think he could be perswaded of the authority of Scriptures not by the authority of the Church nor by the perswasion of Moses or the Prophets but by the internal truth speaking in his heart Which is the holy Spirit And let them not make an instance against us that every one pretends the holy Spirit by reason pretension maketh no prejudice to truth Neither is the question betwixt us and the Papists as betwixt admitting the authority of the Scripture and denying the same by reason both of us do admit the same and then the question ariseth how or by what way we may be perswaded that these Scriptures which we embrace as divine are not prophane And if we or they answer more agreeably let every impartial Christian be a judg We conclude therefore as this question to be unworthy of a Christian man If the holy Bible be the Word of God so another assertion of a Jesuit Sambar de fide orthodoxa called Sambar to be very foolish viz. that the Protestant Churches have no Scriptures For besides that he defends this proposition for no other end but to escape the strength of the arguments derived out of the Scriptures likewise he confirmeth this proposition by no other medius terminus or reason but because the Protestant Church having no notes of a true Church is false and so she can have no Scripture being the Scriptures dependeth from the Church both in their material and in their formal part Whereas both the argument and its probation is false and they foolishly petunt principium take that for granted which we utterly deny viz. that the Scriptures and their sense doth depend from the authority of the Church as we did touch this point somewhat higher Moreover the Jesuit by this assertion doth shew his desperate cause by reason none of the ancient Fathers did deny the Scriptures to any Heretick as they suppose us to be that they might shew his case plain and Austin saith that the Scriptures are not belonging as proper to one Aug. lib. 3. contr Ma. Arian but that they are common witnesses of both the sides And if we would be so rude we could change the scene and affirm that the Papists themselves have no Scripture as to the formal part because we did plainly shew a little higher their Church not only to be false and erroneous but none at all But being I am not afraid of their arrows which they can take out of the Scriptures I will not deny them the Bible Having thus far secured the Sentiment of the Protestant Churches about the authority of Scriptures I descend to the proprieties of them I affirm therefore the holy Scriptures to be perfect as well touching the perfection of parts as of degrees and thence to be sufficient to our salvation The Law of God is perfect saith David Psal 119. and the sufficiency of it is shown by the Apostle in the forementioned words 2 Tim. 3.16 The accession of the New Testament to the old maketh no prejudice to the perfection and sufficiency of Scriptures because he that declared all the counsel of God spoke nothing other than what Moses did say and the Prophets as we writ before Hence the old Fathers said very well As the New Testament is hidden in the old so the Old Testament is declared in the new neither gradus variat speciem doth a degree change the nature of things that are of the same kind Neither do we dispute with the Papists of this or the other part of Scriptures but of the whole Canon as it is made by the Apostles declared by the ancient Church and enumerated by Hierom. Hierony in prol Gal. They are not therefore to commit a fallacy of division And as we do justly cut off from this perfection and sufficiency of Scriptures the books call'd Apocrypha by reason they contradict themselves and the holy Scripture neither were they found in the Jewish Church unto which were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3.2 So we reject the distinction of the Papists betwixt the books Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical by reason a Canon cannot be changed And for this reason we do very little esteem Traditiones non scriptas not written Traditions because out of that is written Joh 20.31 2 Tim. 3.15 we may have sufficient instructions for the life-eternal To refer unto these Traditions the several Orders of Fryers and the sheaving of their Crowns the words of Christ John 16.12 I have yet many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them now is a very great folly Because if this was the meaning of Christ he could very easily have called a Barber and commanded the heads of those Disciples to be shaven But may be he could not by reason of their baldness Besides that Monks Hieronimus whose duty was to weep and not to teach as an old Father saith were not shaven for a sign of their honour and pre-eminence but for a sign of their penitence For the last Psal 19.8 Rom. 16.4 the Scriptures are easie to be understood The Commandment of the Lord is pure enlightning the eyes and whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope Which could not be if the Scripture was not easie and light We affirm therefore that as those things which are absolutely necessary to salvation are few so they are plainly set down in the Scriptures But as for other questions I do not deny such things to be found in the Scriptures that can afford work enough for a human wit. Namely as one saith The holy volumes are of such a nature Chrysostomus that as well a lamb may wade in it as an Elephant swim Being then that the holy Scriptures are perspicuous as it is evident out of reason testimony and the consent of the