THE Romish Priest TURNED PROTESTANT: With the REASONS OF HIS CONVERSION. WHEREIN The True Church is Exposed to the View of Christians, and Derived out of the Holy Scriptures, Sound Reason, and the Ancient Fathers. Humbly presented to both Houses of Parliament. By JAMES SALGADO, a Spaniard, formerly a Priest of the Order of the Dominicans. LONDON: Printed for Tho. Cockerill at the Three Legs in the Poultry, over-against the Stock-market, 1679. To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with the Honourable the Commons of England in Parliament Assembled. Sirs, I Hope you will pardon my boldness, because I presume to appear before your faces. It is requisite I should give an account of my hope in Christ unto you, who are (next to the most Illustrious King Charles the II. Defender of the Faith) the surest Maintainers of the Protestant Religion. And unto whom else should I dedicate a Treatise of the True Church, if not to the Parliament, where as well the Commonwealth is to be found in the Church, as the Church in the Commonwealth? Namely, There is a new resemblance in your Houses, of the old face of Israel (which maketh me the bolder) as the countenance of Lawgivers (like that of Moses) doth in its lustre go far beyond the rest. Nature and Religion have made you of that constitution, that you do not only shine for yourselves, but also spread out your beams for the benefit of others. Sirs, Be pleased to accept of this small token of my due submission, and to look upon him with an eye of benevolence, who desiring to depend upon your Sanhedrim, will always remain, Sirs, Your most Obedient Servant, James Salgado, a Spaniard, a Converted Priest. THE PREFACE TO THE READER. THere are so many of this kind of Books put out, that one should think This to be superfluous. But I was constrained to conform myself to the present Age; not only for that I might wipe off the Calumnies of the Papists, who commonly say, That the Roman Priests desert the Roman Church for no other reason than this, That they may have liberty to do what they please, (whereas God knoweth, they amongst themselves have a freedom so unbridled, that there is almost nothing found there, but a great disorder and licence); and to satisfy the Protestants in the reason of my Conversion, and show to both the parties, why I am turned a Protestant. I composed this Book first in Latin; but that my Conversion should be manifest to all, yea even to the meanest, I caused it to be Translated into English. Kind Reader, apply these newly-shuffled Cards (as I may use the phrase of a Right Reverend Bishop of this Realm) for thy own profit. May be you will find that in it, you never heard before. So farewel: From one that is desirous of thy Salvation. JAMES SALGADO. Chr. Ch. Oxon, Dec. 26— 78. Reverend Sir, I Am to give you thanks for the occasion you gave me of acquaintance with the bearer hereof, Mr. James Salgado, whom I find by his discourse to be a right Spaniard, born of a good Family, and of very good parts; and to have suffered very much by the Inquisition of Spain for embracing the Truth of our Protestant Religion. This consideration, and the great bounty and charity I saw used by his Countrymen towards ours, when found in distress among them, makes me think him an object singularly well deserving our common charity and benevolence; especially considering how very rare a case it is to see a Clergyman of his Nation come to us. They have been civil to him in this University, and I hope good men will be so to him with you. To such as may desire to learn the Spanish or Italian Tongue, he may be serviceable, having good skill in both, but in the former he is eminent, as born and bred in Madrid. I will presume to beg the continuance of your goodness to him, affording him your instruction and commendation to good men there; for some employment he may be capable of, by which you shall oblige much Reverend Sir, Your very affectionate humble Servant, Andr. Sall. Courteous Reader, I Do believe that the Author of this Book, James Salgado, was a Romish Priest, according to the Order of the Dominicans; and that he is now become a true Convert to the Protestant Religion, as the ensuing Discourse will further evidence to the intelligent Reader. Nic. Lloyd Rector of St. Mary Newington. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE True Church. THE ancient Fathers commonly called the Church an Ark of Noah, without whose bosom none could be freed from the peril of everlasting damnation, as well as none that was out of the Ark could escape the danger of the flood. And indeed they did not say it without reason; because they knew that to them that were strangers from the Church her privileges did not belong, as Vocation, Justification, Sanctification; the want of which disinables a man from coming to the perfection of the future world, and to the enjoyment of it. And as those members that are not joined to a human body, are destitute of sense and life; so they that are rooted out from the Head of the Church, which is Christ, or have never been inserted into the Olive-tree, can expect no spiritual influence, which is able to make us the heirs of eternal salvation. This was the reason for which David affirmeth, That the Heathens did not know the statutes of the Lord, namely, because they have been without the communion of Israel, where the Church was in the Old Testament; Because the Lord shown his Word unto Jacob, his Statutes and his Judgements unto Israel, and he hath not dealt so with any Nation; Psal. 147.19, 20. therefore they have not known his judgements. The Apostle doth ascend higher on this matter, when he writing to the Ephesians, saith, At that time you were without Christ, Ephes. 2.12. you were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; Namely, because they were not in the bosom of the Church, and were without that Ark of Noah we spoke of; they were also without the Communion of Christ, who is a loyal Husband only to one Spouse, as it is said in the Canticles, My Dove, my undefiled, is but one. Cant. 6.9. But when the Fathers did use this similitude, they meant by it the Universal Church, whose beginning Austin deriveth from Abel, and deduceth the continuation of it until the consummation of the world. Therefore no Church which is extant here, or there, or in any place of the world, can go (in that signification) under a name of an Universal Church; but that which was, is, and shall be, and comprehends in its ambit, as well the Triumphant as the Militant part. And if that be Catholic, Vinc. Lirin. contra. noph. novitates. according to the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis in his Book against the profane novelties, Which has been believed always, , and by all, surely the Catholic Church itself must be this, which was everywhere, always, and was or will be found amongst all Nations of the World, by reason the thing ruled cannot be narrower than the Rule, nor Faith cannot be found but in Believers. I cannot but confess, that there are many particular Congregations, many Provincial or National Churches, amongst which, one may be, and is sounder than the other; yet notwithstanding this, none of these Churches can be called Catholic, if we take this word in a strict signification; Being they are only parts, or members making up one general body, none of which can be called, without a contradiction, Universal, except one would grant unto a hand or a foot the name of a whole body. From hence we may see, that the Roman Church, being it is a particular one (albeit it should be sound and Orthodox, as it is not) cannot appropriate unto itself exclusively to other Churches professing Christ, the name of a Catholic or Universal Church. I confess I am not so rigid, as to cut off the Roman Church itself from the latitude of the Universal Church; because, besides that people living in that same Communion (yet not formally Papists) which in the simplicity of their hearts do profess God and our Saviour, and believe in him, and in order to that do work out their salvation as well as they can, (although many of them neither understand the matter, nor the circumstances of it, by reason of their unavoidable or invincible ignorance), can arrive to eternal salvation, being it is truth, That God is no respecter of persons; Act. 10.34, 35. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him: We do likewise yield, that the Roman Church may be called a Church, although not in the moral, yet in the physical sense, just as an Adultress doth not lose the name of a Wife, albeit she loseth the name of an honest Wife. But now because the Court of Rome will have their Church to consist either in the Pope or in the Council, or else in them both; therefore we will speak of it as it is considered in that kind, and consequently show and declare the same to be false and erroneous. It is true that the Church taken in that kind, cannot be, but as they say in Schools, a representative one; nevertheless, because the rest of that communion are bound to obey it as an infallible one, therefore we take the denomination, a potiori, and so affirm the same to be false and non-Catholick; yea, none at all. It was not enough for the Papists to pronounce all those Churches that hold no communion with them, Heretics, and so to shut up the Gates of Heaven before them, but they were and are so bold as to affirm their Church to be infallible and without error. It is indeed a great postulatum, which is not only false in itself, but also a great cause why the rest of the Churches will not, nor can hold communion with them. And that I may pass it by, that no particular Church (as the Roman is) can be called infallible; likewise it is as sure, that they, according to the way of the Athenians, do not know whom they worship, and so erect an Altar To the unknown God. Act. 17.23. In vain do any dispute about the propriety or privilege of a thing, when they can have no certain knowledge about the subject itself. In vain do they affirm their Church to be Infallible, when they cannot tell where and which this Church may be; because in this matter, we may see, Pares aquilas & pila minantia pilis, one contradicting another. Some of them, as namely, the Sorbonists, do place it in the Council; others, as Jesuits, only in the Pope; some again say, that it doth consist in them both jointly, that is, in the Pope and Council. Choose any side you please, and take hold either of one, or of the other