THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST, EXPOSED To the View of all SOBER CHRISTIANS, from the Word of GOD, Sound Reason, AND THE Ancient FATHERS.  
By JAMES SALGADO, a Spaniard, a Converted Priest.  
London, Printed by T. B. for the Author 1681.   

To the Right Honourable HENEAGE, Earl of Nottingham, Lord Chancellor of England.  
THis most Important Affair, which concerns the Conversion of a Man to God, cannot better be offered to any Person, than to one that manages the greatest Affairs of a Mighty Monarch; to the Glory of his God, to the Credit and Interest of his Prince, to the Honour and Repute of the Nation, to the gladding of the hearts of all good Subjects therein, and the Terror of Offenders; to his own Immortal praise here, and Immortal Felicity hereafter, with universal, steady, unshaken Loyalty, Justice and Integrity; It is, to speak in short, most agreeable for one that is the Quintessence of all Excellencies, both Divine and Humane.  
The boldness which I have to present this Book to your Honour, doth not only bid me hope for Excuse, but also promise myself that your Honour will receive it according to your wont Noble and Generous Condescension, being your Poor Offerer tenders it with the Profoundest Reverence and Respects imaginable.  
I humbly pray your Lordship to take both myself and Book to your Honour's Protection; and it shall be my daily Prayers to Almighty God, to take under his Especial Charge your Honour's Person, and under his Especial Conduct all your Honour's Actions; so that both may be acceptable to his Divine Majesty, and his Majesty of Great Britain, and to all true English Spirits; being,  
My Lord, Your Honours most obedient Servant, JAMES SALGADO.   

THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST, etc.  
IT was not without Reason that the Fathers compared the Church to the Ark of Noah; because that as none that were out of the Ark could escape destruction by the Flood; so none that are without the Bosom of the Church can escape Everlasting Damnation; for those that are no Members of the Church, cannot partake of her peculiar Privileges, such as Vocation, Justification, Sanctification, etc. without which it's impossible to attain Eternal Life: And as any Member cut off from the Body is thereby deprived of Life, Sense and Motion, because it is no more united to, nor influenced from the Head; even so those that are cut off from the Church, are thereby deprived of Eternal Life, because they are not united unto Christ, who is the Head of the Church; and therefore want that influence of his Spirit which is the Author of all Spiritual Life.  
For this reason David affirms, that the Heathen knew not the Laws of God, even because they were not in the Communion of Israel, to which the Church was confined under the Old Testament, Psa. 147.19, 20. The Apostle Paul writing to the Ephesians, doth yet further confirm this Assertion; At that time you were without Christ, being Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and Strangers from the Covenant of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, Eph. 2.12. Namely, because they were not in the Bosom of the Church, they were therefore excluded from the Communion of Christ, who is the faithful Husband of the Church his only Spouse, as he himself affirms, Cant. 6.1. My Dove, my Undefiled, is but one.  
But when the Fathers used this similitude, they meant the Universal Church, whose beginning Augustine deriveth from Abel, and deduceth the continuation thereof even to the end of the World: Therefore it is not this or that Church, in this or that part of the World, that can be called Catholic in this sense; but that Church which was, which is, and which is to come, and comprehends the Triumphant as well as the Militant. And if that be properly Catholic, which hath been always and every where believed by all (Vincent. Lirinensis contra profanas novitates) then that is the Catholic Church which hath and will be always found in all Nations; for the thing ruled cannot be narrower than the Rule, and Faith cannot be found but in believers.  
I don't deny that there are many particular Assemblies, and many Provincial or National Churches, and some of these purer than others; but none of these Assemblies or Churches can be called Catholic, taking the word strictly, because they are only parts or members constituting one general body; and therefore cannot be called universal without a plain contradiction, unless you would give to the Hand or Foot the name of the whole body.  
Hence it follows, that the Roman Church being but a particular Church (supposing that it were Orthodox, which yet we utterly deny) cannot claim unto itself alone, exclusively to other Churches that profess Christ, the Title of Catholic.  
I confess I am not so rigid as to exclude the Roman Church and her Followers from the Latitude of the Universal Church; because besides that men living in that Communion, but in the simplicity of their heart professing God and his Christ, and sincerely endeavouring to work out their Salvation (although in many points they neither understand the thing itself, nor the manner of the thing, because of an invincible ignorance) may attain unto eternal life; for God is no respecter of persons, but in every Nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him, Act. 10.34, 35. I say, besides this, the Popish Church may be called a Church in a Physical though not in a Moral sense, even rs an Adulterous Wife doth not lose the name of a Wife, although she lose the name of an honest Wife.  
But because the Court of Rome will have their Church to consist in the Pope, or Council, or both, I shall evince their Church so taken to be fallible, erroneous and false.  
And although the Church in this sense be but representative; yet seeing all the rest do depend upon her as infallible, and have nothing left them but a blind obedience, taking the denomination of the whole from the principal part, I rightly affirm that the Roman Church is false, uncatholick, yea, and no Church at all.  
The Papists, not contented to pronounce all Churches without their Communion Heretics and Schismatics, and therefore without any hope of Salvation, have moreover asserted, that their own Church is infallible, and void of all Error. A great Assertion indeed, and which is not only false in itself, but also is one great reason why other Churches dissenting from her, cannot join into one Body, nor hold Communion with her: For, besides that no particular Church (such as the Roman is) can be called infallible, it necessitates them, after the manner of the Athenians, to worship they know not what, and erect an Altar to the unknown God.  
It is in vain to dispute concerning the property or privilege of any thing, while they that attribute these privileges to it, have no certain knowledge of the thing itself: Therefore in vain do they assert, that their Church is infallible, while they cannot determine when, or where this Church is. Some of them, as the Sorbonists, do place it in the Council; others, as the Jesuits, in the Pope alone, and finally, others in them both both jointly. Now choose which of those you please, you'll find yourself involved into inextricable difficulties; and, as I said before, under a necessity to sacrifice to an unknown God, which I shall shortly evince.  
Let us suppose, that the Church and her Infallibility consists in the Council alone, you shall presently be contradicted by some men of that same Church. But to pass this, Whence pray doth it appear that this Council is infallible? For first, it is impossible, that of things of one and the same nature, there can be made up another thing of a quite contrary nature: Therefore all the Members, of which this Council consists, being fallible, how comes the Council itself to be infallible? for if this Infallibility came but then to the Council, when they met together to constitute one Synodical Body; where pray was it before? in what corner of the World did it lurk? from whence, and in what manner did this good Infallibility come down upon the Fathers of the Council? or what shall become of it after the Council is dissolved? Where shall it compose its Head to rest, that hath been tossed and wearied by so many janglings and Gramatications.  
