots, if we should say, simple ignorance can do it: But how then are these ignorants saved by Christ? why by faith (man) which comes by hearing the word preached: yea but they have it not, nor can have it; yea they abhor it, and are taught so to do. Fie for shame, that a man so well studied in the mystery of iniquity, should be either so ignorant therein, or so ill affected to affirm so gross an untruth: Read the Council of Trent, Sess. 5. cap. 2. & 24. cap. 4. and see whether this be true which he faith: It seems he hath not been beholden to any of those many Cart-loads of Homilies, Sermons, postils, Meditations, Hiemals and Aestivalls, which are so diligently preached in the Church of Rome, and far better, more sound, and diligently since that Council, than before: To which many of our: ordinary Preachers are much beholden: And I would they were not better taught there in some places, than ours are (dole●s dico) in many Churches in England, Wales, and Ireland: Indeed they are taught to hate our Preachers as heretics, and our preaching as heresy; but if he say thereof that they have none at all, or hate all, he deceives himself, and others with his old fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter: And if he say their preaching cannot breed true saving faith, I pity him.    

BURTON.  
As if a Papist though never so simple could be humble; there can be no greater pride, then that which he takes in his ignorance; and can he be peaceable, whose chief article of his Creed is to believe the Pope to be supreme ●uer all Kings and princes, etc.  

Answer.  
If the think all Papists to be such as he speaks of, he is not only uncharitable, 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 beside, how doth their 〈◊〉 perie hinder them fro● humility and peaceableness, when their Kings and Princes themselves will have them so to believe and hold?    

BURTON.  
This is the beasts mark, which who so receiveth shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, Reuel. 14. 9 No Papist then as a Papist can be saved.  

Answer.  
That the belief of the Pope's supremacy in all spiritual things and causes, is the Beasts mark, is Petitio principij. And that all Papists do receive the Beasts mark is false; unless he will say none of them all are written in the Lamb's book of life, A Reuel. 13. 8. Which I 〈…〉 not say. The Conclusion i● altogether without premisse 〈…〉 if he will-conclude any thing 〈…〉 That 〈◊〉 apist can be saved and not that No Papist 〈…〉 Papistoan be saved? For the Ang 〈…〉 〈…〉 No 〈…〉 mark: Ergo, No papist can be saved.    

BURTON.  
And of Babylon (saith God) Come out of her my people, left ye be partakers of her sins, Revel. 18. Babylon the dominion, and religion of the beast, of Antichrist; Nothing then therein to be expected, but the punishment of Babel's sins.  

Answer.  
Babylon doth not always signify the dominion, and religion of the beast: sometimes it is taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the very City, that is, the seat of his dominion, the City of Rome, and so is it to be understood, Revel. 18. And for the Conclusion, I say the same I said of the former; that it hath no premises for all that can well be concluded is this; That God calleth his people out of the ●itie of Rome, when 〈◊〉 is upon the point of destrsction, that they may not bodily perish with the wicked▪ 〈◊〉 I hope he will noisay that God's people may 〈…〉 ingly pelish with them, though for a time they sh〈…〉 with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sins, and temporal punishments, as often, and ordinarily they do. 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 custom, or overvaluing the sovereignty of the Roman Church, & Io in the simplicity of his heart embracing them, find mercy at God's hands, by a general repentance, and faith in the merit of Christ, attended with charity, and other virtues?    

BURTON.  
Here the state of the former question is quite altered: by Faith, and Repontance no doubt, not only an ignorant Papist, but even an Infidel may find mercy, etc.  

Answer.  
It is not true, the state it still the same, for the humble & 〈…〉 able obedience of the former question implieth the Faith and Repentance 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 he divideth one question into two, and maketh his Authors differ, which agree in one. Besides, I would desire him to tell, why there he denied humility and peaceable behaviour to all Papists, and yet here affords them Faith & Repentance to salvation? To this he answereth.    

BURTON.  
But withal this silly Papist believing and repenting, must necessarily repent him of all his Idolatry, as well as of all his other sins: yes (saith the Author) by a general repentance and faith: what a strange doctrine is this for a learned Doctor to teach? Surely Bellarmine himself, with the whole rabble of Pontificians could do no more, etc.  

