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 Pri­viledges, such as Vocation, Justification, Sanctification, &c. 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 [Page 2]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 Ʋndefiled, is but one.

But when the Fathers used this similitude, they meant the Universal Church, whose be­ginning Augustine deriveth from Abel, and [Page 3]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 Catholick 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 Catholick, which hath been always and every where believed by all (Vincent. Lirinensis contra profanas no­vitates) then that is the Catholick 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 Catholick, 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 [Page 4]that it were Orthodox, which yet we utterly deny) cannot claim unto it self alone, ex­clusively to other Churches that profess Christ, the Title of Catholick.

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 it self, 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 [Page 5]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 He­reticks and Schismaticks, and therefore without any hope of Salvation, have more­over asserted, that their own Church is in­fallible, and void of all Errour. A great Assertion indeed, and which is not only false in it self, but also is one great reason why other Churches dissenting from her, cannot joyn 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 priviledge of any thing, while they that attribute these priviledges to it, have no certain knowledge of the thing it self: Therefore in vain do they assert, that [Page 6]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 joyntly. Now chuse which of those you please, you'l find your self involv'd 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 it self 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 [Page 7]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 baptized, seeing you cannot be cer­tain of the intention of the Priest, or Old Woman that baptized 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 perswade your self, that you believe all these with a Divine and In­fallible Faith, you cannot imbrace 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 [Page 8]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'l 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 tyed 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 erre 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 Pacquet, and stayed longer away when the waters did rise, but came quickly thither when they were sallen, 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 [Page 10]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 perswade your self that the Pope was Popable? that he was rightly, if at all baptized? that he obtained not [Page 11]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 Jone) 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, &c. that he acts by the advice of his Conclave, and not rather from the di­ctates of his own private judgment or hu­mor. 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 [Page 12]his having been actually deceived. But per­haps you will sly to that Vulgar distinction of the Popes 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'l 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, ought to advise with himself, as sitting in the Chair, lest he fall into an errour; 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 tyed 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 [Page 13]of the Popes, which Platina was the Popes 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 Popes Infalli­bility by any physical or internal vertue, else a Herds-man, 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 it self; and if the Pope pronoun­ceth according to the tenour thereof, we shall willingly hearken to him.

3. The Holy Spirit, upon whom the Popes Infallibility is said to depend, is not tyed 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 erre 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, [Page 14]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 errour, in matters of Right, can be subject to errour 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 Authors meaning. 2. Seeing Law prescribes to matter of Fact, it is not likely that he who is Infallible in matter of Right, can erre 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 judg­ment concerning it. 4. If this be true, the Pope cannot condemn nor Anathematize an Heretick, his judgment 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 Popes absence be Infallible, and binding to the Conscience? For if no Decrees be binding without the Popes Confirmation, it cannot be conceived, how he can extrajudicially (or out of Council) ratifie the Decrees made in Council, being the Popes Infallibility con­sists [Page 16]not in his own Person, as separate from, but joyntly 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 satisfie 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 my self intangled in these Labaryinths, and often considered how to extricate my self, 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 it self [Page 17]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 Por­traicture 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 [Page 18]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 my self, 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 Corner-stone 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 alledge the Nicene Chuncil to your pre­judice, nor ought you to alledge 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 enquire 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 my self, to forsake the Roman Idolatry, and associate my self to the Protestants: which I accordingly performed in France; and having renounced the Romish Superstitions, I adjoyned my self 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, [Page 20]but from the Church. Which distinction was found out by Bellarmine; namely, that the Authority of the Scripture, considered in it self, 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 de­send, that the Authority of the Scriptures depends also upon the Church, being that, without the Churches Tradition, we can have no certainty of the Scriptures themselves, nor of their sense. In this they imitate ex­actly the Ancient Hereticks, of whom Ter­tullian says, When the Hereticks are confuted from the Scriptures, they presently begin to ac­cuse the Scriptures, as if they were not of suf­ficient [Page 21]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 Portraicture 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 Kings Proclamation depends upon the Cryer, 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 [Page 22]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 Womans 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 Governour are affixed. Nor is Bellarmines Exception against this di­stinction of any weight, that the Church may [Page 23]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 perswasion of it, which is the work of the Holy Ghost only, whom God joyns with his Word, Isa. 59.21. My Spirit which is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, &c.

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 it self, 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 perswaded of the Divinity of the Scriptures, [Page 24]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 perswaded 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's 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, [Page 25]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 shewed above. Moreover, the Jesuit sheweth his Cause to be desperate, by endeavouring to rob us of the Scriptures; for none of the Ancient Fa­thers denied the Scriptures to any Heretick 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 [Page 26]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 joyned 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 [Page 27]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 shaven as a sign of their penitence, not of any ho­nour or preeminence.

Secondly, The Scriptures are plain and easie to be understood; The Commandment, enlightning the eyes, Psal. 19.8. Whatsoever things were written afore-time, were written for our learning, that we through patience and [Page 28]comfort of the Scriptures might have hope, Rom. 15.4. Those things therefore which are absolutely necessary to Salvation, being very few, and very easie, are clearly and plainly set down in the Scriptures, though other things not so absolutely necessary may puzle 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 judgment 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 Prophesie of Scrip­ture is of a [...]y private interpretation, nor came by the will of man, but holy men of God spake 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 imbrace them as Interpreters of the Scrip­tures; yea moreover, we affirm, that in [Page 29]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 Controversie, 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 Preter-fundamental things, which the Jesuits and Dominicans do also dispute a­mong themselves. I shall now only take notice [Page 30]of this, that the Jesuits do very absurdly de­fine Free-will, 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 judgment of the understanding to imbrace 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 judgment of his understanding, the receiving of the Money, &c. 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 Free-will; A faculty of act­ing freely, without compulsion, or physical de­termination to one thing. For the Will cannot be forced to any elicite or internal act; nor [Page 31]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 judgment 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 chuse 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 our selves, as of our selves, 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; [Page 32]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, ( Create 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 Ʋncircumcision, 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 purifie 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 vain-glorious desire of Reputation among the people.