Moreover, how shall you know that all the Members of the Council have been lawfully or at all baptised, seeing you cannot be certain of the intention of the Priest, or Old Woman that baptised them, upon which the Efficacy of the Sacrament depends; that they were Canonically ordained, and not per saltum? that they were not intruded by force or Simony? All which are required to the constitution of a Bishop in suo formali. And unless you can persuade yourself, that you believe all these with a Divine and Infallible Faith, you cannot embrace their Decrees for infallible.  
Again, if this Infallibility of the Church do consist in the Council, there should be always extant such a Council, to which disagreeing Parties might have recourse, and receive a final determination of their Controversies; that so all scruples being removed out of their minds, they might live in peace and concord among themselves. But where is all this to be found? And if there were such a Council always in being, which yet is impossible, how should you know that this Council is not misguided by partiality; that it is not as bad as that of Ariminum, and needs not to be corrected by a subsequent Council? (as many Councils have been, if we believe Augustine.)  
You'll say perhaps that Christ promised unto his Disciples, and consequently to the Church, that the Spirit of truth shall come, and guide them into all truth, Joh. 16.13. and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, Mat. 16.18.  
For answer, I deny not that Christ promised his Discipies the Holy Ghost, but extraordinary things are not to be confounded with ordinary; for they received both the matter and words of what they wrote from the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but in after-Ages the Church was tied to the Scriptures, as sufficient for all manner of holy instruction, Cal. 1.2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. which if the Fathers of the council do follow, it is not to be doubted but God will afford them the assistance of his Spirit: But it cannot be said, that the Council doth hereby become infallible.  
2. When Christ saith, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, he doth not understand any particular Churches of their Bishops, but the Universal Church, which that it cannot err in Fundamentals, we believe and assert.  
3. How do you know that the Holy Spirit presides in this or that Council, seeing the Council of Ariminum may be called a Council as well as the Nicene?  
4. How can you be sure of any Council, that the Members thereof speak from a love to truth, and desire of peace, or from the Dictates of the Holy Ghost, and not rather from partiality? that their Decrees are framed more by the weight of Reason and Scriptures, than by the multitude of Votes; that it is not such as the Council of Trent, to which (as a Member of that Synod said) the Holy Ghost was brought from Rome in the Bags of the Roman Packet, and stayed longer away when the waters did rise, but came quickly thither when they were fallen, as being afraid to be wet or drowned.  
5. It's ridiculous for a Papist to go about to prove the Infallibility of Councils from Scripture; for I ask him this question, Whence doth it appear that that Church is Infallible, whose office it is both to make a Rule or Canon, and to give Authority to the Scriptures? for they hold, that the Authority of the Scriptures, as to us left, depends upon the Church: Now if the Church give the Scriptures their Authority, as to us, how can they convince us of the Authority of the Church?  
Thus you see into what difficulties they involve themselves, who place the Church with its Infallibility in the Council.  
Nor is it less, but rather more absurd, to settle it in the Pope alone; an Assertion so foolish and ridiculous, that the very reciting of it might be a sufficient confutation; namely, to place the Church in one Man; the Church, I say, which (even though representative) is formally a Congregation of many: Nevertheless we shall proceed in the Method we have begun.  
The Jesuits do generally hold this Opinion, and affirm, that the Pope alone, like the Pythia of Delphos, may frame Decrees, and impose them upon the people.  
But the forementioned difficulties return; For how can you persuade yourself that the Pope was Popable? that he was rightly, if at all baptised? that he obtained not the Popedom by force, by fraud, or by Simony? that he was a Man, and not a Woman? (for we have an instance of a Woman Pope, namely, Pope Joan) any of which being supposed, renders the Pope no more a Pope.  
Moreover, How shall you know that the Pope when he went about the framing of his Decrees, neglected not the usual preparations, namely, Fasting and Prayer for seven days, etc. that he acts by the advice of his Conclave, and not rather from the dictates of his own private judgement or humour. Now if these Conditions be wanting, the Decrees are not pronounced from the Chair, and therefore not infallible, nor obligatory to the Conscience.  
Further, By what Argument can you be convinced, that this Infallibility doth not belong to the Bishop of Paris (for example) as much as to the Bishop of Rome; and that it cannot be removed from the Roman Chair; for Gerson hath written a Treatise concerning the possibility of removing it.  
Finally, It cannot be conceived that one single man is Infallible in matters of Faith, seeing he hath no promise of an Infallible Spirit; and there are manifest examples of his having been actually deceived. But perhaps you will sly to that Vulgar distinction of the Pope's pronouncing from, or without his Chair; so that what he Decrees in the former way is infallible, though in the latter he may deceive, and be deceived.  
But you'll find that even this distinction can very little advantage, but rather prejudice your Cause: For how can it be conceived, that one and the same Man, without any fear or compulsion, can contradict himself in one and the same matter? Again, the Pope, who being out of the Chair may deceive, aught to advise with himself, as sitting in the Chair, lest he fall into an error; or the Cardinals, if they would have this Holy Father to be always infallible, should bind the good Old Man to the Chair with Chains, (as Prometheus was tied to Caucasus) that he may never be moved out of this Infallible Seat. Besides, it is manifest, that the Popes, even pronouncing from the Chair, have frequently erred; as appears by the examples of John the XXIII. Stephanus, Formosus, and others, as hath been made manifest to the World by many of the Reformed Writers, yea even by the Papists themselves; witness Platina concerning the Lives of the Popes, which Platina was the Pope's own Library-keeper at Rome.  
2. They can give no account what they mean by this Chair; for the material Chair can contribute nothing to the Pope's Infallibility by any physical or internal virtue, else a Herdsman, if set upon this Infallible Chair, would be no less Infallible than the Pope himself: But by the formal or rather Moral Chair (in which sense our Saviour makes mention of Moses Chair) there can nothing else be understood than the Holy Scripture itself; and if the Pope pronounceth according to the tenor thereof, we shall willingly hearken to him.  
3. The Holy Spirit, upon whom the Pope's Infallibility is said to depend, is not tied to this or that place, but bloweth when, and where, and upon whom he listeth.  
Others more sharp-sighted observing the foolishness of this distinction, have devised another; namely, that the Pope cannot err in a question of Right, though he may be deceived in matters of Fact. But this also is a broken Reed, upon which if a man lean, it will go into his hand and pierce it; although it was invented by the Jansenists, to heal that Wound which Alexnnder the VII. gave them, in that famous business of the five Articles. For first, when the Pope Anathematizeth a man, he considers him as believing so and so: Nor doth it appear, how he that is free from all possible error, in matters of Right, can be subject to error in matters of Fact; for when he pronounceth concerning the sense of any Book, being an Infallible Interpreter of the sense and meaning (which they do affirm) he may fall from a question of Right into a question of Fact; and so may determine that this and no other was the Author's meaning. 2. Seeing Law prescribes to matter of Fact, it is not likely that he who is Infallible in matter of Right, can err in matter of Fact. 3. Right doth sometimes arise from Fact; therefore that which before was a question of Fact, afterwards turning to a question of Right, the Pope may give an infallible judgement concerning it. 4. If this be true, the Pope cannot condemn nor Anathematise an Heretic, his judgement being fallible in matters of Fact. 5. We have before shortly proved, that the Pope hath erred most abominably in matters of Right.  