Answer.  
See here how Sarcastically he writeth of the most wholesome, and Catholic doctrine of general Faith and Repentance; and of the Author for teaching it: who if he 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 orthodox? 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 known sins, so he accepts a general repentance for such as be unknown? And doth he not say also in the same place, That sound Repentance for one special sin, brings with it Repentance for all sins? And doth he not say elsewhere, (Book of Cases, lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 3. paragraph, But some may say) That, The greater this simple ignorance is, the lesser is the sin? and that if we be careful to obey God according to our knowledge, having withal a care and desire to increase in the knowledge of God, and his will, God will have us excused. And is not this the selfsame (mutatis mutandis) which this Author or Doctor hath delivered? If the Pope and Bellarmine, and the whole rabble of Pontificians would say no worse than so, it would be the best days work we did these seventy years to be reconciled.    

BURTON.  
But doth this general repentance include Idolatry, with all popish trumpery, as things to be repent of? If not, such repentance shall never bring him to salvation.  

Answer.  
We grant all: This Repentance includeth all unknown sins; and so all Idolatry, and all other popish trumpery.    

BURTON.  
If it do include them, then by faith in Christ's merits he comes to be saved, not as a Papist, but as a true believer, renouncing Popery, and then no Godamercy to his popery, or to his silly ignorance.  

Answer.  
Loc here is the upshot of all; this is his strong hold, wherein he puts his whole trust in this question: And yet (God knows) it is but a mere starting hole; as poor a shift, and evasion, as ever man can use. Here then let it be observed, that he useth 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 used sensu composito, (as the Schoolmen speak) or largely: sometimes sensu diviso, or strictly. In the compound sense it signifieth (to invert the words of Perkins) an vnreformed Catholic, that is, one that holds the same necessary heads of Religion with the Protestant Churches; yet so as he retains all errors in doctrine, whereby the said religion is corrupted in the Church of Rome, ignorantly supposing them to be the truth of God. In the divided sense it signifies one that holds the errors of the Church of Rome, without respect to the orthodox truth maintained therein. Now to apply this to our purpose; when we say a papist may be saved, we understand it in the former & more large sense. And when the saith; a papist cannot be saued, he understands it in the latter, and more strict sense, and so we are all agreed: for as a thief, or a murderer, or any other malefactor cannot be saved, as he is such a one; no more can a Papist as he holdeth his errors: for no unclean thing shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: this is the former point of his sophistry.  
The other is in the word renouncing: For there are two kinds of renouncing: One actual and express; another virtual, and enfolded. The actual is when a man doth both in word and practice separate himself from the religion of the Church of Rome. The virtual is, when in preparation of mind, a man is ready to doc it, so soon as it shall appear to him to be sinful and damnable: when therefore he requireth that a Papist that must be saved should renounce his popery; if he understand the actual renouncing thereof, we acknowledge that it is necessary so soon as he shall know, and be convicted of the evil of Popery: but if he never be convicted thereof so long as he liveth; then we say the virtual is sufficient, which is included in general repentance: otherwise, we must confound sins known with unknown, and general repentance with particular: This being considered, a man may easily perceive how a simple ignorant Papist, whether learned or unlearned, may be said to renounce his popery, and to be saved; though he live and die in the communion of that faith and religion. So much for Sophistry.  
Now his folly appeareth in this, that he would have us to hold, that a Papist (which we say, may be iaved by a general faith and repentance) is saved as a Papist by virtue of his Popish ignorance, idolatry, and other trumpery, and not as a true believer by faith in Christ's merits: And that we would have some Godamercy to be given to Popery, or silly ignorance for his salvation; which ought to be so far from the conceit of any well disposed Christian, that all of us must acknowledge, that no Protestant, as a Protestant (communicating with the corruptions of several Churches, Dutch, French, German, or the rest; none of which are free from some enormities) No Protestant (I say) as a Protestant, can be saved, without this general faith and repentance, so as there can be no God a-mercy given to our Protestancy, but only to faith in Christ's merits, by which we come to be saved, not as Protestants, but as true believers, renouncing the corruptions of several Churches: And so a Protestant living and dying a Protestant, may be damned; and a Papist living and dying a Papist may be saved.    

BURTON.  
My conclusion is (to be brief,) No Papist, as a Papist whether learned or ignorant can be saved; My reason is, because Popery denyeth the saving faith of Christ: and they want the means of faith; therefore if they be saved, it must be extraordinarily, etc.  