ancient Fathers therefore the Protestants proceed very lawfully in attributing judicium discretionis or a judgment of discretion to every true Christian So that every believer by the often reading of the Word of God and by the conferring of one place of Scripture with the other may interpret the Gospel 2 Pet. 1.20 21. because no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation for it came not by the will of man but by the holy Ghost As for the Fathers of the ancient Church and the four Primitive Councils we imbrace them as interpreters of the holy Scriptures yea we affirm likewise that they may bind subordinately to Scriptures our conscience but not force them to the faith ligant non obligant yet we deny whether the Fathers or the Council or the Roman Pope to be a Judg of the Controversies about matters of faith Austin Fatetur Andradius contra Kâ—mnitium Defens Concil Triden l. 2. Bellar. sacra scriptura regula decidendi certissima tutissimaque est Heb. 4.12 but only the Holy Ghost speaking in his Word
THE Romish Priest TURN'D PROTESTANT With the REASONS OF HIS CONVERSION WHEREIN The True Church is Exposed to the View of Christians and Derived out of the Holy Scriptures Sound Reason and the Ancient Fathers Humbly presented to both Houses of Parliament By JAMES SALGADO a Spaniard formerly a Priest of the Order of the Dominicans LONDON Printed for Tho. Cockerill at the Three Legs in the Poultrey over-against the Stocks-Market 1679. To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal with the Honourable the Commons of England in Parliament Assembled Sirs I Hope you will pardon my boldness because I presume to appear before your faces It is requisite I should give an account of my hope in Christ unto you who are next to the most Illustrious King Charles the II. Defender of the Faith the surest Maintainers of the Protestant Religion And unto whom else should I dedicate a Treatise of the True Church if not to the Parliament where as well the Commonwealth is to be found in the Church as the Church in the Commonwealth Namely There is a new resemblance in your Houses of the old face of Israel which maketh me the bolder as the countenance of Law-givers like that of Moses doth in its lustre go far beyond the rest Nature and Religion have made you of that constitution that you do not only shine for your selves but also spread out your beams for the benefit of others Sirs Be pleas'd to accept of this small token of my due submission and to look upon him with an eye of benevolence who desiring to depend upon your Sanhedrim will always remain Sirs Your most Obedient Servant James Salgado a Spaniard a Converted Priest THE PREFACE TO THE READER THere are so many of this kind of Books put out that one should think This to be superfluous But I was constrain'd to conform my self to the present Age not only for that I might wipe off the Calumnies of the Papists who commonly say That the Roman Priests desert the Roman Church for no other reason than this That they may have liberty to do what they please whereas God knoweth they amongst themselves have a freedom so unbridled that there is almost nothing found there but a great disorder and license and to satisfie the Protestants in the reason of my Conversion and shew to both the parties why I am turn'd a Protestant I composed this Book first in Latin but that my Conversion should be manifest to all yea even to the meanest I caused it to be Translated into English Kind Reader apply these newly-shuffled Cards as I may use the phrase of a Right Reverend Bishop of this Realm for thy own profit May be you will find that in it you never heard before So farewel From one that is desirous of thy Salvation JAMES SALGADO Chr. Ch. Oxon Dec. 26 78. Reverend Sir I Am to give you thanks for the occasion you gave me of acquaintance with the bearer hereof Mr. James Salgado whom I find by his discourse to be a right Spaniard born of a good Family and of very good parts and to have suffered very much by the Inquisition of Spain for embracing the Truth of our Protestant Religion This consideration and the great bounty and charity I saw used by his Countreymen towards ours when found in distress among them makes me think him an object singularly well deserving our common charity and benevolence especially considering how very rare a case it is to see a Clergy-man of his Nation come to us They have been civil to him in this Vniversity and I hope good men will be so to him with you To such as may desire to learn the Spanish or Italian Tongue he may be serviceable having good skill in both but in the former he is eminent as born and bred in Madrid I will presume to beg the continuance of your goodness to him affording him your instruction and commendation to good men there for some employment he may be capable of by which you shall oblige much Reverend Sir Your very affectionate humble Servant Andr. Sall. Courteous Reader I Do believe that the Author of this Book James Salgado was a Romish Priest according to the Order of the Dominicans and that he is now become a true Convert to the Protestant Religion as the ensuing Discourse will further evidence to the intelligent Reader Nic. Lloyd Rector of St. Mary Newington 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE True Church THE ancient Fathers commonly called the Church an Ark of Noah without whose bosom none could be freed from the peril of everlasting damnation as well as none that was out of the Ark could escape the danger of the flood And indeed they did