sentiment, you will find yourself to stagger; and being set in the midst of doubtfulness, with Masius of Sylvaducis, you shall not know where to turn you. May be you will perceive from whence you have declined, but not whither you should go; because after you have made choice of either of their meanings, you will find yourself entangled with many difficulties, out of which you shall not be able to free yourself; and so you will find yourself to offer a sacrifice unto an unknown god. This I will endeavour to show briefly; Suppose now you should yield that the Church doth consist in the Council only, there you shall find presently some of that same Communion contradicting that. But having passed over this, I may ask such a man, Who can know this Council to be infallible? Because first, Ex partibus homogeneis nihil heterogeneum potest constari; out of things which are of that same nature, nothing can be made of a divers nature: All the members making up the Council were fallible, How can it be then, that they should become infallible, when they are gathered into one Synodical body? And if this infallibility came but then to the Council, when it came to be a Council, I pray, Where was it before? in what part of the World did it uphold itself? By what Tubus opticus, or by what insensible transpiration did this good infallibility come down upon the Fathers of the Council? or what shall become of that infallibility after the Council is dissolved? into what place shall it betake itself to rest? None can give an account. Then how shall you know, that all they that were gathered in the Council, have been lawfully baptised, or baptised at all? because you are not certain of the Ministers or the Priest's intention, upon which hangeth the efficacy of the Sacraments; how that they are canonically ordained, and not per saltum; how that they have not intruded themselves by Simony; all which thou must believe with a Divine Faith, before thou canst embrace the decrees of the Council for infallible ones. Moreover, if the infallibility of the Church do consist in the Council, then of necessity there should be always extant a general Council; so that the diffident parts might have a free entrance, in order to make a disquisition of their quarrel, and likewise a determination, and so live in peace. But where is there such a one? And suppose there should be always a Council in esse, which nevertheless is impossible; yet how should you know this Council not to be partial, and not such a one as the Council of Ariminum, neither subject to correction, by reason many former Councils have been mended by the later, as Austin tells us. May be you will make this exception, Christ promiseth unto his Disciples, Joh. 16.13 and so consequently unto his Church, That the spirit of truth shall guide them into all truth; and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Mat. 16.18 Well said, Christ did promise the holy Spirit unto his Disciples; but as the things extraordinary must not be compared with the things ordinary, because the Disciples had not only the matter, but also the words, from the indictment of the Holy Ghost; so the Churches of our later times, Gal. 1.8. and 6.21. 2 Tim. 3.16. are bound to the Doctrine of Scriptures, which are given by Inspiration of God, and are not only profitable, but sufficient also for all kind of holy instructions; which if the Council doth follow, there is no doubt, but it shall have the assistance of the Holy Ghost. 2. When Christ saith, the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, he doth not understand any particular Church, or their Bishops, but the Militant Church dispersed through all the World; and that this cannot err in matters fundamental, we willingly allow. 3. Whence do you know that the Holy Spirit acts a praeses in every Council, by reason the Ariminum Synod may have the name of a Council as well as the Nicene. 4. Who can satisfy you that the members of a Council do speak according to truth, and by the inspiration of God, rather than partially? or that their Decrees are framed more by the weight of Reason and Scriptures, than by the multitude of Votes? or that it is not such a Council as the Tridentine was, where the Holy Ghost (as the Bishop of Fifechurches, Episcopus quinque Eccles. a member of that Synod saith) was brought over from Rome into Trident, in the Bags of the Roman Veredary, and he stayed out longer when the Waters did rise, but came sooner after they were fallen; so the Holy Spirit was afraid, either to be wet, or to be drowned. 5. At last a Papist should proceed very disorderly, if he being asked about the infallibility of a Council, from whence he could prove it, should betake him to Scripture; because we ask them antecedently to the Word of God of this infallibility of the Church, by reason it is her Office as well to make a Canon, as to give authority to the Scriptures; being their assertion is this, That the authority of Scripture (as to us) doth depend on the authority of the Church; But that which giveth authority to another thing, cannot mutuate his own from it. Hence you may see with what difficulties they intricate themselves, that place the Church and its infallibility in the Council. But, neither those have lesser ones, that settle the same in the Pope alone. Although this sentiment is very foolish, and consutes its own self by reason of its absurdity, being it places the Church, which is a congregation of many, in one man: yet we shall proceed in our proposition, (will run on our race). For the most part of the Jesuits do hold this sentence, and affirm, That the Pope like the Pythia of Delphos, only by himself may, and can frame Decrees, and expose them to the belief of the people. Be it so, that this Infallibility doth reside with the Pope, the same difficulties will come again. For how will you be persuaded that the Pope hath been Popable, because he could be not Baptised? He could have occupied the See by force, by Simony, he could be a Woman, as Johanna was, and not a man; all which, if it be present, the Pope is no more a Pope. Then how can you know that the Pope when he was going to frame his Decretals, did use the usual and necessary preparations, as Prayers, and Fasting for seven days, & c? How that he made them Motu proprio, as the Roman Court saith, that is, by his own Will, and not by the persuasion of the Chamber; all which, if it be deficient, the Decretals and Constitutions are of no value, nor pronounced out of the Cathedra or Pulpit, and so neither binding the Consciences, nor Infallible. Further, By what Argument will you be persuaded, that this Infallibility doth not belong as well to the Bishop of Paris, or Mantua, as to the Bishop of Rome? and so that this infallibility is not auferible from the Roman Bishop, Gerson de auferibilitatae Pape. of whose Auferibility Gerson did write a Treatise; all which you must believe, if you will take his Decretals for infallible. At last, how one single man can be infallible in matters of Faith cannot be understood, because he hath neither any promise of it, nor hath proved himself to be such an one, as is clear and manifest by many examples. May be you will betake yourself to that vulgar distinction, of the Pope pronouncing in his Chair, or in his Hall; out of the Pulpit, and without the Pulpit; so that he may be called Infallible as to the first, but not as to the second. But you'll find very little comfort in that same distinction; because, besides that, it cannot be defined how one and the same man should contradict himself without fear or coaction in the same matters: likewise, the Pope who can deceive, being out of the Pulpit, should take advice from himself as sitting in it, that he might not be mistaken; or else the Cardinals, if they would have the holy Father to be without blame, should bind fast this good old man to the Pulpit with chains, as another Prometheus to a Caucasus, that he should not stir from this Cathedra, and so speak always truth. But it is over-true, that the holy Popes did err most abominably, as pronouncing out of the Pulpit, as it is shown both by Papists and Protestants; Platina de vitis Pontificum Romanorum. and is to be seen in John, in Stephanus, in Formosus and others, which are to be read of in Platina, of the lives of the Roman Popes. 2. They cannot tell us what they do understand by this Cathedra, or Pulpit; for as to a material Pulpit, it can contribute nothing to the infallibility of the Pope; or else it could flow in as well upon a Herdsman as the Pope, if it should work by its Physical and internal virtue. And as to a moral Pulpit, of which Christ makes mention, when he speaketh of the Fulpit of Moses, nothing else can be understood by it, besides the Holy Scriptures; and if the Pope pronounce accordingly to them, we will freely obey him. 3. The Holy Spirit, upon whom, as they say, the infallibility of the Pope dependeth, is not bound to any place, but bloweth where he pleaseth. Others seeing no security to be found in the former distinction, did commence another, viz. That the Pope cannot err in matters of Law; but he can be deceived in matters of fact. But this likewise is a broken Cane, and whosoever leaneth his hand upon it will be deceived. This distinction was found out by those that are called in the Popish Church, Jansenists, for to heal that wound that was inflicted on them by Alexand the VII, by reason of the famous five Articles of Jansenius● the Bishop of Ypres; but nevertheless, it hath nothing of truth in itself. For 1. when the Pope pronounceth any thing as to the matters of Faith, he doth not only look upon the person, but considers the person as believing so or otherwise, and so condemneth him. And how a man that cannot err (as they say) in matters of Law, should err in matters of Fact, cannot be conceived; by reason he having one's Book, and being an infallible searcher and interpreter of ones meaning, can fall into the question of Fact, out of the question of Law, and so pronounce, that this and no other was the meaning of the Author. 2. Because Law maketh a prescription unto a Fact, it is not likely, that he who cannot err in matters of Law, should do so in matters of Fact. 3. Because sometimes out of a Fact ariseth a Law; therefore the same question which was before a question of Fact, after it is become (by long continuance) a question of Law, may be handled and decided by the Pope infallibly. 