Answer.  
All this which followeth in this Section, is nothing but an idle repetition of those things which have been formerly urged, and answered at large: and therefore with reference thereto, I pass it over: The same also I say to the next, wherein he takes it for granted, that he speaks the truth; and that his adversaries do divorce themselves from sound judgement, and right reason; and have no right charity but such as calleth evil good: Because they say, It is an hard sentence, yea malicious, and rash, to say, That in the Church of Rome there is no salvation: All which I leave to the discretion of the Reader. So much for the two questions, and the two former Authors.    

BURTON.  
But others would not have it denied, that the Church of Rome is a true visible Church, though not a true believing Church.  

Answer.  
Having rid his hands of his two former Authors with a kind of neglect (as I said afore) he comes now to his meek, and sweet spirited Author, a Reverend Antistes of the Church of England, our divine Seneca, etc. against whom he bends all his forces; and yet like judas (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 God's sake tell me, I thee pray,  
Why thou so lovingly dost Exon flay?   
I acknowledge my poetry may be blamed, but the conceit may be pretty and tolerable, (though I say it myself) for to say the truth, he laboureth to kill him with kindness; in that (as much as in him lieth) he blemisheth his well deserved, Reverend, and Honourable 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 prove to be true, I dare be bold to say, his Author would not only be ready to make an humble and ingenuous palinody, or retractation, (as he saucily requireth) but even to sacrifice his goods, good name, soul and body for ever: But I doubt he hath done God's glory more hurt, and Babylon more good, than any Babylonian Papist hath done these many years.   

Author.  
That which Laertius speaks of Menodemus, that in disputing his very eyes would sparkle, is true of many of ours; whose zeal transports them to such a detestation of the Roman Church, as if it were all error, no Church; affecting nothing more than an utter opposition to their doctrine, and ceremonies, because theirs.    

BURTON.  
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 zeal 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 Reverend Author, doth he censure all of them that deny the Church of Rome to be a true visible Church in this sort, and manner? are not his express words, that it is true of many of them, not of all? Master Burton, this dealing beseems 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 do well deserve this censure; and you for one.    

BURTON.  
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? have you so soon forgotten yourself? and are the doctrine and ceremonies of that Church wholly Antichristian? when you have proved it, say so; but till then lay your hand upon your mouth, and suspend.    

BURTON.  
And for my part, I had rather some fire-sparkling zeal, yet guided with right judgement should even transport me with a detestation of the Church of Rome, as a false Church; then that I wot not what charity without Zeal, without sound judgement, should so far possess me, as to acknowledge the Church of Rome for a true Church, yea or yet for a true, or truly visible Church.  

Answer.  
Your zeal (though transporting you) is guided with right judgement: your Author (though Reverend) is possessed with a charity without zeal, without sound judgement; of the two you prefer your own: it seems you dwell by bad neighbours, Mr. Burton; Else you fall within the compass of Cato's Hoc faciunt stulti, etc.    

BURTON.  
And yet, under correction, I see no such difference between these two, but that if we yield the church of Rome to be a true, o● truly visible Church; we may as well call it a true Church.  

Answer.  
If this will give you content we will not strive with you: though it may be, we might puzzle you: And for the next Section it is already answered.   

Author.  
Neither for the chaff do we leave the floor of God, neither for the bad fishes do we break his nets.    

BURTON.  
Whether that floor, and those nets, be Antichrists only, and not Gods, shall appear more fully anon.  

Answer.  
Where? can you tell? you promise it, but you never perform it.   

Author.  
All truth is Gods, wheresoever it is found; not ours: as the King's coin is currant, though it be found in any unclean channel.    

BURTON.  
True: but when the truth of God is turned into a lie, and the King's coin beaten into a thin leaf, etc. the case is altered: And so it is in the Church of Rome.  

Answer.  
It is untrue, and contrary to the Apologies of all the Reformed Churches, who stand upon it, that they have not made an innovation, or renovation, but only a reformation, which could not be, if all God's truth in the Church of Rome were turned into a lie, and that God's coin (the Scripture) were utterly defaced: yourself have acknowledged it was not so before the Council of Trent, and I have proved that it is no worse now (if so ill) as it was before. And if some of those Churches, which yet abide in the unity of the Church of Rome, would depart from her, and embrace the truth, they would do no otherwise, than the Reformed Churches have done already.   

Author.  
Fundamental truth is like the Meronean wine, which if it be mixed with twenty times so much water holds its strength.    

BURTON.  
The comparison is pretty if it did hold water: but what if into the Maronaean wine twenty times so much poison be put? Again, 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 Rome's keeping, etc.  