not say it without reason because they knew that to them that were strangers from the Church her priviledges did not belong as Vocation Justification Sanctification the want of which disinables a man from coming to the perfection of the future world and to the enjoyment of it And as those members that are not joyn'd to a human body are destitute of sense and life so they that are rooted out from the Head of the Church which is Christ or have never been inserted into the Olive-tree can expect no spiritual influence which is able to make us the heirs of eternal salvation This was the reason for which David affirmeth That the Heathens did not know the statutes of the Lord namely because they have been without the communion of Israel where the Church was in the Old Testament Because the Lord shewed his Word unto Jacob his Statutes and his Judgments unto Israel and he hath not dealt so with any Nation Psal 147.19 20. therefore they have not known his judgments The Apostle doth ascend higher on this matter when he writing to the Ephesians saith At that time you were without Christ Ephes 2.12 you were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world Namely because they were not in the bosome of the Church and were without that Ark of Noah we spoke of they were also without the Communion of Christ who is a loyal Husband only to one Spouse as it is said in the Canticles My Dove my undefiled is but one Cant. 6.9 But when the Fathers did use this similitude they meant by it the Universal Church whose beginning Austin deriveth from Abel and deduceth the continuation of it until the consummation of the world Therefore no Church which is extant here or there or in any place of the world can go in that signification under a name of an Universal Church but that which was is and shall be and comprehends in its ambit as well the Triumphant as the Militant part And if that be Catholick Vinc. Lirin contra noph novitates according to the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis in his Book against the prophane novelties Which has been believed always every-where and
by all surely the Catholick Church it self must be this which was everywhere always and was or will be found amongst all Nations of the World by reason the thing ruled cannot be narrower than the Rule nor Faith cannot be found but in Believers I cannot but confess that there are many particular Congregations many Provincial or National Churches amongst which one may be and is sounder than the other yet notwithstanding this none of these Churches can be call'd Catholick if we take this word in a strict signification Being they are only parts or members making up one general body none of which can be call'd without a contradiction Universal except one would grant unto a hand or a foot the name of a whole body From hence we may see that the Roman Church being it is a particular one albeit it should be sound and Orthodox as it is not cannot appropriate unto it self exclusively to other Churches professing Christ the name of a Catholick or Universal Church I confess I am not so rigid as to cut off the Roman Church it self from the latitude of the Universal Church because besides that people living in that same Communion yet not formally Papists which in the simplicity of their hearts do profess God and our Saviour and believe in him and in order to that do work out their salvation as well as they can although many of them neither understand the matter nor the circumstances of it by reason of their unavoidable or invincible ignorance can arrive to eternal salvation being it is truth That God is no respecter of persons Act. 10.34 35. But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him We do likewise yield that the Roman Church may be called a Church although not in the moral yet in the physical sense just as an Adultress doth not lose the name of a Wife albeit she loseth the name of an honest Wife But now because the Court of Rome will have their Church to consist either in the Pope or in the Council or else in them both therefore we will speak of it as it is considered in that kind and consequently shew and declare the same to be false and erroneous It is true that the Church taken in that kind cannot be but as they say in Schools a representative one nevertheless because the rest of that communion are bound to obey it as an infallible one therefore we take the denomination a potiori and so affirm the same to be false and non-Catholick yea none at all It was not enough for the Papists to pronounce all those Churches that hold no communion with them Hereticks and so to shut up the Gates of Heaven before them but they were and are so bold as to affirm their Church to be infallible and without error It is indeed a great postulatum which is not only false in it self but also a great cause why the rest of the Churches will not nor can hold communion with them And that I may pass it by that no particular Church as the Roman is can be call'd infallible likewise it is as sure that they according to the way of the Athenians do not know whom they worship and so erect an Altar To the unknown God. Act. 17.23 In vain do any dispute about the propriety or priviledg of a thing when they can have no certain knowledg about the subject it self In vain do they affirm their Church to be Infallible when they cannot tell where and which this Church may be because in this matter we may see Pares aquilas pila minantia pilis one contradicting another Some of them as namely the Sorbonists do