4. By this way, the Pope shall never be able to condemn a Heretic, or strike him with a thunder of an Anathema, as one that hath a fallible judgement in matters of Fact: which shall not be admitted by the Papists. 5. That the Pope may err in matters of Law, and that most horribly, we have shortly shown the same a little higher. So that hence we may perceive how sallibly they believe that place the infallibility in the Pope. For the last followeth the third meaning of the Papists, viz. That the infallibility of the Church resides in the Pope and Council together. But, Incidit in scyllam qui vult vitare charybdin. Because the same difficulties which were proposed before arise again: Besides it will be dubious which of them parties, viz. if the Pope unto the Council, or the Council unto the Pope doth communicate the infallibility. Afterwards, if the Pope be absent, and be there by his Messengers, if they have the same authority he should have if he was present, The same they could not have, because it is his own formally, or else he could grant it as well to all the Bishops of the Council, as to his Messengers. Moreover, it will be very doubtful if those Decretals which were framed in the Pope's absence, will be infallible, and binding the Conscience; for if all the Decretals are of no value without the Pope's confirmation, it cannot be conceived how that these Constitution, made in, and by the Council of Trent, can be ratified, extraconciliariter, or without it, by reason the Pope's infallibility doth not consist as he is separated from the Council, but as he is joined with it. Hence than every one that hath not a face of a Wizell, may see how the Papists make their business to catch a shadow, and affirming their Church to be Infallible, doth not know, nor cannot agree amongst themselves wherein this Church doth consist: and so they do not know how to satisfy their own selves nor others neither, although they brag very much of it. Projiciunt ampullas & sesquipedalia verba. I myself remaining yet in the Popish Religion, did perceive myself to be entangled by these difficulties; and therefore I often considered how to be extricated out of them, that so I might praise God in purity and holiness, with the freedom of my Conscience. And although being in Spain (which is my native Country) I did hear very much of the Protestant Churches; nevertheless, I could never meet with any Books written by the Divines of that Communion, by reason we are severely forbidden to read them. But because I did hear that they found all their Doctrine upon the Scriptures, I took a great desire to read the same, and to search after the Truth in order to my Salvation. Neither do they forbid in Spain, as a Country religious above the rest of the Papists, to read the Holy Bible. And after I had made it my business to read the Holy Word of God, I met with those words of the Apostle Paul; 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished with all good works. Here it seemed unto me, that the Apostle had drawn a portraiture of a Minister, and proposed not only the method of Preaching, but also the matter and the off spring of it; and so declared by what means a Man of God, that is, a Minister of Christ, might come to a full perfection of learning, in order to the Instruction of their souls, that should be committed to his care. Namely, he meant the Holy Scriptures of which he thought, they did contain the treasure of the Divine Wisdom, when he pronounces them to be able to make one wise unto salvation, 2 Tim. 3.15. and expresseth the four fountains of Christian Morality to be contained in them; and chargeth not only himself, but an Angel likewise with an Anathema, Gal. 1.8. Gal. 6.16. Isa. 8.20. if he should preach any other Gospel unto us, than that he hath preached, and pronounceth his blessing upon them that walk according to this rule. God himself is willing to reduce his People from them that have familiar spirits, and from wizards, unto his will and counsel, sendeth them to the law, and to the testimony; and addeth, That for them that do not walk according to this word, there is no morning, that is, no life everlasting; according to the phrase of the Psalmist, when he saith, Psal. 46.5. God shall help Jerusalem when the morning appeareth, that is, when the day of our salvation will be approaching. This was the reason that John on his Revelation declareth, If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, Apoc. 22.19. God shall take away his part out of the book of life. Seeing then that the Apostle Paul did speak so highly in the commendation of Scriptures, as a man that hath not shunned to declare all the counsel of God, Act. 20.27. Act. 26.22. saying no other things than those, which Moses and the Prophets did say should come; I concluded presently, that there was no other fountain, out of which we could derive the true Church, but only out of Scriptures, by reason we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Eph. 2.2. Jesus Christ being himself the chief cornerstone. And I saw likewise that the Ancient Father Austin, L. 3. cont. Ma. Arian. did not disagree with my opinion, when he saith, Neither will I allege the Nicene, nor do you allege the Council of Arimine, unto my prejudice. Let matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason decert by the authority of the Scriptures, which are not belonging only to one party, but impartial witnesses of both. Contra Donat. There (that is in the holy Scriptures) as he saith somewhere else, Let us search after the true Church, and handle our questions. But searching more narrowly after the Purity of particular Churches, I found none answering so exactly the Scriptures as the Protestant Churches. Therefore I steadfastly concluded with myself, as soon as God would grant me an opportunity to associate myself in the Protestant Church, and reject the Roman Idolatry. Which I accordingly have done, and having renounced the Popish Religion, have adjoined myself unto the body of our Saviour Christ Jesus, that is, unto the true Protestant Church. Whose truth I am going to show now as shortly as I can, and that by this argument. That Church which doth vindicate the authority of the Scriptures, defends the proprieties of them, and teacheth according to the Scriptures, is a true Church; but the Protestant Church doth so: The Major is firm, and without contradiction: The Minor is to be proved, which I am endeavouring to do. Neither will I be so Scripturary, as that I should reject the old Fathers, and the Primitive Councils; I will allege them likewise as bearing witness unto truth, which cannot be overthrown. As to the first, The Protestant Church doth vindicate the authority of Scriptures, when she denieth the same to depend from the authority of the Church, not so much as to us. Robert Bellarmin seeing that these who affirmed without any limitation, Bell. de V D. l. 1. c. 46. the Divinity of Scriptures doth depend from the authority of the Church, did not speak soberly enough, he endeavoured to mollify the Proposition with this distinction, viz. that the Scriptures must be considered, either in themselves, or in respect unto us. As they are considered in the first manner, they do not depend from the authority of the Church, but as they are in the second. But as the distinction is vain, because every authority is Relative, and is not so much to be considered in itself, as in respect of the object; so likewise the supposition is false, viz. That the authority of Scriptures, in respect, or in relation unto us, doth depend from the Church. But before I come to the demolishing of this assertion, we will consider the reason why Papists say and believe so. And indeed I can find no other besides this, that they seeing themselves unable for resisting the Arguments of the Protestants, which are drawn out of the Scriptures, endeavouring to pervert the sense of them, asserting, that the same dependeth from the interpretation of the Church, and so consequently are constrained to affirm, that also the authority of Scriptures dependeth from the Church; of which Scriptures, nor of the right meaning of them, nothing can be certain without the Tradition of the Church. And by this same, they very handsomely tread in the footsteps of the old Heretics, of whom one thus speaks. The Heretics, when they come to be argued by the Scriptures, they presently fall to the accusing of them, as if they could not be from or of a sufficient authority, or not so to be understood, and of which no certainty can be had without Tradition. Here is the true Protraicture of our modern Papists. But to the thing itself. We deny the authority of Scriptures to depend any way from the authority of the Church, but only from the holy Spirit, speaking within the Scriptures, 2 Pet. 1.21. 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. by reason he is the author of them, and so he doth endue them with an irrefragable authority: And as Christ desires no testimony from any besides from the Father, so likewise his word, which he hath been pleased to leave upon earth instead of his person. And as it is very unreasonable, that the King's Proclamation should depend from a Crier, or a Rule from a thing that is ruled; or that the Sun should borrow its brightness from that Orb or Vortex which it is contained in; so it is very disagreeable to affirm, that the Scriptures should depend from the authority of the Church. The Church is a Candlestick, the Word of God is a Candle, as our Saviour declareth, Luke 8.16. Now as a Candlestick doth contribute nothing at all to the light of the Candle, so neither doth the Church to the authority of Scriptures. We do not reject the Ministerial Testimony of the Church in that case, by reason the Church leads us unto the Gospel, as the Samaritan Woman did lead her fellow-citizens to Christ, as Austin saith; yet for all that, none of them can be called the cause of our faith, but an instrument. Yet the Papists do object against us, viz. 1 Tim. 3.15. That the Church is called the pillar and ground of the truth; and from thence they bring in this conclusion, that she is the only cause, from whom the authority of the Scriptures doth depend. But very foolishly; because, first, that (I may pass by the Observation of Camero, who affirmeth these words to belong unto the 16 verse, by reason there is to be found in that verse a Copulative Particle, which otherwise should be to no purpose, etc.) the Apostle doth speak of the Church considered as a house, and