And thus you may see what difficulties they involve themselves in, who place the Church and its Infallibility in the Pope alone.  
Now followeth the third and last Opinion of the Papists concerning the Church and its Infallibility, namely, that it consists in the Pope and the Council together: But Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdim.  
For the same difficulties that were before proposed, do press them equally: And moreover, these doubts will arise, Whether the Pope have his Infallibility from the Council, or the Council from the Pope? Whether if the Pope be absent, his Legates have the same Infallibility that he himself would have, if Present? if so, whether he might not as easily Delegate this Infallibility to the Bishops of the Council, as to his Legates? Whether Decrees made in the Pope's absence be Infallible, and binding to the Conscience? For if no Decrees be binding without the Pope's Confirmation, it cannot be conceived, how he can extrajudicially (or out of Council) ratify the Decrees made in Council, being the Pope's Infallibility consists not in his own Person, as separate from, but jointly with the Council.  
From what I have said it evidently appears, that the Papists catch at a Shadow instead of the Body; and though they obstinately assert the Infallibility of their Church, yet they cannot agree, nor do they know where this Church is to be found: So that they are altogether ignorant how to satisfy a doubting Soul in this matter, and yet they desist not Projicere ampullas & sesquipedalia verba.  
While I was yet in the Roman Communion I perceived myself entangled in these Labaryinths, and often considered how to extricate myself, that so I might with a clear Conscience worship God in purity and holiness. And although I had heard much in my own Country (which is Spain) of the Reformed Churches, yet I could never light on any of the Books of their Learned Divines, being forbidden to read them under the severest penalties. But hearing that they founded all their Doctrines upon the Holy Scriptures, I became very desirous to search into the same; (for in Spain itself the Clergy is not forbidden to read the Scriptures) and having met with these 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 unto all good works. It seemed to me, that the Apostle had drawn a lively Portraiture of a Minister of the Gospel; and described at once what ought to be the matter and Fountain, as well as Method of Preaching; yea, and declared by what means the Man of God, that is, a Minister of Christ, may undoubtedly attain unto the full perfection of his Ministry, as well in reference to his own accomplishments for the work, as to the good effects of his labour upon the Souls committed to his care; namely, he asserteth, that the Scriptures contain a rich Treasure of Divine Knowledge, able to make a man wise unto Salvation, 2 Tim. 3.15. and pronounceth him accursed that should preach another Gospel, even though it were an Angel from Heaven, Gal. 1.8. but peace upon as many as walk according to this Rule, Gal. 6.16. And God himself sends his people to the Law, and to the Testimony, as the most effectual way to reduce them from seeking unto false Prophets and Wizards, Isa. 8.19, 20.  
Having pondered these things seriously and often within myself, and observed that Paul speaks so magnificent things of the Scriptures; and that he (who shunned not to declare the whole Counsel of God) professeth that he had said no other things, than those which Moses and the Prophets did say should come; I quickly concluded, that the only mark of the true Church, is to be taken from this Fountain, That the Church is built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, and the chief Cornerstone is Jesus Christ. And I found that Augustine (that glorious Light of Antiquity) did agree with me, writing, Contr. Ma. Arian. l. 3. Neither will I allege the Nicene Chuncil to your prejudice, nor ought you to allege the Council of Ariminum to mine: Let us not make use of Writings, partial to the one or to the other Party, but of the holy Scriptures, that are impartial Judges of both; and compare Cause with Cause, Matter with Matter, and Reason with Reason. And elsewhere, writing against Donatus, There (namely in the Scriptures) let us seek for the True Church; there let us discuss the point.  
Being now fully confirmed in this general Principle, I began to inquire narrowly into the Purity of particular Churches, and upon enquiry found, that none do so exactly agree with the Scriptures, as the Reformed Churches: Wherefore I firmly resolved with myself, to forsake the Roman Idolatry, and associate myself to the Protestants: which I accordingly performed in France; and having renounced the Romish Superstitions, I adjoined myself to the Reformed Church, as being the true Church of Christ; which I shall now shortly evince by the following Arguments.  
That is the true Church, which 1. Vindicates and maintains the Authority of the Scriptures. 2. Teacheth Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures. 3. (Because I will not be so Scripturary as to neglect the Testimony of the Fathers and Councils) Which agrees also with the Testimony of Ancient Fathers and Councils: But the Reformed Church is such: Therefore the Reformed is the true Church.  
As for the first, the Reformed Church maintains the Authority of the Scriptures against the Papists, who affirm, That the Scriptures have no Authority, as to us at least, but from the Church. Which distinction was found out by Bellarmine; namely, that the Authority of the Scripture, considered in itself, doth not depend upon the Church, but only in respect of us. But how frivolous is this distinction? For all Authority is Relative, and therefore it cannot be considered without a relation to us: And moreover the Supposition is false, that the Scriptures Authority, as to us, depends upon the Church.  
But before I come to overthrow this Assertion, it will not be amiss to observe, that the reason which induceth the Papists to defend it, is evidently this; They know not how to answer the Protestants Arguments from Scripture, without wresting the sense; and therefore hold, that the sense of the Scriptures depends upon the interpretation of the Church; which obligeth them to descend, that the Authority of the Scriptures depends also upon the Church, being that, without the Church's Tradition, we can have no certainty of the Scriptures themselves, nor of their sense. In this they imitate exactly the Ancient Heretics, of whom Tertullian says, When the Heretics are confuted from the Scriptures, they presently begin to accuse the Scriptures, as if they were not of sufficient Authority, or were otherwise written than they are cited by the Orthodox, and of which there is no certainty without Tradition. Where you may see an exact Portraiture of the Modern Papists.  
But to return to our purpose; we assert, That the Scriptures Authority doth no way depend upon the Authority of the Church, but of the Holy Ghost only, speaking internally in our hearts, and externally in the Scriptures, because he is their Author, 2 Tim. 3.16. 2 Pet. 1.21. and therefore he alone can give them their Authority. And as Christ seeks a Testimony from none besides the Father; so neither doth his Word need any other, which he hath left upon Earth instead of his own Person. And as it were very absurd to affirm, that the Authority of the King's Proclamation depends upon the Crier, or a Rule upon the thing ruled, or that the Sun borrows his light from his own Orb or Vortex; so it is no less ridiculous to affirm, that the Authority of the Scriptures depends upon the Church: The Church is the Candlestick, the Word of God is the Candle, Revel. 1.20. Luk. 8.16. Now as a Candlestick contributes nothing to the light of the Candle, so neither doth the Church to the Authority of the Scriptures.  