Answer.  
Here his zeal transports him almost to blasphemy, for it is impossible that the fundamental truth of God's church should either be so poisoned, or the spirits thereof so extracted, as he affirmeth; if it were otherwise, the gates of hell might prevail against it: but Zanchius saith a great deal better in his Preface before his Book De natura Dei, Non potuit Satan (saith he) vel in ipsae Roman● 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 Council of Trent: Now let every wise man judge, whether Zanchius or Burton be rather to be credited: Although I cannot dissemble my dissent also from Zanchy himself in this point: for he yieldeth too much in my conceit, That Satan hath effected what he would in the Oriental Church in abolishing fundamental truth: which (under correction) I suppose to be untrue; for that Church even to this day holdeth the fundamental truths of Christianity as well as the Church of Rome: But it may be he speaketh of defection to Mahometry; which is not the Oriental Church.   

Author.  
The Sepulchre of Christ was overwhelmed by the Pagans with earth, and rubbish, etc. yet still there was the Sepulchre of Christ: And it is a ruled case of Papini●n, that a sacred place loseth not the holiness with the demolished walls: No more doth the Roman Church lose the claim of a true visible Church through her manifold and deplorable corruptions.    

BURTON.  
How the Church of Rome may be proved to be a true visible Church, because once it was so, by this comparison I see not; and how a sound Christian may edify his faith upon a comparison from Papinians ruled case I cannot savour: All sound Divines know, that places are not further, nor longer sacred, than the use remaineth whereupon at first they began to be sacred.  

Answer.  
Here is much ado to small purpose; he had little to do to spend his time in confuting similitudes; which were used of the Reverend Author for no other purpose then that for which they were originally ordained; which is not to prove, but to illustrate: which if he had showed they do not, he 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 man's faith upon these, or other comparisons, I am sure be neue● intended: The very point we have it hand is no matter of faith, but of fact: I● places remain sacred so far, and so long as the use remaineth whereupon at first they began to be sacred, it 〈◊〉 all we desire; for so answerably Rome must still be a true visible Church, because the covenant between 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 known; yet the divorce is not sued out.    

BURTON.  
Is not the divorce sued out? Perhaps not in a legal formality; but what if this once spouse of Christ, not only play the open whore, but professeth herself to be the married wife of another man? Is this woman still the spouse of her former husband? though she have not sued out a legal divorce? Thus stands the case with the Church of Rome. But what if Christ the first husband come and challenge his spouse again? seeing this second marriage was a nullity? Indeed the Lord is very merciful. jer. 3. 1  

Answer.  
Now Mr. Burton (as if he had seen the head of Medusa) seems to be deprived of his senses; Is it not? (saith he) Perhaps not: But what if this? Is that? But what if that? Indeed then, etc. What staggering is this? It seems this argument hath so choked him, that he cannot speak without coughing: If he could, he should have done well to have left the allegory, and to have proved in plain terms, that the Covenant between Christ and the Church of Rome, is utterly abrogated, and abolished, which I suppose he● will never be able to do.    

BURTON.  
But if the divorce be sued out, than you will say she ceaseth to be a spouse to her former husband; well; and is nor that divorce between the Church of Rome and Christ yet sued forth? yet certainly, and that on both parties: First on the Church of Rome's part. When? (say you?) In the Council of Trent (say we.) It is the duty and property of Christ's spouse, to hearken to her husband's voice only, and to honour him. Psal. 45. 11. Luke 9 35. But the Church of Rome in the Council of Trent hath taken out a bill of divorce, and hath emancipated herself wholly to the Pope, as her husband, to hear him in all things from that time forwards: And this divorce is ratified by the Bull of Pope Pius 4. super forma iuramenti professionis fidei, in the end of the Council.  

Answer.  
If I were disposed to pick quarrels, I might have excepted against many of your absurd phrases since I began to deal with you, and against one here; of a wives emancipating herself to another husband: But I aim at the main point: I make no doubt then, but the church of Rome hath long agone (even many hundred years before the Council of Trent) broken the Covenant of her God; and still abideth in that transgression; and so deserveth well enough to be divorced from Christ for ever: But that it was ever her desire to separate herself from Christ, it will never be proved: Nay rather it hath ever been her cunning to make him a cover and cloak of all her whoredoms and abominations, (as a subtle adultress dealeth with her long suffering and patient husband) that so she may seem to be a Matron, though she be indeed a notable Strumpet: and this is the highest point of the mystery of iniquity.  
Now how you prove the contrary by the form of oath of Obedience to the Bishop of Rome, and of the Profession of the Roman faith, (decreed Sess. 24. cap. 12. of the Council, to be administered, and taken, (and accordingly performed) only of such Clergy men as are to be preferred to Ecclesiastical dignities or benefices with cure of souls) do you yourself (at your farther leisure) consider: As if a Schismatic should argue by the oaths of Supremacy, Allegiance, and Canonical Obedience, and by the subscription which are to be performed in the same case of all that are to be made Ministers, or admitted to any preferment in the Church of England; that the Church of England also hath sued out a divorce from Christ, and so is no true: visible Church: (which God forbid;) As the fanatical Brownists and Anabaptists say upon the self same reason.    