then showeth which is the chiefest pillar or ground of the same (and indeed, if we speak reasonably, a house cannot be a pillar, but a pillar is in a house). It is, secondly, to be observed, that by this pillar, is not to be understood an Architectonical, but a Political one; not one that should uphold by its strength the authority of Scriptures, but one upon which the Proclamations and Constitutions of the Supreme King are affixed. Neither is the exception of Bellarmin against this distinction of any value, viz. That by this way the Church may be as well called a Library as a Pillar; by reason we do affirm, that the office of the Church is not only to keep the books (as it is of a Library), but to expose the Contents of the same to the view of people, and to under-teach them in the way of their Superiors will (which belongs to a pillar). The Church then can be an external Motive unto us, that the Scriptures are of divine authority, but cannot persuade us unto it, by reason it is only the propriety, and the business of the holy Ghost, whom the Lord joineth with his word; Ps. 59.21. when he saith, My spirit, which is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, etc. Austin speaketh very handsomely to that purpose, Lib. de Confess. speaking of the authority of Scripture. But how shall I be persuaded to believe this? Moses indeed did say so; it is true, he said, but he is gone; and although he should be present, and talk Hebrew to me, I should not understand what he meant: but if he should speak Latin, I should understand. But by what means should I know that he speaketh truth? Therefore inwardly, inwardly I say in the Cabinet of my heart, not the Greek, nor the Hebrew, nor the Latin, neither the Barbarian truth; but he that without the sound of lips, or the noise of syllables, should tell me he speaketh truth, and I should say to this, this man, You speak truth. You may see, Christian and impartial Reader, how Austin did think he could be persuaded of the authority of Scriptures, not by the authority of the Church, nor by the persuasion of Moses or the Prophets, but by the internal truth, speaking in his heart, Which is the holy Spirit? And let them not make an instance against us, that every one pretends the holy Spirit, by reason pretention maketh no prejudice to truth. Neither is the question betwixt us and the Papists, as betwixt admitting the authority of the Scripture, and denying the same, by reason both of us do admit the same; and then the question ariseth, how, or by what way we may be persuaded, that these Scriptures which we embrace as divine, are not profane. And if we or they answer more agreeably, let every impartial Christian be a judge. We conclude therefore, as this question to be unworthy of a Christian man, If the holy Bible be the Word of God; so another assertion of a Jesuit, Sambar de fide orthodoxa. called Sambar, to be very foolish, viz. that the Protestant Churches have no Scriptures. For besides that he defends this proposition for no other end, but to escape the strength of the arguments derived out of the Scriptures, likewise he confirmeth this proposition by no other medius terminus, or reason, but because the Protestant Church (having no notes of a true Church) is false, and so she can have no Scripture, being the Scriptures dependeth from the Church, both in their material, and in their formal part. Whereas both the argument and its probation is false, and they foolishly, petunt principium, take that for granted, which we utterly deny, viz. that the Scriptures and their sense doth depend from the authority of the Church, as we did touch this point somewhat higher. Moreover, the Jesuit by this assertion doth show his desperate cause, by reason none of the ancient Fathers did deny the Scriptures to any Heretic (as they suppose us to be), that they might show his case plain; and Austin saith, that the Scriptures are not belonging as proper to one, Aug. lib. 3. contr. Ma. Arian. but that they are common witnesses of both the sides. And if we would be so rude, we could change the scene, and affirm, that the Papists themselves have no Scripture, as to the formal part, because we did plainly show a little higher, their Church not only to be false and erroneous, but none at all. But being I am not afraid of their arrows, which they can take out of the Scriptures, I will not deny them the Bible. Having thus far secured the Sentiment of the Protestant Churches, about the authority of Scriptures, I descend to the proprieties of them. I affirm therefore, the holy Scriptures to be perfect, as well touching the perfection of parts, as of degrees, and thence to be sufficient to our salvation. The Law of God is perfect, saith David, Psal. 119. and the sufficiency of it is shown by the Apostle in the forementioned words, 2 Tim. 3.16. The accession of the New Testament to the old maketh no prejudice to the perfection and sufficiency of Scriptures, because he that declared all the counsel of God, spoke nothing other than what Moses did say and the Prophets, as we writ before. Hence the old Fathers said very well, As the New Testament is hidden in the old, so the Old Testament is declared in the new; neither (gradus variat speciem) doth a degree change the nature of things that are of the same kind. Neither do we dispute with the Papists, of this or the other part of Scriptures, but of the whole Canon, as it is made by the Apostles, declared by the ancient Church, and enumerated by Hierom. Hierony. in prol. Gal. They are not therefore to commit a fallacy of division. And as we do justly cut off from this perfection and sufficiency of Scriptures, the books called Apocrypha, by reason they contradict themselves and the holy Scripture, neither were they found in the Jewish Church, unto which were committed the Oracles of God: Rom. 3.2. So we reject the distinction of the Papists betwixt the books Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical, by reason a Canon cannot be changed. And for this reason we do very little esteem, Traditiones non scriptas, not written Traditions; because out of that is written, Joh 20.31 2 Tim. 3.15 we may have sufficient instructions for the life-eternal. To refer unto these Traditions the several Orders of Friars, and the sheaving of their Crowns, the words of Christ, John 16.12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now, is a very great folly. Because if this was the meaning of Christ, he could very easily have called a Barber, and commanded the heads of those Disciples to be shaved. But may be he could not by reason of their baldness. Besides, that Monks, Hieronimus. whose duty was to weep, and not to teach, as an old Father saith, were not shaved for a sign of their honour and pre-eminence, but for a sign of their penitence. For the last, Psal. 19.8. Rom. 16.4. the Scriptures are easy to be understood; The Commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes: and whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Which could not be, if the Scripture was not easy and light. We affirm therefore, that as those things which are absolutely necessary to salvation are few, so they are plainly set down in the Scriptures. But as for other questions, I do not deny such things to be found in the Scriptures, that can afford work enough for a human wit. Namely, as one saith, The holy volumes are of such a nature, Chrysostomus. that as well a lamb may wade in it, as an Elephant swim. Being then, that the holy Scriptures are perspicuous, as it is evident out of reason, testimony, and the consent of the ancient Fathers; therefore the Protestants proceed very lawfully in attributing judicium discretionis, or a judgement of discretion to every true Christian. So that every believer by the often reading of the Word of God, and by the conferring of one place of Scripture with the other, may interpret the Gospel, 2 Pet. 1.20, 21. because no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation; for it came not by the will of man, but by the holy Ghost. As for the Fathers of the ancient Church, and the four Primitive Councils, we embrace them as interpreters of the holy Scriptures; yea, we affirm likewise, that they may bind subordinately to Scriptures our conscience, but not force them to the faith (ligant, non obligant): yet we deny whether the Fathers, or the Council, or the Roman Pope to be a Judge of the Controversies about matters of faith, Austin. Fatetur Andradius contra K●mnitium, Defence. Concil. Triden. l. 2. Bellar. sacra scriptura regula decidendi certissima tutissimaque est. Heb. 4.12. but only the Holy Ghost speaking in his Word, or as one saith, Christ himself when he speaketh: Let Christ judge of this controversy, who although he be absene in his person, yet is present in his word. Hence doth flow, that the Scriptures may be justly called a Judge; not proclaiming outwardly the sentence, but deciding the question as a Law, and so it may be called a judex normalis, a normal Judge, being it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. We did show (as I believe) shortly and clearly, that the Protestant Churches do vindicate sufficiently the authority of the holy Scriptures, and derogate nothing at all from their adjuncts and proprieties. Now I will come to the second part of our argument, and show, that the Protestants do teach according to the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, contained in the Scriptures. I will pass by these common places of Divinity, as touching God, in his Works, Proprieties and Persons, by reason the Papists do believe the same as the Protestants, except in some preterfundamental things, which we will have better opportunity to speak of somewhat lower. Only this I touch at present, that Jesuital definition of the Free will is very false and erroneous, viz. that it is Facultas qua positis omnibus ad agendum praerequisitis aliquis possit agere & non agere: A faculty by which, all the requisites belonging to the doing of a thing, being present, a man can nevertheless choose to do it or no; I say it is false, because besides that when the object is present, the will, by the determination of the last practical judgement of our reason, embraces the object without any dilation; likewise it is impossible that a man should change God's Decree, which is one of the requisits, Act. 17.28 Psal. 7.6. Isa 4.10. Psal. 8.11. putting a man into a performance of this or another kind of an action; by