place it in the Council others as Jesuits only in the Pope some again say that it doth consist in them both jointly that is in the Pope and Council Chuse any side you please and take hold either of one or of the other sentiment you will find your self to stagger and being set in the midst of doubtfulness with Masius of Sylvaducis you shall not know where to turn you May be you will perceive from whence you have declined but not whither you should go because after you have made choice of either of their meanings you will find your self intangled with many difficulties out of which you shall not be able to free your self and so you will find your self to offer a sacrifice unto an unknown god This I will endeavour to shew briefly Suppose now you should yield that the Church doth consist in the Council only there you shall find presently some of that same Communion contradicting that But having past over this I may ask such a man Who can know this Council to be infallible Because first Ex partibus homogeneis nihil heterogeneum potest constari out of things which are of that same nature nothing can be made of a diverse nature All the members making up the Council were fallible How can it be then that they should become infallible when they are gathered into one Synodical body And if this infallibility came but then to the Council when it came to be a Council I pray Where was it before in what part of the World did it uphold it self By what Tubus opticus or by what insensible transpiration did this good infallibility come down upon the Fathers of the Council or what shall become of that infallibility after the Council is dissolved into what place shall it betake it self to rest None can give an account Then how shall you know that all they that were gathered in the Council have been lawfully baptized or baptized at all because you are not certain of the Ministers or the Priests intention upon which hangeth the efficacy of the Sacraments how that they are canonically ordained and not per saltum how that they have not intruded themselves by Simony all which thou must believe with a Divine Faith before thou canst embrace the decrees of the Council for infallible ones Moreover if the infallibility of the Church do consist in the Council then of necessity there should be always extant a general Council so that the diffident parts might have a free entrance in order to make a disquisition of their quarrel and likewise a determination and so live in peace But where is there such a one And suppose there should be always a Council in esse which nevertheless is impossible yet how should you know this Council not to be partial and not such a one as the Council of Ariminum neither subject to correction by reason many former Councils have been mended by the later as Austin tells us May be you will make this exception Christ promiseth unto his Disciples Joh. 16.13 and so consequently unto his Church That the spirit of truth shall guide them into all truth and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. 16.18 Well said Christ did promise the holy Spirit unto his Disciples but
stedfastly concluded with my self as soon as God would grant me an opportunity to associate my self in the Protestant Church and reject the Roman Idolatry Which I accordingly have done and having renounced the Popish Religion have adjoyned my self unto the body of our Saviour Christ Jesus that is unto the true Protestant Church Whose truth I am going to shew now as shortly as I can and that by this argument That Church which doth vindicate the authority of the Scriptures defends the proprieties of them and teacheth according to the Scriptures is a true Church but the Protestant Church doth so The Major is firm and without contradiction The Minor is to be proved which I am endeavouring to do Neither will I be so Scripturary as that I should reject the old Fathers and the Primitive Councils I will alledg them likewise as bearing witness unto truth which cannot be overthrown As to the first The Protestant Church doth vindicate the authority of Scriptures when she denieth the same to depend from the authority of the Church not so much as to us Robert Bellarmin seeing that these who affirmed without any limitation Bell. de V. D. l. 1. c. 46. the Divinity of Scriptures doth depend from the authority of the Church did not speak soberly enough he endeavoured to mollify the Proposition with this distinction viz. that the Scriptures must be considered either in themselves or in respect unto us As they are considered in the first manner they do not depend from the authority of the Church but as they are in the second But as the distinction is vain because every authority is Relative and is not so much to be considered in it self as in respect of the object so likewise the supposition is false viz. That the authority of Scriptures in respect or in relation unto us doth depend from the Church But before I come to the demolishing of this assertion we will consider the reason why Papists say and believe so And indeed I can find no other besides this that they seeing themselves unable for resisting the Arguments of the Protestants which are drawn out of the Scriptures endeavouring to pervert the sense of them asserting that the same dependeth from the interpretation of the Church and so consequently are constrained to affirm that also the authority of Scriptures dependeth from the Church of which Scriptures nor of the right meaning of them nothing can be certain without the Tradition of the