We reject not the Ministerial Testimony of the Church in this affair, because thereby we come to the knowledge of the Scriptures, as the Samaritans came to the knowledge of Christ by the Samaritan Woman's Testimony; which nevertheless was not the reason or ground of their Faith, but the Instrument only.  
The Papists object, that the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth, 1 Tim. 3.15. And from hence they conclude, that the Authority of the Scriptures, as to us, depends entirely upon the Church. But to pass Camero's observation, that these words belong to the sixteenth verse, where there is a Copulative Particle, which otherwise were useless; and that the Apostle first compares the Church to a House, and then teacheth us, what is the chief Pillar of that House, viz. God manifest in the Flesh: For a House cannot be called a Pillar, but a Pillar is in a House. In this place Paul means not an Architectonical Pillar, (that sustains the Authority of the Scriptures) but a Political, to which the Fdicts of the Supreme Governor are affixed. Nor is Bellarmine's Exception against this distinction of any weight, that the Church may be as well called a Bibliotheck, as a Pillar, in this sense: For we affirm, that the Church doth not only keep these Books, but also teach and publish the Contents thereof, and expose them to the view of the people.  
So then, the Testimony of the Church may be one Motive to induce us to believe the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, but cannot beget in our minds a firm and certain persuasion of it, which is the work of the Holy Ghost only, whom God joins with his Word, Isa. 59.21. My Spirit which is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, etc.  
Augustine speaks well to this purpose, in his Confessions; But how shall I know that these are thy words? Moses said so indeed, but Moses is gone; and if he were present, and should speak Hebrew, I could not understand him; but if he spoke Latin, and I understood him, how could I be certain that he spoke the truth? The Truth itself, which is neither Greck, Latin, Hebrew, nor Barbarian, without any sound of the tongue, or noise of Syllables, would say unto me inwardly in the Cabinet of my heart, he speaketh truth. You see, Christian Readers, how Augustine was persuaded of the Divinity of the Scriptures, not by the Authority of the Church, nor of Moses and the Prophets, but by the Internal Truth speaking in his heart, which is the Holy Spirit.  
It's in vain to reply hereunto, that every one may pretend the Spirit; for pretensions cannot prejudice the Truth; the Question between us and the Papists is not, Whether the Scriptures are of Divine Authority, or not? for both of us assert that they are: But, Whether he that admits this, is persuaded of it? To which whether they or we give the most satisfactory answer, we leave the whole Christian World, that are not partial to either Party, to judge.  
We conclude therefore, that as this Question, Whether the Scriptures are the Word of God? is unworthy of a Christian: So Jesuit Sambays Assertion (de fide Orthodoxa) is foolish and ridiculous, That the Protestants have not the Scriptures. For, besides that, he defends it for no other end, but that he may shun the dint of their Arguments drawn from the Scriptures: He useth no other Medium to prove that Assertion, but that the Reformed Church, wanting the Marks of the true Church, is a false Church, and therefore cannot have the Scriptures, which do both in their matter and form depend upon the Church: Which Argument is most false, and doth manifestly beg the Question, viz. That the Scriptures, and their sense, depend upon the Authority of the Church; which we utterly deny, and that not without reason, as I shown above. Moreover, the Jesuit showeth his Cause to be desperate, by endeavouring to rob us of the Scriptures; for none of the Ancient Fathers denied the Scriptures to any Heretic that argued his own Cause from them; and Augustine that we quoted above, affirms, that the Scriptures are not peculiar to any one Party, but impartial Judges of all. We might with far better reason return this Argument upon the Papists, because we have proved, that their Representative Church is not only false, but no Church at all: But I am not so much afraid of their Arguments from Scripture, and therefore do not deny them the Bible.  
Having established the Opinion of the Reformed Churches, in reference to the Authority of the Scriptures, I shall now proceed to the properties of the same.  
First therefore I affirm, that the Scriptures are perfect, by a perfection of parts as well as degrees; and so sufficient to Salvation, Psal. 19 The Law of God is perfect: Their sufficiency appears from the forecited place, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17.  
The accession of the New Testament to the Old, doth not disprove the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures: For he that revealed the whole Counsel of God to Believers, did nevertheless reveal no other than what Moses and the Prophets had written before, as we hinted above. Hence the Ancient Fathers said very well, As the New Testament is hid in the Old, so the Old is made plain and clear in the New. Nor doth a difference in degree alter the nature or species of a thing; neither is the Question betwixt the Papists and us, concerning this or that part of the Scriptures, but concerning the whole Canon, as it was received by the Ancient Church, and enumerated by Hierom. So that in this Argument there is evidently the Fallacy of dividing what ought to be joined together.  
And as we justly cut off the Apocryphal Books from this perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures, because they contradict both themselves and the Canon; nor were they ever received in the Jewish Church, to which the Oracles of God were committed, Rom. 3.2. So we reject the Popish distinction of Protocanonical & Deuterocanonical Books, with the same facility that they propose it, being without proof.  
Hence we do but little esteem unwritten Traditions, because what is written doth sufficiently instruct us what we are to believe and do in order to life eternal, John 20.31.  
It's ridiculous to refer the several Orders of Monks, and particularly the shaving of their Crowns, to these unwritten Traditions; because Christ says, I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now, Joh. 16.12. For if this had been the thing that Christ had further to say unto them, he might easily have sent for a Barber and caused their Heads to be shaved: Besides that the Monks, (whose duty was to weep, and not to teach, saith Hierom) were shaved as a sign of their penitence, not of any honour or preeminence.  
Secondly, The Scriptures are plain and easy to be understood; The Commandment, enlightening the eyes, Psal. 19.8. Whatsoever things were written afore-time, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope, Rom. 15.4. Those things therefore which are absolutely necessary to Salvation, being very few, and very easy, are clearly and plainly set down in the Scriptures, though other things not so absolutely necessary may puzzle the most Sagacious understandings: Chrysostom says well; The holy Scriptures are such that a Lamb may wade in them, and yet an Elephant may swim.  
Seeing then that the Scriptures are plain, as is evident from Reason, and the Testimony of the Fathers, the Reformed Churches do with good reason attribute a judgement of discretion, in Controversies of Faith, to every true Christian: So that every Believer, by frequent reading and comparing of the Scriptures, may easily understand their meaning, at least as to things absolutely necessary to Salvation; For no Prophecy of Scripture is of a●y private interpretation, nor came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. 1.20, 21.  
As for the Fathers of the Ancient Church, and the four Primitive Councils, we willingly embrace them as Interpreters of the Scriptures; yea moreover, we affirm, that in subordination to the Scriptures, they may bind, but not force our belief: But we utterly deny, that the Fathers, or these Councils, or the Pope, are Judges of Controversies about matters of Faith; but the only Judge of all such Controversies is the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures, or as Augustine saith, Christ himself; Let Christ judge of this Controversy, who although he be absent in his Person, yet is present in his Word.  