reason, as God himself cannot change, so neither can his Will, because he saith himself, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: and David, The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. After all the requisites to the prodition and betraying of Christ were found in Judas, as viz. the determination of his Will by his Reason; the taking of the money, etc. Judas could not choose but betray Christ, by reason the highest requisite was present, which is the Will of God and his determination, or his hand and his counsel; in order unto which, the Son of man was of necessity to be delivered into the hands of sinful men, Act. 1.28. Luk. 24.7. and be crucified, and the third day rise again. All which could have been changed, if the freewill of Judas had been of that condition our Jesuitical definition speaks of. The Protestants therefore are sounder in this case, as well as in the rest, because they define the freewill thus; Arbitrium humanum est facultas agendi libere, absque coactione, & determinatione physica ad unum; that is, The will of a man is a faculty, doing a thing freely, without coaction, or physical determination to one. Because not every necessity taketh away the freedom of our will, but only that which is of coaction, and of physical necessity; for the free will cannot be forced as to its actus elicitos, or internal acts, but quoad imperatos, or external; nor can it be determined to one thing only, as the fire is determinated to burning. Therefore it is not free from the Divine determination, nor from the last judgement of the practical reason, nor in the unregenerate from sin, unto which although it be determined, yet considered specifically it hath freedom, to make a choice betwixt sin and sin. So that in an unregenerated man it is only free to sin, neither can a man by the virtue of the same arrive to the doing of any Theological good. 1 Cor. 3.5. Col. 2.13. Eph. 2.3. & 5.14. & 2.12. Rom. 14.23. For we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, being we are by nature the children of wrath; we are dead without God, and every imagination of the thought of our heart is only evil continually, Gen. 6.5. and from our youth, Cap. 8.28. And the best that any unregenerate man seemeth to do is but bad, by reason it doth not proceed from faith, which qualifieth the work. Just then as a privatione totali non datur regressus ad habitum nisi per potentiam infinitam, from a total privation can be no returning to a habit, unless by the infinite power; so likewise from sin (which is privatio rectitudinis debitae inesse, a want or a privation of the righteousness which ought to be within us), there is no returning to justice or righteousness, Joh. 11.43. unless God awaken us, and speak to our dead hearts, Rise up Lazarus; unless he commandeth the Sun of Righteousness to rise in our dark hearts as he did in the first Creation, Mal. 4. saying, Let there be light, Gen. 1. And truly because Regeneration according to the phrase of the holy Scriptures is nothing else but a new creation; Eph. 2.10. For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, saith Paul; and elsewhere, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, Gal. 6.15. nor uncircumcision, but a new creature; confer Gal. 6.15. cum Col. 3.10. Hence David prays, God should create a clean heart in him; it cannot be attributed to any else but only to the Infinite power, Phil. 2.13. which is in God, who worketh in us both to will and to do, according to his good pleasure. Whatever good works therefore are or were to be found in Heathens, are not without reason called by Austin, August. Mat. 5.45. Splendida peccata, shining sins. I do not deny, they may do somewhat good morally, by the general influence of the Almighty, according to Paul's saying, The Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the Law; Rom. 2.19. yet they can do no good as it is considered Theologically, because they are destitute of faith, which purifieth the heart, and of a right end of their doing, Act. 15 9 which is God's glory. Being they do not absolutely show this or the t'other sin, but for that they may show themselves before people, as Socrates did shun Intemperance, for to gain by it vainglory. Hence it floweth that Justification, Sanctification, and the like, are not ours but Gods; so that when God confers upon us as justified and sanctified the eternal glory, he may be well said, August. to crown with reward his own gifts, and not our merits. As to Justification which we first intent to speak of, it is twofold, active and passive. Or else it is to be considered, either in respect of God justifying, or in respect of the man justified. In the first respect it is nothing else but an outward absolution of a sinner, and a proclamation made by God of a man, that he is reputed just for the merits and satisfaction of Christ. Hence Paul saith, That God justifieth the ungodly, Rom. 4.5. Rom. 4.5. Rom. 3.24. By his Grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, Rom. 3.24. God then so justifying maketh no phyfical immutation or change in a sinner, as the Papists do say, who would have this justification of God to be of that same nature as their Transubstantiation is, in which one thing is changed into another, that is, that God justifying doth not proceed as a Judge at the Bar, pronouncing one innocent, but as making by a physical immutation a just man out of an unjust, as Christ did turn water into wine. To prove which opinion Bellarmine, Becanus and the rest of the Jesuits did much labour, but without any success. They produce nothing out of the Scriptures which is not to be referred to Sanctification, and so they commit a great fault of ignoratio elenchi, and their arguments framed from reason are so unreasonable that they are not worth the while of refutation. The strongest of them which I intent to allege, is taken from the Word itself. They say, Justificure nihil aliud est ex vocis etymologia quam justum facere, Obj. to justify is nothing else, but only to make just and righteous, because it is compounded ex justus & facio; and the rest of such words as are composed with the word facio are of the same signification, as glorificare, sanctificare, to sanctify, to glorify, which do not signify to pronounce one holy or glorious, but to make one such and of that nature; and therefore justificate to justify, must not signify to pronounce one just who is unjust in himself but to make one righteous. But I hope they will not prove themselves better Grammarians than they are Divines. I answer therefore: 1. The sense and the right meaning of a word in matters Divine, is not to be taken out of Calepin, but out of the Word of God, which is the rule of our faith. Now out of the Scriptures it is plain, as it is demonstrated by many, that Justification is every where taken in sensu forensi: Qui justificat impium & condemnat justum ambo sunt abominationi Jehovae; he that justifieth an unjust man, and condemneth the just, they are both an abomination unto the Lord, faith Solomon. Here the justification of an unjust is opposed to a condemnation of a godly man, and so in all other places the word Justification is taken. 2. If this should be the meaning of the word, than there should be no distinction betwixt Justification and Sanctification, as we find it to the contrary, ●ev. 22.11 ●om. 8.30 Rev. 22.11. He that is righteous let him be righteous still, and he that is holy let him be holy still: and so Rom. 8.30. And whom he justified, them he also glorified: where in the word glorified is comprehended Sanctification, Glorificatio inchoata, velue glorificatio est sanctificatio consummata, an inchoated glorifying, as Glorification is a consummated sanctifying. 3. And then this composition with the word facio doth not always signify an internal immutation in that thing unto which such a word is attributed; Luk. 1.46. as we may see in the Song of the blessed Virgin Mary, where she saith, Magnificat anima mea Dominum, My soul doth magnify the Lord: where Magnificat is compounded out of the word magnus & facio. Now let them put their heads together, and if they can prove any way that the blessed Mother by her magnifying the Lord, made in him an inward change, we will allow that God by justifying us, maketh an inward mutation in us. Ante vero leves pascentur in ●here cervi. So much concerning the Justification called active, now we will descend to the passive, or as it is considered in respect of the man justified. And so considered it is nothing else but an assurance of our righteousness in Christ, and by the imputation of his merits which we receive and apply to ourselves by faith, Rom. 3.25, 26. Rom. 3.25, 26. Hence we see the cause meritorious of our Justification to be the merits of Christ, as we shown it a little before, and the hand by which we apply this satisfaction of our Saviour, or the instrumental cause, to be faith; Rom. 5.28. Therefore (saith Paul) we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law. It is as plain in the holy Word of God, as that the cause of the day is the Sun, that we are only justified by faith, Gratia salvati estis per fidem: By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, Eph. 2.8. it is the gift of God. So that I will not insist upon this matter any longer, Rom. 3.20 and therefore immediately conclude with the Apostle against the Popish Creed, That by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. There is therefore no justification in the sight of God by our works, but only by faith, which applieth the Panacea of salvation unto our dead hearts, and makes us to live in him, and him in us. We are not so unreasonable as to separate works from our faith, nevertheless we affirm, that it is faith only that justifieth: that which sees is only an eye, that which weighs is only an arm, nevertheless, neither of them can either see or weigh, unless they be annexed to the human body; so although faith is said to justify only, the meaning is not that it is separated from the good works. The holy Apostle James saith, Jam. 2.24. We are justified by works and not by faith only: It is true, but he understands either the justification before men, as we may see it out of Jam. 2.18. Show me thy faith by thy works, or else the confirmation of the inward faith by the outward do, or else he uses a kind of a Metonymia effecti; so that he may understand by the faith and works, a working-faith, which he seemeth to insinuate