Church And by this same they very handsomely tread in the footsteps of the old Hereticks of whom one thus speaks The Hereticks when they come to be argued by the Scriptures they presently fall to the accusing of them as if they could not be from or of a sufficient authority or not so to be understood and of which no certainty can be had without Tradition Here is the true Protraicture of our modern Papists But to the thing it self We deny the authority of Scriptures to depend any way from the authority of the Church but only from the holy Spirit speaking within the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.21 2 Tim. 3.16 17. by reason he is the author of them and so he doth endue them with an irrefragable authority And as Christ desires no testimony from any besides from the Father so likewise his word which he hath been pleased to leave upon earth instead of his person And as it is very unreasonable that the Kings Proclamation should depend from a Crier or a Rule from a thing that is ruled or that the Sun should borrow its brightness from that Orb or Vortex which it is contained in so it is very disagreeable to affirm that the Scriptures should depend from the authority of the Church The Church is a Candlestick the Word of God is a Candle as our Saviour declareth Luke 8.16 Now as a Candlestick doth contribute nothing at all to the light of the Candle so neither doth the Church to the authority of Scriptures We do not reject the Ministerial Testimony of the Church in that case by reason the Church leads us unto the Gospel as the Samaritan Woman did lead her fellow-citizens to Christ as Austin saith yet for all that none of them can be call'd the cause of our faith but an instrument Yet the Papists do object against us viz. 1 Tim. 3.15 That the Church is call'd the pillar and ground of the truth and from thence they bring in this conclusion that she is the only cause from whom the authority of the Scriptures doth depend But very foolishly because first that I may pass by the Observation of Camero who affirmeth these words to belong unto the 16 verse by reason there is to be found in that verse a Copulative Particle which otherwise should be to no purpose c. the Apostle doth speak of the Church considered as a house and then sheweth which is the chiefest pillar or ground of the same and indeed if we speak reasonably a house cannot be a pillar but a pillar is in a house It is secondly to be observed that by this pillar is not to be understood an Architectonical but a Political one not one that should uphold by its strength the authority of Scriptures but one upon which the Proclamations and Constitutions of the Supreme King are affixed Neither is the exception of Bellarmin against this distinction of any value viz. That by this way the Church may be as well call'd a Library as a Pillar by reason we do affirm that the office of the Church is not only to keep the books as it is of a Library but to expose the Contents of the same to the view of people and to under-teach them in the way of their Superiors will which belongs to a pillar The Church then can be an external Motive unto us that the Scriptures are of divine authority but cannot perswade us unto it by reason it is only the propriety and the business of the holy Ghost whom the Lord joyneth with his word Ps 59.21 when he saith My spirit which is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Austin speaketh very handsomely to that purpose Lib. de Confess speaking of the authority of Scripture But how shall I be perswaded to believe this Moses indeed did say so it is true he said but he is gone and although he should be present and talk Hebrew to me I should not understand what he meant but if he should speak Latin I should understand But by what means should I know that he speaketh truth Therefore inwardly inwardly I say in the Cabinet of my heart not the Greek nor the Hebrew nor the Latin neither the Barbarian truth but he that without the sound of lips or the noise of syllables should tell me he speaketh truth and I should say to this this man You speak truth You may see Christian and impartial Reader how Austin did
man that he is reputed just for the merits and satisfaction of Christ Hence Paul saith That God justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4.5 Rom. 4.5 Rom. 3.24 By his Grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ Rom. 3.24 God then so justifying maketh no phyfical immutation or change in a sinner as the Papists do say who would have this justification of God to be of that same nature as their Transubstantiation is in which one thing is changed into another that is that God justifying doth not proceed as a Judg at the Bar pronouncing one innocent but as making by a physical immutation a just man out of an unjust as Christ did turn water into wine To prove which opinion Bellarmine Becanus and the rest of the Jesuits did much labour but without any success They produce nothing out of the Scriptures which is not to be referred to Sanctification and so they commit a great fault of ignoratio elenchi and their arguments framed from reason are so unreasonable that they are not worth the while of refutation The strongest of them which I intend to alledg is taken from the Word it self They say Justificure nihil aliud est ex vocis etymologia quam justum facere Obj. to justifie is nothing else but only to make just and righteous because it is compounded ex justus facio and the rest of such words as are composed with the word facio are of