Hence it followeth, that Justification and Sanctification are not ours, but Gods: so [Page 33]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 intend 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 justifie 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, [Page 34]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 it self; for, say they, to Ju­stifie, according to the Etimology of the word, is nothing else but to make just or righteous, being it is compounded of justus and facio; as well as to Sanctifie is to make, not to pronounce holy, &c. Therefore to justifie cannot import the absolution of a sin­ner who is really unrighteous, but the ma­king of him righteous. But they hereby shew 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 [Page 35]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 Justifie, then 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 Glorifie 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 magnifie 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 [Page 36]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 considence of our righ­teousness in Christ, and by the imputation of his Merits, which we receive and apply unto our selves 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 mid-day, that we are justified by faith only: By grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of your selves, 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 justifie: 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 justifie; 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, Shew 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 shews 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; [Page 38] Because of the frailty of humane life, and the uncertainty of our own righteousness, it is safest to relye 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 Gods 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 don'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 [Page 39] condignity: mitigate this Assertion for, be­sides that the Congruity of Gods Reward for our Works consists onely 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 onely place where the word condignus is to be found.

I will proceed now to shew 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 Errours. 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 vertue of the work wrought) works in us Regeneration, and abolishes Original Sin: Not onely because an [Page 40]external, corporal thing can have no influ­ence upon things internal and spiritual, in reference to the rectifying thereof, which can onely 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 baptized, are and have been subject to everlasting damna­tion. And if this Sacrament ex opere opera­to, did work Grace, Regeneration, &c. 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 baptized when come to Age, Faith was required before the Seal of Righteousness were stampt 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 [Page 41]by Baptism: for Baptism is a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith; and not a thing that by its internal vertue work Faith and Regeneration.

For this very reason, Augustin, and other of the Fathers affirmed, that Infants are bap­tized 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 perswaded, 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 shew 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 [Page 42]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 Beatifick 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 baptized; surely Baptism which maketh them capable to demand Heaven, must by a physical vertue 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 baptized. Moreover their Custom is to ad­mit of the Baptism of Women (providing the Form be observed) in case of necessity; which shews how absolutely necessary they esteem Baptism unto Salvation.

Having proved the Charge, I shall de­monstrate the Errour.

And first it is as certain, That all Infants departing without Baptism are not deprived of the beatifick Vision; as that David was [Page 43]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 [Page 44]he washeth away our sins. There is another expression like unto this in Mat. 3.11. He shall baptize 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 baptized with the Spirit, and with fire, is nothing else but to be baptized 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 Christs 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 alledge the example of Zipporah that Circumcised her Son; whence they argue, that a Woman may as lawfully Baptize, 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 administred by any person, by reason it was not so strictly joyned with the Ministe­rial Office of Preaching, as Baptism is in the New Testament; Go and teach all Na­tions, baptizing them, &c. Mat. 28.19. So that now it is unlawful for any to admini­ster Baptism, but such as are ordained for the Ministery.

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 [Page 47]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 chief­ly 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 falshood 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 [Page 46]that it be called Bread after Consecration, which yet we see the Scripture doth.

2. The Word it self 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 Er­rour, namely, that Christs Body is bruised by the Teeth, and let down into the Belly, &c.

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: [Page 48]but an absurd name is fit enough for such an absurd thing.

4. The thing which is distributed in the Sacrament, is called by the Ancients a Sign and a Figure of Christs Body. Now no­thing can be a Sign or a Figure of it self: 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, &c. Also the Scriptures call it, A Seal of the Righte­ousness of Faith, as we said before; now the Seal cannot be the thing it self.

It were too tedious to consider all the ar­guments of the Papists against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, concerning the Lords 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 Goliah, if he had presented himself to the peoples view upon a Theater.

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 Thea­ter covered with an Asses 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 brevities 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, &c. The Major is most certain; for Relatives are mutual, and the one presupposeth the other: therefore where there is a proper Sacrifice, there [Page 50]must be an Altar, a Priest, and an Hoast, 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 ( de 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 [Page 51]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 onely 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. [Page 52] 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 it self. 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 Prophesie 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 ministring 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 [Page 53]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 signifyed that they had not yet compleated 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 lyable 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 Christs Mediatory Office was fulfill­ed as to one part of his Priesthood, namely his Sacrifice) that there might [Page 54]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 [Page 55] ronimus, Ambrosius 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 Hoast, besides Christ himself, who is our Sacrifice, our Priest, and our Altar, Epiphan. lib. 2. com. 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, up­pon 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 Antient Fathers, and injurious to the satisfaction and me­rits of Christ; moreover, if there be no Sacrifice, there can be no Mass, [Page 56]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 Sacriledg, 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 Antient 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 wondred 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? [Page 57]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 [Page 58]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 one­ly 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 onely knoweth the hearts of the Children of Men, 1 Kings 8.39. [Page 59] Peter the Apostle, though a Saint, would not suffer Cornelius to wor­ship him, saying I my self 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 onely is to be worshipped.

Their distinction betwixt latria, and dulia, and hyperdulia hath been abundantly refuted by many of the Reformed Writers.

I shall onely 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 Governour, or Governours of the Church may send good La­bourers into Christ's Vineyard: yea Antichrist himself being under the Cloak of Christs Vicar, may di­stribute the Offices of Christs 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 Lords Vineyard, such as Joseph, Nicodemus, and othes.

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 [Page 62]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.