in the place, Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, Ibid. Jam. 2.17. and not by faith only; that is not by a bare faith, which if it hath not works is dead being alone, but by a living faith, which shows its goodness by works. Therefore we are not justified by works, but as I said by faith, and every one who looks into himself and his weakness must utter the Confession of Bellarmine, Bellar. de bon. oper. Propter humanae vitae fragilitatem & propriae justitiae incertitudinem, tutissimum est in● sola Dei misericordia spem collocare. For the sake of the frailty of human life, and the uncertainty of our own righteousness, it is the most secure way to rely upon the only mercy of God. Consider, kind and civil Reader, the words of this Cardinal, who (as I can show if necessity requires) at the end of the greatest Controversies which are handled betwixt us and the Romanists, yields to the truth, and is more (though an Italian) a Protestant than a Papist. So then we have by the grace of God shown Justification, as in relation to God, to be a forensick pronunciation of the righteousness of a sinner; and the passive one to be only by faith, and a living faith, which applies to her the merits of our Saviour. As to Sanctification we will not speak any thing of it, by reason the Papists do not dispute much against the Protestants in this matter, only I utterly deny these works which we do, to be meritorious, which are conducing and necessary to our salvation, necessitate medit, as a means by which we should arrive to everlasting salvation. Bernhard saith very handsomely of them, Bernhard. Opera bona sunt via ad regnum, non causa regnandi. Good Works are a way to Heaven, but not the cause of it. Neither doth the distinction of the Papists betwixt the works de congruo and de condigno, mitigate their assertion. For besides, that the congruency of God's reward for our works consists only in his own pleasure, Fear not little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. Luk. 12.32, Likewise (which I always admired) they have found no other place out of the Scriptures, or in them, for the asserting the condignity (or meritoriousness as it is considered in itself) of good works, besides this place, which doth contradict them to their faces: Non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis, gloriae in nobis revelandae: This is the only place where the word condignae is to be found. Ex ungue leonem: It is enough to give a small portraiture of truth, because Wisdom which hath many sons can be justified by them. I will go further, and show how the Protestant Church teacheth well of the Sacraments that are seals of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11 and give a short view of the Papists Errors. As touching Baptism, both of the parties confesseth the same to be a Sacrament of Initiation, by which we are implanted in fide parentum, (which I hold) in the faith of our Parents, into the Church, which is the Body of Christ. But falsely do the Papists affirm, that, first, it doth work ex opere operate, by its own virtue, in order to our Regeneration, and the taking away of the Original sin; not only because a thing corporal and outward can have no influence into things spiritual, as to their amendment, but all proceeds from God only; Omne bonum donum, & omnis perfecta Donatio descendit a patre luminum, saith James. But because a sign of the Covenant cannot contribute the things in it comprehended; neither is it apparent by the effect, by reason those that have been baptised, are, and have been subject to everlasting damnation, and have fallen from that former Illumination, of which speaketh the Apostle, Heb. 6.4. And if this Sacrament should work ex opere operato, Heb. 6.4. Rom. 4.9, 10. Grace, or Regeneration, etc. Surely Abraham could not have been as he was counted, righteous by faith in uncircumcision? Moreover, in the times Primitive, and especially as to them that were baptised being at age, Faith was required before the seal of Righteousness was stamped upon their souls and consciences. Now, being that faith is a cause of other virtues and graces, and hath adjoined to itself that great work of Repentance; it must needs follow, that the Apostle requiring faith (as to the aged) did suppose in them other graces, not thinking that the same should be conferred upon them by the Baptism, but rather sealed and confirmed: Yea, because the Sacrament of Baptism is a seal of the Righteousness of faith, and not a thing working out by its internal Power, Faith and Regeneration. This same reason hath moved Austin, and other of the ancient Fathers, to affirm, that Children are baptised either in fide parentum, in the faith of their parents, if faithful Christians; or else in fide Ecclesiae, in the faith of the Church, viz. if their parents be unknown, or Infidels; because they were persuaded that faith is required before baptism, rather than conferred by it. So that we think, that in these Children which are elected, there is an operation of the Holy Ghost from the beginning; which although not sensibly, yet efficaciously worketh upon their tender hearts and minds: and if it doth not work in them subjectively some kind of faith, or else an actual faith; yet it objectively applieth the benefits of Christ, which are otherwise received by an actual faith. Now that no body should think we do charge falsely our Adversaries, the Papists, with this assertion; I will show the Courteous Reader the reason why they do assert thus, and then evince the same out of another custom of theirs in this holy Sacrament. As to the reason why? it is this: Because they say, that Children dying without being baptised, cannot be saved, but are in a limbus infantum, a kind of a hole prepared for Children, where they suffer paenam damni, sed non paenam sensus; that is, they are deprived only from the Vision of God, but are not subject to any sensible torment. If then their election, which is unchangeable, Act. 2.39. and the being under the Covenant of Grace, which as well belongeth to them as their Parents, cannot save them, because of their not being baptised: Surely baptism, which maketh them able to demand Heaven, must work these graces by its internal virtue, by which they may arrive to the eternal happiness. 2. They say none can be saved without the Church, and none can be counted as a Member of it, unless he be baptised. So then, if the baptism only maketh us Members of the Church, without which we cannot be saved; Baptism likewise must operate, by its internal virtue, those graces by which we are saved. As to the custom in some particulars, it is this: They think the holy Baptism to be so absolutely necessary to salvation, that they in case of necessity do approve the baptism of Women, if they only observe the form of the baptism. Which evinces, that they think baptism to work as we said formerly, ex opere operato. Having showed the truth of our charge laid unto them, I will show with one argument the falseness of them both. As to the first; That not all Children that die without baptism are to be deprived of the beatifical Vision, 2 Sam. 12.18, 23. is as sure, as that David, who was saved, was to go after his death to his child, which was dead without circumcision; instead of which baptism succeeded, as we may infer out of Col. Col. 2.11, 12. Act. 2.39. 2.11, 12. It is as sure, as that the promise of everlasting salvation belongeth to the Children; which argument is to be pressed as well against Anabaptists, denying the seal to the Children, unto whom belongeth the promise; (for which belonging of the promise, Peter was willing to confer Baptism upon some Converts, as we may see out of the place, Act. 2.38, 39 Act. 2.38, 39) as against the Papists denying to the Children (albeit they be under the promise, and the Covenant of Grace) dying without being baptised, the life everlasting; by reason he that is in the Covenant of Grace, or under the promises, is in Christ; he that is in Christ, Eph. 2.12. Act. 4. must necessarily be saved; Therefore he that is under the promise of life, or in the Covenant of Grace (as Children are), must necessarily be saved. But they have an argument against us, Obj. Verily I say unto you, except a man he born of water, Joh. 3.6. and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Out of which words they conclude, that baptism is of that efficacy, that none can be saved without it. But I answer. Resp. It is a vain exception, because by this water and spirit, is nothing else to be understood, but the Holy Ghost himself, who is of the same nature as water is, as to the ablution of our sins. Another like expression is to be found in the Gospel of Matthew, Mat. 3.11. He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and fire; that is, the Holy Ghost, who is of a fiery nature, in cleansing as Gold seven times refined in the fire. Therefore such expressions are metaphorical, or figurative and improper, and are called Hendiadis: a like expression there is in Virgil, Poculis libamus & auro. Virgil. We drink out of Cups of Gold, Aeneid. 