BURTON.  
Now if any will require a proof on Christ's part, that he hath also publicly given the Church of Rome a bill of divorce; let him but search in God's records: Doth not Christ Reuel. 17. openly declare the Church of Rome to be the Whore of Babylon? and is there not a plain bill of Divorce, Reuel. 18? and that by a voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her my people, & c? doth not Christ here separate his own people, his own spouse out of Babylon? And this divorce on Christ's part, came to be of force upon the Council of Trent; when the Church of Rome's second marriage was solemnly concluded, and Christ excluded: what need be said more; to prove this Divorce, and that on both sides?  

Answer.  
What need be said more? (quoth you?) marry much more then either you have said yet, or ever will be able to say, I trow: what is it (I pray) you have said now, that you need to say no more? Is it this? That Rome, and the Roman Church is the whore of Babylon? We allow it: Or that Christ would have his people to separate from her? we grant it: But that the Church of Rome was married to a second husband in the Council of Trent, & Christ excluded; or that those words, Come out of her my people, are a bill of divorce; or that Christ by them separateth his Spouse from her, we utterly deny. To the first enough hath been said in the last answer. To the second we say, first that (if Brightman your best master say true,) this place must not be understood spiritually, but literally, of the local departure of God's people out of Rome, and Gods calling them thereto at the last overthrow and destruction thereof, as he called Lot out of Sodom, and the jews out of the Eastern Babylon in the same words, & the Church out of jerusalem when it was to be utterly destroyed; so that as Mice (I use his own similitude) perceiving the house will fall, do leave it, and run away; so the people of God warned by the Angel will leave Rome, and shift for themselves: which being so, this Prophecy is not yet fulfilled. Secondly, if it be taken spiritually, it is so far from proving a divorce, that it proveth the quite contrary: for first, so long as Babylon hath a being, this evocation will be of use and force, because so long God shall have a people in Babylon; and so long there can be no divorce, because God begets not children of any, but of his Spouse the Church: Secondly, these words declare not what Christ himself either doth or will do, but what he would have his people to do: Now a Divorce is not a separation of the Family from the Mother, or Mistress, but of the husband from the wife; Ergo, here is no Divorce intended. To the third, we say, that seeing the wife is the whore, and the whore is Babylon; Christ intendeth not here to separate his Wife or Spouse from Babylon; because in so doing he should separate his wife from his wife, and Babylon from Babylon, which implies a contradiction.   

Author.  
As it is a visible Church we have not detracted to hold communion with it; as Babylon, we can have nothing to do with it.    

BURTON.  
This distinction comes too late, after the sentence of the divorce is given on both sides: Christ hath disclaimed her for his Spouse: bidding his Spouse to come from her: therefore whom God separateth, let no man join together: yea in this case no distinction▪ will serve to join us together again in one communion: Herein we must not hearken to the voice of any man be he never so Reverend, before, or against the voice of Christ: By what distinction (I pray) can an honest and chaste Matron salve her credit by keeping company, or having communion with a notorious Strumpet? Would it not seem a strange distinction to say, The Devil in his essence being good, we detract not to hold communion with him; but as a Devil, we can have nothing to do with him?  

Answer.  
You abuse yourself and the Reader too bad, and that in two things: First, in blaming the distinction: Secondly, in scandalising your Author. The distinction (you say) comes too late, and is not useful to join us together again in one communion. The former whereof is false, as hath been showed in the former answers. The latter dependeth upon the scandals of the Author; for the better understanding whereof we are to know, That the reformed Churches never made a full, and total separation from the Church of Rome; but only partial, from her corruptions; Non tam ab ea, quam ab eius erroribus discessimus, saith jewel in his Apology, which is the common voice of all, even of Perkins himself in his Reformed Catholic, who shows in every head of doctrine how far we may and must hold communion with that Church: and to this and no more hath the Reverend Author respect in this assertion: Now this Calumniator would make the world believe, that his intent is to use a means by help of this distinction to join us together again 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 vain thing for him to endeavour it by this distinction. For it would be all one as if he should say, As she is a visible Church, we may communicate with her in her corruptions; But as she is Babylon we may not. Which is indeed the folly which he illustrateth by his two similitudes of society with a strumpet and the devil. Thus you see the honesty, and wisdom of the man; and by this you may judge of his zeal for the glory of God.   