the same signification as glorificare sanctificare to sanctifie to glorifie which do not signifie to pronounce one holy or glorious but to make one such and of that nature and therefore justificate to justifie must not signifie to pronounce one just who is unjust in himself but to make one righteous But I hope they will not prove themselves better Grammarians than they are Divines I answer therefore 1. The sense and the right meaning of a word in matters Divine is not to be taken out of Calepin but out of the Word of God which is the rule of our faith Now out of the Scriptures it is plain as it is demonstrated by many that Justification is every where taken in sensu forensi Qui justificat impium condemnat justum ambo sunt abominationi Jehovae he that justifieth an unjust man and condemneth the just they are both an abomination unto the Lord faith Solomon Here the justification of an unjust is opposed to a condemnation of a godly man and so in all other places the word Justification is taken 2. If this should be the meaning of the word then there should be no distinction betwixt Justification and Sanctification as we find it to the contrary â—ev 22.11 â—om 8.30 Rev. 22.11 He that is righteous let him be righteous still and he that is holy let him be holy still and so Rom. 8.30 And whom he justified them he also glorified where in the word glorified is comprehended Sanctification Glorificatio inchoata velue glorificatio est sanctificatio consummata an inchoated glorifying as Glorification is a consummated sanctifying 3. And then this composition with the word facio doth not always signifie an internal immutation in that thing unto which such a word is attributed Luk. 1.46 as we may see in the Song of the blessed Virgin Mary where she saith Magnificat anima mea Dominum My soul doth magnifie the Lord where Magnificat is compounded out of the word magnus facio Now let them put their heads together and if they can prove any way that the blessed Mother by her magnifying the Lord made in him an inward change we will allow that God by justifying us maketh an inward mutation in us Ante vero leves pascentur in â—here cervi So much concerning the Justification called active now we will descend to the passive or as it is considered in respect of the man justified And so considered it is nothing else but an assurance of our righteousness in Christ and by the imputation of his merits which we receive and apply to our selves by faith Rom. 3.25 26. Rom. 3.25 26. Hence we see the cause meritorious of our Justification to be the merits of Christ as we shewed it a little before and the hand by which we apply this satisfaction of our Saviour or the instrumental cause to be faith Rom. 5.28 Therefore saith Paul we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law It is as plain in the holy Word of God as that the cause of the day is the Sun that we are only justified by faith Gratia salvati estis per fidem By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of your selves Eph. 2.8 it is the gift of God. So that I will not insist upon this matter any longer Rom. 3.20 and therefore immediately conclude with the Apostle against the Popish Creed That by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the law is the knowledg of sin There is therefore no justification in the sight of God by our works but only by faith which applieth the Panacea of salvation unto our dead hearts and makes us to live in him and him in us We are not so unreasonable as to separate works from our faith nevertheless we affirm that it is faith only that justifieth that which sees is only an eye that which weighs is only an arm nevertheless neither of them can either see or weigh unless they be annexed to the human body so although faith is said to justifie only the meaning is not that it is separated from the good works The holy Apostle James saith Jam. 2.24 We are justified by works and not by faith only It is true but he understands either the justification before men as we may see it out of Jam. 2.18 Shew me thy faith by thy works or else the confirmation of the inward faith by the outward doings or else he uses a kind of a Metonymia effecti so that he may understand by the faith and works a working-faith which he seemeth to insinuate in the fore-mentioned place Ye see then how that by works a man is justified Ibid. Jam. 2.17 and not by faith only that is not by a bare faith which if it hath not works is dead being alone but by a living faith which shews its goodness by works Therefore we are not justified by works but as I said by faith and every one who looks into himself and his weakness must utter the Confession of Bellarmine Bellar. de bon oper Propter humanae vitae fragilitatem propriae justitiae incertitudinem tutissimum est inâ— sola Dei misericordia spem collocare For the sake of the frailty of human life and the uncertainty of our own righteousness it is the most secure way to relye upon the only mercy of God. Consider kind and civil Reader the words of this Cardinal who as I can shew if necessity