1. Arma virumque cano, id est, armatum virum. Joh. 3.3. that is, out of golden Cups; so that to be born of water and spirit, is nothing else, but to be born out of a watery, or out of a fiery spirit. Hence what Christ saith here, by way of Hendiadis, he expresseth the same in its own proper words, a little higher, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. So that hence we may inter by the authority and explaining of our Saviour himself, in this place to be understood only the spiritual Regeneration, and not the external Ablution of the water. As to the second, we do utterly deny the Baptism performed by Women to be lawful and irrevocable. They have nothing else to allege, only the example of Zipporah, Obj. that circumcised her Son; Exod. 4.25, 26. and so they think a Woman may as lawfully baptise, as circumcise. I will not answer according to the usual answer of some Divines, Ans. that Zipporah sinned in doing so; because I believe the Almighty God doth never bless men for sin, as he did Moses, for that doing of Zippora. But I answer thus; that in the Old Testament circumcision was indifferently performed by any, byreason it was not so strictly joined with the office of Preaching, as Baptism is in the New Testament, made so by Christ himself; Go and teach all Nations, baptising them, etc. Mat 28.19 So that now it is unlawful for any one to administer the holy Baptism, besides him who is ordained for Preaching. Now we are minded to speak of the second Sacrament (for we will not regard their assertion of the rest of their five Sacraments, which have no ground neither in Scriptures, nor in the ancient Fathers), which is the Lords-Supper. This according to the true Doctrine, is nothing else, but only a visible sign of an invisible grace, by which visible sign, that is, Bread and Wine, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. we receive the body and blood of our Saviour, as a seal of the Covenant of Grace, tending unto our salvation. We do not deny the body and blood of Christ to be really present in this holy Sacrament: But we deny the same, 1. To be there corporally, because the body of our Saviour being circumscriptive, and in heavens, is not everywhere: And then, 2. We deny this Supper of our Lord to be a sacrifice for the living and the dead. Which is my greatest point in this case, and I accordingly will endeavour to declare it. As to the first, the Papists do urge very much their Transubstantiation. It is a question, and a Controversy very well known, but I hope to add some light to it: I go on. By this Transubstantiation, they understand nothing else, but the corporal presence of the body and blood of our Saviour, under the accidents of Bread and Wine? So that they think the substance of those Elements to be turned into the first nothing, out of which they were formerly created, and the accidents only to remain, which acts in the senses of our sight, feeling and taste. This is the description or 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation, upon which we say the same to be quite false and erroneous. 1. The name of it, nor the matter in it contained is not to be found in Scriptures, 1 Cor. 10.17. by reason after the consecration it is still called bread, of which we are partakers; where not only we are said to be partakers of bread, which could not be if it was annihilated, but likewise no Papist will admit this Sacrament to be called bread after Consecration, which nevertheless the Scripture doth. 2. The name of it is newly come up, nor was it ever heard before the Council of Lateran, when Berengarius was forced to recant the truth, and fall into a most abominable error, as to say that Christ's body was eaten and bitten with teeth, etc. Atteri dentibus & in alvum demitti. 3. It is a most improper name to a thing, yea it is as much to be called Transubstantiation, as creation could be called annihilating; because Transubstantiation is nothing else but a mutation of one substance into another, as in Cana of Galilee Wine was turned into water: but here the Papists say that one substance doth not become another, but that the one (which is the bread and wine) is annihilated, and the other (which is the body and blood of Christ) is induced under the accidents or species of bread and wine (although here likewise they have a thousand distinctions about the introduction, or adduction of the body of Christ underneath the accidents, which I will pass over); so that by this way it must be called annihilation of one, and introduction of another substance, rather than Transubstantiation; but because the thing is false, the name must be of that same nature. Conveniunt rebus nomina saepe suis. 4. There can be no Transubstantiation where the thing that is given, in the distribution of the Sacrament, is called by the ancients a sign, a figure, because none can be a sign or a figure of himself; as Christ should be, if he should be given as present corporally or bodily under the accidents. Austin, Now Austin saith, Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum, ●um daret figuram corporis sui. The Lord was pleased to say, This is my body, when he did give the figure or the sign of it. And the most of the ancient Fathers do interpret the words in this sense, as we will show God willing in another Treatise, purposely handling of this matter. Scripture, as we shown somewhat higher, calls it, Sigillum, or signaculum justitiae fidei, a seal of the Righteousness of Faith; and what is a seal of a thing, cannot be the thing itself. The Objections that the Papists have against Protestants as to their Transubstantiation out of the Scriptures, as well as out of the ancient Fathers, we will not touch them here, referring them to that Treatise which we spoke of before, where it shall be most fully handled of. Only I cannot pass this Objection by, which I did read in one Anonymus Jesuit framed against our last reason, Jesuita Anonymus. namely that nothing can be a sign of itself. He maketh this instance, That something can be a sign of itself, as David could had been a sign of himself, as fight with Goliath in the Valley of Terebinth, if he had presented himself upon the Theatre. But I answer, 1. David had not been a sign of himself but of his actions he performed at the time of the Combat. 2. If David had been sewed up in a Sack, or else had lain upon the Theatre being covered with a skin of an ass, (as they say Christ is covered with the species of bread and wine) so that no body could have seen him, I do not understand how he could have been a sign of himself, or of his actions either, and showed how valiantly he had fought with Goliath. I will omit here, that this Sacrament was instituted for the remembrance of Christ Man, and that the remembrance is only of a thing absent, as likewise many of their exceptions against us, because I refer all this to the aforesaid Treatise. Only I will show my second Proposition, which is, that the Supper of the Lord is no sacrifice for the living and the dead. And this as short as ever I can by this general argument. Where there is no Priest, no Altar, no proper Host, there is no proper sacrifice for sin. In the New Testament there is no such thing. The Major is very true and plain. They (Papists) allow their sacrifice to be proper; if so, she must have a proper altar, a proper Priest, a proper Host, because the nature of Relatives is such that they do in general relate to one another, and so saith Bellarmine, Bellar. de Missa. lib. 1. c. 16. De cuten san. lib. 3. c. 4. De Miss. lib. 1. c. 14. Altaria non consueverunt erigi nisi ad sacrificia proprie dicta: The altars use not to be erected, unless for sacrifices properly so called. And again, Sine altari non potest sacrificari: Without an altar there can be no sacrifice. And again, Nunquam altare proprie dictum erigitur, nisi ad sacrificia proprie dicta: An altar properly so called, is never erected but for sacrifices properly so called. If we therefore evince that there is no proper altar, nor Priest, nor sacrifice in the New Testament (that is, besides Christ himself.) We shall show our conclusion evidently that there is no sacrifice neither. As to the Altar there is no material altar to be sound in the holy Scriptures, as one that should be used in the New Testament. Christ the instituter of this holy Sacrament, Luk. 22.21. 1 Cor. 10.21. Bellar. de missa. lib. 1. cap. 17. celebrated the same on the Table: the Apostle Paul calls it a Lords-Table, there is no mention made of an altar which had been done if it had been in use; hence the great Bellarmine, Ap stoli non utebantur nominibus sacerdotii sacrificii, altaris: The Apostles did not use the name of Priesthood, sacrifice, altar, as knowing well that there could be none after the material sacrifices were sealed up. But the Papists object out of Hebr. Obj. 13.10. We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat, Heb. 13.10. who serve the tabernacle. I answer that it is an ignoratio elenchi. We do not deny an improper altar of which this Text speaketh, but we deny a proper and a material altar. That this Text speaketh improperly, the words themselves show, viz. We have an altar whereof to eat etc. Can any body eat a material altar; and that this altar is an invisible and an improper one the sacrifice that the Apostle would have to be offered upon it doth plainly evince it, Heb. 13.15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name. So the old Fathers likewise; Ambros. in Epist. ad Hebr. Bernh. in ser. om. S. Ser. 4. Nazian. Orat. 24. ●ell. l. 1. 〈◊〉 miss. ●ap. 14. Dan. 9 Ambrose saith, Nihil horum est visibile neque sacerdos, neque sacrificium, neque altar: Nothing of these is visible, neither the Priest, nor the sacrifice, nor the altar. Bernhard, Altar nihil aliud arbitror esse quam corpus Domini: I think the altar to be nothing else but the body of the lord Nazianzen the Divine calls it an altar which is above, that is, Christ himself. And for the last the Papists themselves must yield here an improper altar to be understood, as Bellarmine confesseth, Non urgeo ipsum locum, I do not urge this place; and so doth Thomas, Anselmus, the Divines of Collen, and others. As to the Sacrifice there is none proper neither; so prophesieth Daniel, that the Sacrifice and Oblation should cease, and so we see in the fulfilling of the same Prophecy. Heb. 9.26. So saith Paul, Nor yet that he should offer himself often, but now once in the end of the world, etc. And in another place, Heb. 10.12 And every Priest standeth every day ministering and offering, but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God. Where the Apostle plainly showeth that Christ offered himself but once, and so cannot be offered any more. Yea, it is observable that the Apostle urgeth the sufficiency of Christ's oblation, and the excellency of it, by this argument: 1. Because he offered himself but once, and did not repeat it often as an insufficient sacrifice. And 2. because he sat down on the right hand of God for ever, having done his work perfectly, which the Priests could not do, because they did stand, which signifieth one that hath not done his work as yet, but must lay his hand once more to it, before he can sit down, and rest himself from his work. Therefore the Papist commencing daily sacrifices of Christ after that one sacrifice do derogate from the sufficiency of it, and make him liable to standing, where he sits already for ever at the right hand of God. This was the reason likewise, why God did destroy Jerusalem and the Temple after the fulfilling of Christ's Mediatorship, as to one part of his Priesthood which is his sacrifice, viz. that there should be no more material sacrifices, being the place to which they were bound was deftroyed. The Papists do urge the old custom, and the expressions of the old fathers, who commonly