Author.  
They have not well heeded the charitable profession of zealous Luther, Nos fatemur, etc. We profess (saith he) that under the Papacy, there is much Christian good, yea all, etc. I say moreover that under the Papacy is true Christianity, ●●a, the very kernel of Christianity, etc.    

BURTON.  
Luther's speech than was true: But ever distingue tempora; Luther wrote that before the Council of Trent, till which the Church of Rome had not altered the rule of Faith: But now we that live after that Council cannot say so: for in that Council the nut was cracked, the kernel rejected, yea anathematised, and now they have retained no more, but the broken shell of a Church.  

Answer.  
It is a strange thing to see how men are enamoured of their own conceits, Qui amant, ipsi sibi somnia singunt (saith the Poet) I warrant you if M. Burton were brayed in a mortar, yet would not these toys depart from him. Huartus in his Trial of wits, reporteth of a Nobleman's Page in Spain, that (being distracted of his wits) imagined himself to be a King, in which conceit he so pleased himself, that when he was cured, he was displeased with the Physician that restored him to his right mind: and so I doubt M. Burton will be with those that show him the vanities of these his imaginations. Well, howsoever it be, we must be content, and suffer him to abound in his own sense, till Time the Mother of Truth reveal his gross mistake: and in the mean while l●t it be sufficient answer to this long discourse, that here is nothing but idle repetition of those things which have been already answered. And hitherto we have answered what he hath objected to what was said in the Book of The old Religion concerning this argument.   

Author.  
Nothing can be so well said, or done, but may be ill taken.    

BURTON.  
Now God forbid: But is it well said, or done, to affirm that the Church of Rome is yet a true, or a true visible Church? Now let the Reverend Author judge indifferently (having well weighed the former reasons) whether we do ill or no in taking his saying ill, or whether we had not reason to have expected an ingenuous palinody or Augustine-like Retractation, rather than such an Apology: which whether it be rather to be pitied, than any uncharitableness in the Reader in taking such a saying ill, let indicious charity itself judge: Nor need we stretch the saying to imply, that the Church of Rome is a true believing 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 Reverend Antistes having but glanced at the zeal of some, transported to such a detestation of the Roman church, as if it were all error, no church; is deeply censured, as if preferment had changed his note, and taught him to speak more plausible language of the Church of Rome, then either he did, or aught. Hereupon he frames an Apologetical, mild, and Christian Advertisement, to rectify their judgement, lest their prejudice may turn more to their sin, then to his wrong: What's the issue? Nothing but scorn: for sooth they expected that the Reverend Author, (well weighing the former reasons,) would have made a pitiful Retractation, and not such an Augustine-like Apology. 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 amiss: and so prove themselves to be true through their frowardness. What then is to be done? Haec non succedit, alia ineunda est via: The Reverend Author must use them like hounds; which the more a man beateth, the better they love him: or like the wild Irish; which are most serviceable when they are most slavishly used. And so they shall have their desire; a palinody, or Retractation; which is, That is repenteth him, that he hath dealt so favourably with them. For as for their reasons, (if they were not as bold and blind as Bayard himself) they would be ashamed to commend them to the judgement of judicious Charity.   

Author.  
Who sees not that [visible] refers too outward profession, [true] to some essential principles of Christianity? neither of them to soundness of belief?    

BURTON.  
Is outward profession a sufficient mark of visibility for a Church? This is none of those marks 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 Ecclesiastical discipline? And what outward profession of Christianity, can any visible church make without these? Outward profession therefore, comprehendeth them all; and so is a sufficient mark of visibility for a Church.    

BURTON.  
Again, the Scripture calls them the Synagogue of Satan, which call themselves jews and are not.  

Answer.  
True; yet were they true jews in the flesh, and outwardly, Rom. 2. ●8. 29. and so may a true visible Church of Christians be also.    

BURTON.  
The Samaritans sometimes professed themselves to be of the jews religion, and professed the worship of the Lord, were they therefore a visible Church?  