Hence it doth appear that the Scriptures may rightly be called a Normal Judge, deciding the question in manner of a Law, though not outwardly proclaiming the sentence: The Word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, Heb. 4.12. We have sufficiently proved, that the Reformed Churches do vindicate the Authority and Properties of the Scriptures: It remains now to be proved, that they teach according to the Scriptures.  
I shall pass the Doctrines of God, and his Attributes of the Trinity, and the like, because there is little difference between the Papists and us in there Points, except in some Preterfundamental things, which the Jesuits and Dominicans do also dispute among themselves. I shall now only take notice of this, that the Jesuits do very absurdly define , viz. A Faculty whereby all things requisite to action being present, the will may act or not act, act this or the contrary. For besides that, when the Object is present to the Understanding, the Will is necessarily determined by the last practical judgement of the understanding to embrace or reject the object; like as if Straw and Fire come together, there must needs a Flame be kindled: I say, besides this, it's impossible for any man to alter the Prescience and Decree of God (which is one of the things requisite to action) for the Counsel of God stands, and he will do all his pleasure. All things requisite to Judas his betraying of Christ being present, (viz. the last practical judgement of his understanding, the receiving of the Money, etc. and the Eternal Counsel of God, designing that Christ should be delivered into the hands of men, suffer death, and rise again the third day) it was impossible for him not to act.  
Therefore the Reformed Churches do excellently define ; A faculty of acting freely, without compulsion, or physical determination to one thing. For the Will cannot be forced to any elicit or internal act; nor is it capable of a physical or natural necessity, determining it to one thing, as Fire is determined to burn. But it is not free from the determination of the Divine Decree, and the last practical judgement of the understanding; nor in the unregenerate from sin, to which it is in general necessarily determined by its Original depravation, although it hath a freedom to choose this or that special sin: So that in the unregenerate man it is free only to will, nor can he by his own strength perform any action spiritually good: Of ourselves, as of ourselves, we cannot think a good thought, 2 Cor. 3.5. much less do a good action by nature. We are dead in sin, Eph. 2.1. without God in the world, Eph. 2.3. and every imagination of our heart is only evil continually, Gen. 6.5. And the best actions that the unregenerate can do, are really evil, because they do not proceed from Faith; and whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin, Rom. 14.23. So that as from a total privation there is no returning to the habit, but by an Infinite Power; so from sin, which is a privation of that rectitude, which ought to be in our faculties and actions, there is no returning to righteousness, except God do quicken us from the Dead; and say to us as unto Lazarus, Lazarus arise, Joh. 11.43. and cause the Sun of Righteousness to arise in the dark Horizon of our hearts, saying as in the first Creation, Let there be light, Gen. 1. And truly seeing Regeneration, according to Scripture phrase, is a new Creation, (Created in me a clean heart, Psa. 51. We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, Eph. 2.10. In Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Uncircumcision, but the New Creature, Gal. 6.15.) it cannot be the work of less than an Infinite Power, whereby God worketh in us both to will and to do of his good preasure, Phil. 2.13. So that Augustine did rightly affirm, that the good works of the Heathen were but glistering sins: They may indeed act something that is morally good, by the general influence of Divine Providence; yet they can act nothingthat is truly good in a Theological sense, because they want Faith to purify their hearts, nor do they aim at the glory of God; for they do not shun this or that sin simply because it is a sin, but from a vainglorious desire of Reputation among the people.  
Hence it followeth, that Justification and Sanctification are not ours, but Gods: so that when God conferreth Glory upon those that are Justified and Sanctified, he may with good reason be said to Crown with this reward his own gifts, and not our works. As for Justification, of which we intent to speak first, it is twofold, active and passive; for it may be considered either in respect of God that justifieth, or of Man that is justified. In the former consideration it is nothing else but an act of God, whereby he absolves the sinner, and reputes him righteous, for the Merits and satisfaction of Christ. Hence God is said to justify the ungodly, Rom. 4.5. by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, Rom. 3.24. So that God in justifying maketh no physical change in the sinner, as the Papists say, who would have the Justification of God to be of the same nature with Transubstantiation, whereby one thing is changed into another; that is, that God in Justifying doth not proceed as a Judge, pronouncing one at the Bar Innocent, but as it were by a physical immutation, making a righteous man out of an unrighteous, even as Christ turned water into Wine.  
Bellarmine, Becan, and other Jesuits, have laboured much in the proof of this Assertion, but without any success: They produce nothing from Scripture, but what is to be referred to Sanctification, not Justification. And thus they commit the fallacy of ignoratio Elenchi; and as for their Arguments drawn from Reason, they are so unreasonable, that they do not deserve a Refutation. Their chief Argument is taken from the Word itself; for, say they, to Justify, according to the Etymology of the word, is nothing else but to make just or righteous, being it is compounded of justus and facio; as well as to Sanctify is to make, not to pronounce holy, etc. Therefore to justify cannot import the absolution of a sinner who is really unrighteous, but the making of him righteous. But they hereby show themselves to be no better Gramarians than they are Divines; for the sense of a word, in matters of Faith, is not to be taken out of Calepine, but from the Word of God, which is the Rule of our Faith. Now it is manifest, and hath been demonstrated by many, that Justification is every where in the Scriptures taken in a Law-sense. Thus Solomon, He that justifieth the ungodly, and condemneth the righteous, are both an abomination unto the Lord. Here the justifying of the unrighteous is opposed to the condemning of the righteous; and so in all other places of Scripture.  
Moreover, if this were the meaning of the word Justify, than there would be no difference between Justification and Sanctification; which nevertheless is evident from Rev. 22.11. He that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still. Also Rom. 8.30. Whom he justified, them he also glorified: where under the word Glorify is comprehended Sanctification, which is begun Glory, even as Glory is consummate Sanctification.  
Lastly, This Composition with the Verb Facio doth not always import an internal change, as appears from the Song of the Blessed Virgin, My Soul doth magnify the Lord. Now let them set their heads together, and prove, that the Blessed Virgin, by magnifying the Lord, did cause any internal change in him; and we shall also allow, that God by justifying us, doth make an internal change in us; Ante leves vero pascentur in aethere cervi.  
Hitherto of Active Justification: Now we shall come to treat of Passive Justification, or Justification considered in respect of the man justified. And thus it is nothing else, but an assured confidence of our righteousness in Christ, and by the imputation of his Merits, which we receive and apply unto ourselves by faith, Rom. 3.25, 26. Hence it appears, that the Meritorious Cause of our Justification is the Merit of Christ, as we proved a little before; and the hand by which we apply this satisfaction of our Saviour, or the instrumental cause of our Justification, is Faith. Man is justified by faith, without the works of the Law, Rom. 3.28. It is as clear from the Scriptures as the light of the Sun in midday, that we are justified by faith only: By grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, Eph. 2.8. So that I shall insist no longer upon this point, but conclude with the Apostle, That by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified, for by the Law is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3.20. There is therefore no Justification in the sight of God by our works, but only by saith, which applieththe Panacea of Salvation unto our dead hearts, and causeth us to live in God, and God in us.  