speak about sacrifices; but they are very much in them, because they understood by the word of a sacrifice nothing else but Sacrificium Eucharisticum, a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving, which commonly was performed at the Lords-Supper, which and alms joined together with prayers, are a living sacrifice, Rom. 12.1. Clem. Alexand. l. 7 Stromat. De vero cultu. l. 6. c. 25. August. de C.D. l. 10. c. 4. Psal. 110. holy and acceptable to God. Hence Clemens Alexandrinus saith, they will not believe that a holy altar is a righteous soul, and holy prayer the incense. And Lactantius, There are two things to be offered, a gift and a sacrifice both incorporal, the gift is the integrity of mind, the sacrifice is prayer and psalms. Austin calls our heart an altar, our sacrifice humility and praise, our fire charity. And so Hieronimus, Ambrose and others. As to the Priest, there is no other but Christ himself, because he is a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedech, and they cannot be Priests Levitical, because they are ceased. And so I having showed there is no proper altar, no proper Priest, nor no proper Host, besides Christ himself, Who is our sacrifice, Epiphan. lib. 2. ●om. 1. Ha●s. our priest, our altar; I conclude there is no proper oblation extant at this time, for the sins of the living and the dead, and by consequence no Transubstantiation upon which the sacrifice is builded. And here falleth their Purgatory, because besides that it is contrary to Scriptures, to Reason, to the ancient Fathers, injurious to the satisfaction and merits of Christ, likewise if there be no sacrifice there shall be no Mass, and per consequens no money for the delivery of the souls out of Purgatory, and so Purgatory must needs fall. Here falleth likewise their Doctrine of Concomitancy, Gelasius Pontif. Conc. Constant. for which sake, as their Pope saith, they have committed a sacrilege in subducing the Cup from the Layman, which although the Council of Constance professeth to be contrary to the Primitive institution of Christ, and the use of the ancient Church, yet notwithstanding all this for some foolish reason (as that the hands of some doth shake, that some have ugly beards, etc.) it declareth the man to be an Anathema, that will not believe it. And it is, and always hath been, a great wonder for me why the same doctrine of Concomitance should not as well serve in the taking away of the bread, and using the cup, or else in subducing it as well from the Clergy as from the Layman; why it is an observation and a fulfilling of Law to abstain from one, and a sin, yea a mortal sin, from the tother. There is no Reason nor Scripture for it to be found. Therefore the Protestants teach very well, as well to the nature as to the integrity of this Sacrament, as we may see in their daily practice. The rest of the arguments which they have against or for this matter, we will, as I said, refer to the aforementioned Treatise. Only I will touch the point of the worshipping of Saints. In which the Protestant Church teacheth according to the holy Scriptures, and to the ancient Fathers, August. that Sancti honorandi sunt imitatione, non adorandi religione: The Saints are to be honoured by Imitation, but not adored religiously: and that for these true Reasons, viz. 1. We cannot believe in Saints, Ergo; we cannot worship them: it is the argument of the Apostle Paul, Rom. 10.14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? 2. We are severely forbidden to worship any thing besides God; Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, Mat. 4.10. Isaias. Aquinas. 1. p. q. 57 ar. 4. Jer. 17.1. p. q. 12. ar. 8. and him only shalt thou serve. 3. Because they do not know our thoughts, nor our prayers: Abraham did not know us, and Isaac was ignorant of us: From thence saith Thomas Aquinas, to know the cogitations of the heart is the property of God, and elsewhere, Ergo Angeli non cognoscunt secreta cordis; therefore Angels know not the secrets of the heart. And again, Cognoscere singularia & cogitata, & facta hominum, non est de perfectione intellectus creati; To know particulars, and the thoughts and acts of men, is not of the perfection of a created understanding. This considering, Durandus saith, 4. p. 463. Si quaeratur an beati, cogitation beata, cognoscunt orationes nostras, dicendum qu●d non. If the question be, whether the blessed Saints in their blessed knowledge do know our prayers? It is to be answered, they do not: according to Austin, Aug. in lib. de cur. promort. c. 15.1 Reg. 8.39. Proinde fatendum est nescire quidem mortuos quid his agatur. Furthermore, it is to be confessed, that the dead know not what is done here, because God only knoweth the hearts of all the Children of men; seeing then that the Saints do not know our prayers, nor our thoughts; neither is it unlawful to adore them, or worship them. But I cannot pass by with silence an answer of a Jesuit, Jesuit, Anonymus. upon this place we produced in our third Reason, Abraham doth not know us. He answereth, that the Saints are said not to know the Israelites, as Christ saith to the wicked, Non novi vos, I do not know you; Mat. 7. yet he saith, Christ knew them well enough. It is an answer I never heard before. But this good Socius doth not consider that, 1. He contradicts his own opinion of the Fathers in the Old Testament, being in limbo patrum, where surely they could not be adored, nor know our necessities, as well as Christ knew theirs to whom he spoke, I do not know you. 2. When Christ saith, I do not know you; he means by it, the knowledge of approbation, that is, that he doth not approve them nor their do, as it is plain, ex antithesi, of knowing one, as David saith, Psal. 1. The Lord knoweth the way of the righteous; that is, he approveth it. But when Abraham is said not to know one, it is to be referred to a mere ignorance, as we may see it out of the opposition made betwixt Abraham and God; But thou, O Lord, etc. So that when God is said not to know a thing, it is to be understood he doth not approve it; but when men are charged with ignorance, it is to be understood properly. But having past this Objection, I will go on. Peter the Apostle, a Saint, and a holy Man would not admit the worshipping of Cornelius, saying, I myself also am a man. Act. 10.26 The Angel (of whom John knew he was such an one) would not admit the prostration of John, but says, Worship God. Rev. 19.10 A Heathen Poet could tell that God only should be worshipped, when he saith, Nec ela sum dixit, nec sacro thuris honore, Humanum dignare caput. Why should we Christians than be so unjust to the Almighty God, as to deprive him of his honour? The distinction which they use betwixt Latreia and Duleia, and Hyperduleia, is of no value; and I have seen many which sufficiently, yea abundantly refuted the same. Only I will conclude in this matter, that if Papists cannot be accused of formal Idolatry, surely they are guilty of material. Their exceptions betwixt the coherence of Signum and Signatum, and other small exceptions in that kind are vain. Every man is an Image of God, but I do believe they will not worship every one. Having thus far shown the truth of the Protestant Churches, in defending of the holy Scriptures, and in conforming their Doctrine to them in the most weighty points. I will infer this conclusion, that the Protestant Church is a true, a faithful, and a sincere Church, which was to be the conclusion. This I will add for the last, that namely, the Papists seeing they could not prevail with the Protestants, in the way of disputing of their Doctrine: They questioned the Ministry of the Protestant Clergy, saying the same was not lawful. But besides that their own Scholasticks, Bannes, Canus. as Bannes, Canus, and others doth allow, that per haeresin potestas ordinandi non amittitur: Likewise they show the contrary by their practice, because they do not re-ordain them that are ordained in our Churches, as to the substantial part; and it is sure enough, that a bad Governor, or Governors of the Church may send good labourers into the Vineyard of Christ, as I will show by an instance, in answer upon the next following argument. A Papist once discoursing with me about the Clergy of the Protestants, that namely they were unlawful, because they were ordained by them that fell off from the Church of Rome, and so became Heretics, framed this argument against me, viz. That Antichrist can send no servants for Christ. But the Roman Pope (as the Protestant saith) is an Antichrist, and he cannot send any servants for Christ. It seemed unto me a very strong argument at the first, till at last after a little while I answered him thus: That Antichrist (that hath nothing of Christ in him) cannot send servants for Christ, I allow; but the Roman Pope is such an Antichrist, I deny, and so do the Protestants; because: they do not affirm the Pope to be quite without Christ, or else he is not an open Antichrist, but a hidden one, under a Cloak of a Vicar of Christ, who distributeth the Offices of his temporal and earthly Court. And that such a one may send good men, and willing to serve Christ; I have showed it by an instance, which was this. When Christ was upon earth, and the limits of the Church were within the compass of Canaan, the Church was very much corrupted; Christ calleth their learning, fermentum, leaven; their lives, sepulchra dealbata, painted Coffins. Paul calleth the High Priest a whited Wall, and yet they did send out good Workmen into the Vineyard of the Lord: as, viz. Joseph, Nicodemus, and others. Thus I stopped the mouth of the Papists, and here I will make an end of my book. In the mean time, I thank the Almighty God for that he hath been pleased to open mine eyes, for they see the way of truth, and pray him to confirm me in it: And wish that every one may reject the way of abomination, and be rooted and built up in Christ, and established in the faith, lest he be spoiled by vain deceit, Col. 2.7, 8. after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Surely the Popish Religion, as it is considered in itself, and so by consequence their Church, is nothing else but Babylon: Apoc. Exite igitur ex ea popule mi; Go out of it my people, lest you should be partakers of their sins. Embrace the true Protestant Religion, which is pure in her Doctrine, holy in her Manners, true to God and King, to which both who will obey, let him be a true Protestant. FINIS.