Answer.  
The reason is not like; because they never were in the Covenant of God's grace; but were aliens from the Common wealth of Israel.    

BURTON.  
And for the essential principles of Christianity, the jews at this day hold the Old Testament; and if it be said, They deny Christ expressly, the Papists do so too implicitly; and by their own express doctrines of Trent, have no more communion with Christ then the jews have: Nay Papists do expressly abjure the doctrine of Christ, as we showed before in the Pope's own Bull.  

Answer.  
The tongue that lieth, slayeth the soul: Such comparisons are not only odious, but damnable. If this zeal do not transport you to sin, I doubt not but evill-speakers, railers, and slanderers may find an easy passage into the kingdom of heaven.   

Author.  
Grant the Romanists to be but Christians, how corrupt soever; and we cannot deny them the name of a Church.    

BURTON.  
But why should we grant them that which never a Papist is able to demonstrate to us, or yet undoubtedly to persuade himself of?  

Answer.  
This fond conceit is sufficiently answered already.    

BURTON.  
Although for the bare name of Christians and of a Church, we will not much stand with them; so they do not hereupon, or any for them, encroach and challenge the being and reality, yea or the very visibility of a true Church.  

Answer.  
You are very liberal of that which is none of your own: Can you be content to afford the precious name of a Christian and of a Church of Christ to them which in man's judgement not partially affected, are not so? The jews would never do it; neither will the Papists do it; neither will the Reformed Churches do it; neither will any well informed Christian do it: But you will not much stand upon it.   

Author.  
We are all the same Church, by virtue of our outward vocation, whosoever all the world over worship jesus Christ the only Son of God, the Saviour of the world; and profess the same common Creed.    

BURTON.  
Doth the Church of Rome worship jesus Christ, who for Christ worship the Beast and his Image, bearing his mark?  

Answer.  
Do all in the Church of Rome do so? what they whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life? Reu. 13. 8. or are you sure that none of the Church of Rome living and dying professed members thereof are written therein?    

BURTON.  
Doc they hold the same Creed, that deny the faith, without which they cannot say the first words of the Creed, I believe in God?  

Answer.  
And dare you say that all and every one in the Church of Rome doth so?   

Author.  
Rome doth both hold the foundation, and destroy it; she holds it directly, destroys it by consequent.    

BURTON.  
What foundation do they hold directly with us? we showed before, that they have nothing of Christ, but the shell, the shadow, the Pope is the kernel, if any.  

Answer.  
You said so indeed, but you showed it not: yet if they have the shell, that is the outward profession of the foundation directly, it is enough to make them be said to hold the foundation directly.    

BURTON.  
Nay do they h●ld more of Christ directly, than the very society of Devils do? yea or so much as they?  

Answer.  
They do, if yourself say true: for you say, that To hold the foundation directly, is to hold jesus Christ so to be come in the flesh, as therein to suffer and satisfy for our salvation; becoming our Christ, our jesus, redeeming us from our sins by imputing his merits to us, that our sins might not be imputed to us which were imputed to him: by whose stripes we are healed, by whose righteousness imputed we are perfectly justified in the sight of God: And all, and every point of this, the Church of Rome directly holdeth.    

BURTON.  
Nothing less: yea she directly, not by consequence only; directly (I say) she denieth and destroyeth this foundation: How? and where? in the Council 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 express denial of the foundation?  

Answer.  
Is this an express, flat, and direct denial of the foundation? then Melancthon, Calvin, Illyricus, and all sound and good Protestants do expressly, flatly, and directly deny the Foundation: for all of them do, and must hold this doctrine for accursed: and all the Ministers of the Church of England have cause to be ashamed of your ignorance & boldness (Mr. Burton) who dare challenge the Church of Rome to deny 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 justified by the very Righteousness by which Christ himself is essentially just and righteous, being partakers thereof by inhabitation: This allegation therefore is a notable abuse not only of the Council, but of yourself and the Reader. See Bellarmine de justif. lib. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 2. His verbis: though himself offend therein also afterwards.    

BURTON  
And in the 11th Canon; If any shall say, that men are justified by the sole imputation of Christ's righteousness, or by sole remission of sins, (otherwise then by, 
* See the 7. Chap. of the same Sess.  inherent righteousness by us obtained thereby) or also that the grace of God whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God, let him be accursed: What more direct denial of the foundation?  