We are not so unreasonable, as to separate Works from Faith; yet nevertheless we affirm, that Faith only doth justify: it's the eye only that sees, the hand only that weighs; yet neither can the eye see, nor the hand weigh, unless they be united to the body: Even so Faith only doth justify; but this Faith is never separated from Good Works.  
The Apostle James indeed saith, We are justified by works, and not by faith only, Jam. 2.24. But he either means justification before men, as in the eighteenth verse, Show me thy faith by thy works; or else the confirmation of internal faith by external actions; or else he speaks by a Metonimy of the effect for the cause; so that by faith and works he means a working faith; which seems to agree well with the words, You see then how that by works man is justified, and not by faith only; that is, not by a solitary or naked faith, which is not accompanied with works, for faith being alone is dead; but by a living faith, which shows its foundness by works.  
So that we are not justified by works, but by faith only; and whosoever will narrowly look into himself and his own frailty, must needs break forth into Bellarmine's words; Because of the frailty of humane life, and the uncertainty of our own righteousness, it is safest to rely only upon the mercy of God, Bel. de bon. oper. Consider, Candid Reader, the words of this Cardinal, who (as I can demonstrate, if need be) at the end of the greatest Controversies between us and the Papists, yields at last unto the truth, and appears, though an Italian, to be more a Protestant than a Papist.  
Thus we have proved, by God's assistance, that Active Justification is an external judicial absolution of an unrighteous man, and pronouncing of him righteous; and that Passive Justification is by faith only, and that a living faith, which applieth to us the Merits of our Saviour.  
As for Sanctification, I shall say little concerning it, by reason the Papists done't disagree much with the Protestants in this Point, as to the nature of the thing; only I utterly deny, that the good works which we do are meritorious, or necessary to Salvation, necessuate medii, as a mean to bring us to Salvation: Bernard says well, Good works are the way to the Kingdom, not the cause of reigning: nor does the Popish distinction between merit of congruity and condignity: mitigate this Assertion for, besides that the Congruity of God's Reward for our Works consists only in his own good pleasure; Fear not little Flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you a Kingdom, Luk. 12.32. I have often admired, that they have found no Text of Scripture to prove the condignity of works, but this one which is Diametrically contrary to their Assertion. The Sufferings of this present time are not worthy (but condign) to be compared with the Glory that is to be revealed in us.  
This is the only place where the word condignus is to be found.  
I will proceed now to show how found and genuine the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches is concerning the Sacraments, which are Seals of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11. And shortly refute the Popish Errors. As for Baptism, both Parties acknowledge it to be a Sacrament of Initiation, by which in the faith of our Parents (which is my opinion) we are implanted into the Church, which is the Body of Christ.  
But the Papists falsely affirm, that Baptism ex opere operato (by virtue of the work wrought) works in us Regeneration, and abolishes Original Sin: Not only because an external, corporal thing can have no influence upon things internal and spiritual, in reference to the rectifying thereof, which can only be done by God himself; every good and perfect Gift comes down from the Father of Lights, saith the Apostle James: But likewise because the sign of the Covenant cannot communicate to us the things comprehended in the Covenant.  
And the contrary appears also from the effect; because those that have been baptised, are and have been subject to everlasting damnation. And if this Sacrament ex opere operato, did work Grace, Regeneration, etc. then Abraham could not have been reputed righteous by faith in uncircumcision, Rom. 4.9. Moreover in the Primitive Times, and especially as to them that were baptised when come to Age, Faith was required before the Seal of Righteousness were stamped upon their hearts and consciences. Now because Faith is the Root of the rest of the Graces, and hath annexed unto it that great work of Repentance: It necessarily follows, that the Apostle requiring faith in the Adult, did suppose the rest of the Graces to be in them, not imagining that they should be conferred upon them, but rather sealed or confirmed by Baptism: for Baptism is a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith; and not a thing that by its internal virtue work Faith and Regeneration.  
For this very reason, Augustin, and other of the Fathers affirmed, that Infants are baptised in the Faith of their Parents, if believing Parents; or in the Faith of the Church, if their Parents were unknown, or Unbelievers; because they were persuaded, that Faith is rather required before, than conferred by Baptism. So that we believe that the holy Ghost doth operate in the tender hearts and minds of elect Infants, even from their Birth, and that effectually, though insensibly: and although perhaps he doth not work in them subjectively an actual faith; yet he objectively applies unto them the benefits of Christ, which in others are received by an actual faith,  
But lest any should think that we falsely charge our Adversaries with this Assertion; I will show the candid Reader the reason why they assert it; and then evince the same from a custom frequent among them in the Celecration of this Sacrament.  
The reason why they affirm it, is because they hold that Infants departing without Baptism cannot be saved, but go into the Limbus Infantum (a kind of Hole prepared to put Children into) where they suffer paenam damni, but not paenam seasus; that is, they are deprived of the Beatific Vision of God, though they are not under any sensible torment. If then their Election, which is unchangeable, and their being under the Covenant of Grace, which belongeth to them as well as to their Parents, be not sufficient to save them because they were not baptised; surely Baptism which maketh them capable to demand Heaven, must by a physical virtue work those Graces, whereby they may attain unto Salvation. (2.) They hold that none can be saved without the Bosom of the Church; and that none can be reputed Members of the Church, except such as have been baptised. Moreover their Custom is to admit of the Baptism of Women (providing the Form be observed) in case of necessity; which shows how absolutely necessary they esteem Baptism unto Salvation.  
Having proved the Charge, I shall demonstrate the Error.  
And first it is as certain, That all Infants departing without Baptism are not deprived of the beatific Vision; as that David was saved, who after death was to go to his Child that died without Circumcision (1 Sam. 12.18, 23.) in place whereof Baptism succeeded, as appears from Coll. 2.11, 12. And as certain, as that the promise of Eternal Life doth belong to Infants; which Argument is of the same force against the Anabaptists, that deny the Seal to Infants, to whom the promise belongs, (for which reason Peter did willingly confer Baptism upon some Converts (Act. 2.38, 39) as against the Papsts, that deny Eternal Life to Children dying without Baptism, although they be under the promise and Covenant of Grace; for he that is under the Covenant of Grace, or the Promises, is in Christ; and he that is in Christ will certainly be saved: Therefore Children being under the Covenant of Grace, and the Promise of Life, will certainly be saved, Acts 2.39. Eph. 2.12.  
But they object this Scripture, Except a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, Joh. 3. ●. whence they conclude that none can be saved without Baptism.  