Answer.  
I might here challenge you for altering, and changing the words of the Council; but I will not take all advantages: I answer therefore, that it seems you know not the true meaning of the Council; for taking the word justification in the Counsels own sense, this Canon contains very sound and Christian doctrine. What then doth it mean by justification? A compound of Protestant justification, and Sanctification: for so it defines justification, cap. 7. of this Session in the first words: justificatia est, non sola peccatorum remissio, sed & sanctificatio, & renovatio 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 justified by the sole imputation of Christ's righteousness, or by sole remission of sins, that they are also sanctified thereby without inherent grace and charity; or also that the grace whereby we are so justified is only the favour of God, Let him be accursed: and let him be so indeed for me. You will say this is nothing but mere juggling: I grant it; but it is not direct denial of the foundation: for here (as Chemnitius acknowledgeth) is both remission of sins, and imputation of Christ's righteousness included; which though it be sufficient to justification in the Protestant sense, yet in the popish sense (wherein sanctification is also required) it is not sufficient.    

BURTON.  
Is not this the foundation, That jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners? and how? who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree; that we being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes we are healed: Nay (saith the Council of Trent directly) we are justified by our inherent righteousness, and so our stripes are healed, and not by the righteousness of Christ simply imputed: Therefore come out of her my people.  

Answer.  
How the Council is to be understood, I have showed already: and being so understood, there is no direct denial of the foundation: Therefore although God's people must come out of Babylon; yet not upon this ground: And so I conclude as I began, Apply john Barber, and thou shalt have a new pair of sizors. For mark the argument: The foundation is, jesus Christ came to save sinners, etc. But the Council of Trent saith, We are so justified that we are also sanctified by inherent righteousness: Ergo, Come out of her my people.   

Author.  
Thus I wrote well near twenty years agone without clamour, without censure: If any of you be otherwise minded; I dare boldly say, he shall do more wrong to his cause, then to his adversary. I differ not from the judgement of our best, Orthodox, and approvedly Classical Divines.    

BURTON.  
Let not antiquity in the holding of an opinion, prescribe against truth Opinions Ancient. O that S. Ambrose his words alleged by our Reverend 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 do more wrong to his cause then to his adversary; Then he will no longer stand upon the judgement of particular persons in a point wherein our Reverend Mother Church of England hath in her public doctrine resolved the contrary: So shall our divine Seneca partake also of great Saint Augustine's praise, while by an humble and ingenuous Retractation, he shall both purge away the stain, and put a more glorious lustre to his most sweet, pious, and for their kind unparallelled works; And for me a poor unworthy Minister, I hope his meek and sweet spirit (having well weighed my reasons, and pitied my weaknesses) will be pleased to excuse me of any transportation of zeal, unless herein I have exceeded the bounds, in presuming so far upon the patience of such a Reverend Antistes of our Church: But I trust he will not impute this to any arrogancy of spirit, when it shall appear, it is to vindicate Christ's truth and glory, against the Synagogue of the proud Antichrist.  

Answer.  
It is well observed, that this fellow hath a notable dexterity in dedicating Epistles before his Books, and in Prefaces, Digressions, Epilogues, and the like; but that in his Tracts, Discourses, and Disputations, he is as hungry and dry as Famine itself: This as it is true in all his writings, so especially in this; as I hope I have in good measure made it appear by the premises. And for this his conclusion; All the glozing thereof ●ends to obtain two requests: One that the Reverend Author would be brought to humble himself to him in an ingenuous Retractation; And the other, that he would hold him excused for his presumption: Both are unreasonable: unless he will take that for a Retractation which before hath been tendered; and for an excuse, that he supposeth it ignorant arrogance, rather than zeal that hath transported him: He would strike an impression into the innocent soul of the Reverend 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 known that such companions as he is have for a long time taken upon them to be the Censors of all men's doings, and to cry up and down every man's credit and reputation at their pleasure: But (God be praised) he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of their gunshot: for it is well known to God and man, that all his courses from the cradle have been such, that Fame herself may lay her hand upon her mouth, so as he need not endeavour to purge away any stain, which they shall impute unto him. The close of his Advertisement, will so possess the souls of all good and honest men, that the strife of tongues shall never be able to molest him.  
Thus (saith he) in a desire to stand but so right as I am, in all honest judgements, I have made this speedy and true Apology; beseeching all Readers in the fear of God (before whose bar we shall once give an account of all our overlashing) to judge wisely, and uprightly of what I have written: In a word, to do me but justice in their opinions; and when I beg it, favour.    
FINIS.