But I answer, that nothing else is meant by this water and spirit but the holy Ghost himself, who is compared to water, because he washeth away our sins. There is another expression like unto this in Mat. 3.11. He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire; that is, the Holy Ghost shall purge you as fire doth Gold, seven times refined. So that these Expressions are Metaphorical and Figurative: Virgil hath the like expression: — Pateris libamus & auro  
We drink out of Cups and Gold, that is out of Golden Cups; so to be baptised with the Spirit, and with fire, is nothing else but to be baptised with a fiery Spirit; and the same way are Christ's words concerning water and spirit to be understood; wherefore what he saith here figuratively, by way of Hendiadis he expressed in the third Verse in proper words, except a man be born again he can not see the Kingdom of God. So that it clearly appears from Christ's own exposition, that here is understood spiritual Regeneration, and not the external washing with water in Baptism.  
2. We utterly deny that Baptism by women is valid, and not to be reiterated.  
They can only allege the example of Zipporah that Circumcised her Son; whence they argue, that a Woman may as lawfully Baptise, as Circumcise. I shall not give the answer that is usual amongst some Divines, viz. that Zipporah sinned in so doing, for God never blesseth men for any sin, as such; but he did bless Moses for this action of Zipporah. But I answer thus, that Circumcision in the Old Testament was indifferently administered by any person, by reason it was not so strictly joined with the Ministerial Office of Preaching, as Baptism is in the New Testament; Go and teach all Nations, baptising them, etc. Mat. 28.19. So that now it is unlawful for any to administer Baptism, but such as are ordained for the Ministry.  
Now we shall proceed to speak of the other Sacrament (without regarding the rest of their five Sacraments, that have no ground in the Scriptures, nor the Fathers) which is the Lords Supper.  
According to sound Doctrine, the Lords Supper is nothing else but a visible sign of an invisible Grace; wherein by receiving of Bread and Wine, is signified our receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ as a Seal of the Covenant of Crace, tending to our Salvation. We deny not, that the Body and Blood of Christ is really present in this holy Sacrament; but we deny, 1. That it is corporally present, because it is circumscriptive, and in Heaven, and therefore cannot be every where. 2. We deny, that the Lords Supper is a Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead; which point I shall chief insist upon.  
As to the first, the Papists do very much urge their Transubstantiation, by which they understand nothing else but the Corporal presence of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, under the appearance and accidents of Bread and Wine, imagining that the substance of the Bread and Wine is turned to the first nothing, out of which it was created, and the accidents only do remain which affect our senses of sight, feeling, and taste: The falsehood and absurdity of this imagination I thus demonstrate.  
1. Neither the Word nor the thing is to be found in Scripture; for after the Consecration it is called, the Bread of which we are partakers, 1 Cor. 10.17. Now if the Bread were annihilated, how could we be partakers of it? And moreover, no Papist will allow that it be called Bread after Consecration, which yet we see the Scripture doth.  
2. The Word itself is new, and was never heard of before the Lateran Council, when Berengarius was forced to recant the Truth, and fall into a most abominable Error, namely, that Christ's Body is bruised by the Teeth, and let down into the Belly, etc.  
3. The Word is no way adapted to the thing; yea, Creation may be as well called Annihilation, as this may be called Transubstantiation; for Transubstantiation is nothing else, but a mutation or turning of one substance into another; as in Cana of Galilee, Wine was turned into Water: but the Papists say, that in this case one substance is not turned into another, but that the one (namely, the Bread and Wine) is annihilated, and the other, namely, the Body and Blood of Christ, is induced, under the appearance and accidents of Bread and Wine (although they have a thousand distinctions here about the introducing of the Body and Blood of Christ under these accidents, which I shall pass over;) so that it ought rather to be called, an Annihilation of one substance, and Introduction of another: but an absurd name is fit enough for such an absurd thing.  Conveniunt rebus nominal saepe suis. 
4. The thing which is distributed in the Sacrament, is called by the Ancients a Sign and a Figure of Christ's Body. Now nothing can be a Sign or a Figure of itself: therefore Christ cannot be Corporally present. Augustine saith, The Lord was pleased to say, this is my Body, when he gave but the figure of his Body. And most of the Ancient Fathers do understand the words, etc. Also the Scriptures call it, A Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, as we said before; now the Seal cannot be the thing itself.  
It were too tedious to consider all the arguments of the Papists against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, concerning the Lord's Supper, only this one I cannot pass by, which I have read in an Anonymous Jesuit, whereby he endeavours to invalidate our last reason against Transubstantiation, by giving this instance, that David might have been a sign of himself, as sighting with Goliath, if he had presented himself to the people's view upon a Theatre.  
But I answer, 1. David had not been in that case a sign of himself, but of the actions he performed in the Combat.  
2. If David had been sowed up in a Sack, or laid himself down upon the Theatre covered with an Ass' skin (as they say Christ's Body is covered with the accidents of Bread and Wine) so that he could not be seen, I do not understand how he could have been a sign of himself, or his actions either. I shall omit to observe, that the Sacrament was instituted in Commemoration of the Man Christ, & a that Commemoration is only of absent persons; as likewise many of their Exceptions against, us for brevity's sake.  
Only I shall shortly demonstrate the other Proposition, viz. that the Lords Supper is not a Sacrifice for the sins of the Living and the Dead, by this general argument; Where there is no Priest, no Altar, no proper Host, there can be no proper Sacrifice for sin: But in the New Testament there is none of these (beside Christ himself) Therefore, etc. The Major is most certain; for Relatives are mutual, and the one presupposeth the other: therefore where there is a proper Sacrifice, there must be an Altar, a Priest, and an Host, properly so called. So Bellarmin himself saith, That Altars use not to be Erected, unless for Sacrifices, properly so called. (de Miss. Lib. 1. Cap. 16.) And elsewhere, without an Altar can be no Sacrifice, de Cult San. l. 3. c. 4.  
Now to prove the Minor; there is no material Altar to be found in the Scriptures, as one to be used in the New Testament. Christ who instituted this Sacrament, Celebrated the same on the Table, Luk. 22.21. The Apostle Paul calls it the Lords Table, 1 Cor. 10.21. But there is no mention made of an Altar, which had been certainly done, if an Altar had been in use: Hence the great Bellarmin says (the Miss. l. 1. c. 17.) The Apostles did not use the Names of Priesthood, Sacrifice, Altar; as knowing well there could be none after the material Sacrifices were Sealed up: But the Papists object, Heb. 13.10. We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat, which serve the Tabernacle. I answer, This Text speaketh of an improper, figurative, invisible Altar, but we deny only a proper and material Altar: for that the words are figurative, evidently appears, because no Body can eat of a material Altar: And moreover, the Sacrifice that the Apostle would have to be offered up upon it, doth plainly discover what kind of Altar he means: 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. The Ancient Fathers also do agree with us. None of these is visible, neither the Priest, nor the Sacrifice, nor the Altar; Ambrose in Epist. ad Heb. I think that the Altar is nothing else but the Body of the Lord; Bernard, in Serm. 4. Nazianzen calls it the Altar which is above, Orat. 24. And finally the Papists themselves are forced to confess, that here is meant an improper Altar; I do not urge the place itself. Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 14. as also Thomas, Anselmus, and many others.  
2. Nor is there any proper Sacrifice in the New Testament. For Daniel prophesieth, That the Sacrifice and Oblation shall cease: And we see this Prophecy fulfilled; The Apostle Paul saith, Nor yet that he should offer himself often, but now once in the end of the World, Heb. 9.26. Every Priest standeth daily ministering and offering; but this man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins, for ever, sat down on the right hand of God, Heb. 10.12. where the Apostle evidently asserteth, that Christ offered himself but once; and doth not offer himself, nor can he be so offered, again. Yea the Apostle urgeth the sufficiency of Sacrifice by these two Arguments. (1.) Because he offered himself but once, and did not repeat his Sacrifice as insufficient. (2) Because having perfected his Work, he sat down on the right hand of God for ever: But the Priests did always stand, which signified that they had not yet completed their Work, but must lay their hands once more to it, before they might sit down and rest from their work, Therefore the Papists devising daily Sacrifices of Christ after that one Sacrifice, doth derogate from its sufficiency, and makes Christ liable to the Ministry of standing, who is already set down for ever at the right hand of God. This was also the reason why God destroyed Jerusalem, and the Temple (after Christ's Mediatory Office was fulfilled as to one part of his Priesthood, namely his Sacrifice) that there might be no more material Sacrifices, that being the place to which they were confined.  
The Papists urge the Custom of the Ancients, and the expressions of the Fathers, who speak very often of Sacrifices. But it is clear, that the Fathers meant no other, th●n Sacrifica Eucharistica Sacrifices of a Thanksgiving, which were commonly performed at the Lords Supper; which with Prayers and Alms are indeed a living Sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, Rom. 12.1. Hence Clemens Alexandrinus saith, that a righteous Soul is a holy Altar, and holy Prayer is the Incense. Lactantius saith, two things are to be offered, a Gift and a Sacrifice, both incorporcal; integrity of mind is the gift; Prayer, and Psalms are the Sacrifice. Augustin calls our heart an Altar, Humility and Praise a Sacrifice, and Charity the Fire. So ronimus, Ambrose and others.  
As for the Priest, there is none besides Christ; for he is a Priest for ever, after the Order of Melchizedek; and Levitical Priests they cannot be, being that Order is ceased.  
Thus having proved, that there is no Altar, Priest, nor Host, besides Christ himself, who is our Sacrifice, our Priest, and our Altar, Epiphan. lib. 2. come. 1. hoeres. I conclude, that there is now no proper Sacrifice for the sins of the Living and the Dead; and by consequence no Transubstantiation, upon which this Sacrifice is builded.  
And here their Purgatory falls to the Ground; for besides that it is contrary to Scriptures, to Reason, to the Ancient Fathers, and injurious to the satisfaction and merits of Christ; moreover, if there be no Sacrifice, there can be no Mass, and by consequence no money for the delivery of Souls out of Purgatory.  
Here also falls to the ground their Doctrine of Concomitancy, for the sake whereof, (as Gelatius one of their Popes Intimates) they have committed Sacrilege, in the Cup from the Laity; which although the Council of Constance confesseth to be contrary to the Primitive Institution of Christ, and Custom of the Ancient Church; yet for some ridiculous reasons (such as; That some persons hands do shake, that some have deformed Whiskers and Beards) pronouncing an Anathema against him, that will contradict it.  
And I have many times wondered why by the same Doctrine of Concomitancy, they may not as well give the Cup, and take away the Bread, or take away the Cup from the Clergy as well as the Laity? Why it is a fufilling of the Law to abstain from the one, and a sin, yea a mortal sin to abstain from the other?  
There is neither reason nor Scripture to countenance it in the least. So that the Reformed Churches teach sound Doctrine, both as to the Nature, and the Integrity of this Sacrament.  
The last Point I shall touch upon, is the worshipping of Saints. The Protestants agree herein with the Scriptures, and the Ancient Fathers, that the Saints are to be honoured by imitation, but not to be religiously adored; and that for these three Reasons:  
1. We cannot believe in Saints, therefore we cannot worship them, how shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Rom. 10.14.  
2. We are severely forbidden to worship any but God: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, Mat. 4.10.  
3. The Saints do not know our thoughts, nor can they hear our Prayers: Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledgeth us not. Isa. 63.16. Hence Aquinas saith, To know the thoughts of the heart, is the property of God: and elsewhere, The Angels know not the secrets of the heart. And again, to know the particular thoughts and actions of men, is above the perfection of a create understanding. And Durandus denies that the glorified Saints do know our thoughts. Finally Augustin saith, that the dead know not what is done here. God only knoweth the hearts of the Children of Men, 1 Kings 8.39. Peter the Apostle, though a Saint, would not suffer Cornelius to worship him, saying I myself also am a man, Acts 10.26. nor would the Angel suffer John to prestrate himself to him: worship God, saith he, Rev. 19.20. Yea a Heathen Poet could tell that God only is to be worshipped.  
Nec D●a sum, dixit, nec sacro thuris honore  
Humanum dignare capu●—  
Their distinction betwixt latria, and dulias, and hyperdulia hath been abundantly refuted by many of the Reformed Writers.  
I shall only conclude, that if Papists cannot be accused of formal Idolatry, yet they are certainly guilty of material Idolatry.  
Having demonstrated, that the Protestant Churches do defend the Holy Scriptures, and conform their Doctrine thereunto in the most weighty points. I justly infer, that the Protestant Church is a true, faithful, and sincere Church.  
I shall shut up all with this Observation, that the Papists perceiving, that they cannot prevail against the Protestants in disputing of their Doctrine: They question the Protestant Minestery as not Legitimate. But besides that their own Scholasticks (as Bannes, Canus &c.) do allow, that the power of Ordaining is not lost by Heresy: their own practice doth evidently confute them: for these that have been ordained in our Churches, are not reordained by them as to the substantial part of Ordination  
And it is certain enough, That a bad Governor, or Governors of the Church may send good Labourers into Christ's Vineyard: yea Antichrist himself being under the Cloak of Christ's Vicar, may distribute the Offices of Christ's Temporal and Earthly Court to good men that are willing to serve Christ. So when Christ was upon Earth, the Church was very much corrupted, and yet they sent good Workmen into the Lord's Vineyard, such as Joseph, Nicodemus, and oaths.  
I shall conclude all with thanks to Almighty God, for that he hath been pleased to open mine eyes, to see the way of truth, and prayers to him to confirm me therein: and my hearty wishes, 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, after the Tradition of Men, after the Rudiments of the World, and not after Christ.  
Come out of Babylon my People, lest ye be partakers of her sins.  
Embrace the true Protestant Religion, which is pure in Doctrine, holy in Manners, and faithful to God and the King.  
FINIS.