the promise for which belonging of the promise Peter was willing to confer Baptism upon some Converts as we may see out of the fore-mentioned place Act. 2.38 39. Act. 2.38 39. as against the Papists denying to the Children albeit they be under the promise and the Covenant of Grace dying without being baptized the life everlasting by reason he that is in the Covenant of Grace or under the promises is in Christ he that is in Christ Eph. 2.12 Act. 4. must necessarily be saved Therefore he that is under the promise of life or in the Covenant of Grace as Children are must necessarily be saved But they have an argument against us Obj. Verily I say unto you except a man he born of water Joh. 3.6 and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Out of which words they conclude that baptism is of that efficacy that none can be saved without it But I answer Resp It is a vain exception because by this water and spirit is nothing else to be understood but the Holy Ghost himself who is of the same nature as water is as to the ablution of our sins Another like expression is to be found in the Gospel of Matthew Mat. 3.11 He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire that is the Holy Ghost who is of a fiery nature in cleansing as Gold seven times refined in the fire Therefore such expressions are metaphorical or figurative and improper and are call'd Hendiadis a like expression there is in Virgil Poculis libamus auro Virgil. We drink out of Cups of Gold Aeneid 1. Arma virumque cano id est armatum virum Joh. 3.3 that is out of golden Cups so that to be born of water and spirit is nothing else but to be born out of a watery or out of a fiery spirit Hence what Christ saith here by way of Hendiadis he expresseth the same in its own proper words a little higher Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. So that hence we may inter by the authority and explaining of our Saviour himself in this place to be understood only the spiritual Regeneration and not the external Ablution of the water As to the second we do utterly deny the Baptism performed by Women to be lawful and irrevocable They have nothing else to alledg only the example of Zipporah Obj. that circumcised her Son Exod. 4.25 26. and so they think a Woman may as lawfully baptize as circumcise I will not answer according to the usual answer of some Divines Ans that Zipporah sinned in doing so because I believe the Almighty God doth never bless men for sin as he did Moses for that doing of Zippora But I answer thus that in the Old Testament circumcision was indifferently performed by any byreason it was not so strictly joyned with the office of Preaching as Baptism is in the New Testament made so by Christ himself Go and teach all Nations baptizing them c. Mat 28.19 So that now it is unlawful for any one to administer the holy Baptism besides him who is ordained for Preaching Now we are minded to speak of the second Sacrament for we will not regard their assertion of the rest of their five Sacraments which have no ground neither in Scriptures nor in the ancient Fathers which is the Lords-Supper This according to the true Doctrine is nothing else but only a visible sign of an invisible grace by which visible sign that is Bread and Wine 1 Cor. 10.16 17. we receive the body and blood of our Saviour as a seal of the Covenant of Grace tending unto our salvation We do not deny the body and blood of Christ to be really present in this holy Sacrament But we deny the same 1. To be there corporally because the body of our Saviour being circumscriptive and in heavens is not everywhere And then 2. We deny this Supper of our Lord to be a sacrifice for the living and the dead Which is my greatest point in this case and I accordingly will endeavour to declare it As to the first the Papists do urge very much their Transubstantiation It is a question and a Controversie very well known but I hope to add some light to it I go on By this Transubstantiation they understand nothing else but the corporal presence of the body and blood of our Saviour under the accidents of Bread and Wine So that they think the substance of those Elements to be turned into the first nothing out of which they were formerly created and the accidents only to remain which acts in the senses of our sight feeling and taste This is the description or 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation upon which we say the same to be quite false and erroneous 1. The name of it nor the matter in it contained is not to be found in Scriptures 1 Cor. 10.17 by reason after the consecration it is still called bread of which we are partakers where not only we are said to be partakers of bread which could not be if it was annihilated but likewise no Papist will admit this Sacrament to be call'd bread after Consecration which nevertheless the Scripture doth 2. The name of it is newly come up nor was it ever heard before the Council of Lateran when Berengarius was forced to recant the truth and fall into a most abominable error as to say that Christs body was eaten and bitten with teeth c. Atteri dentibus in alvum demitti 3. It is a most improper name to a thing yea it is as much to be called Transubstantiation as creation could be called annihilating because Transubstantiation is nothing else but a mutation of one substance into another as in Cana of Galilee Wine was turned into water but here the Papists say that one substance doth not become another but that the one which is the bread and wine is annihilated and the other which is the body and blood of Christ is induced under the accidents or species of bread and wine although here likewise they have a thousand distinctions about the introduction or adduction of the body of Christ underneath the accidents which I will pass over so that by this way it must be call'd annihilation of one and introduction of another substance rather than Transubstantiation but because the thing is false the name must be of that same nature Conveniunt rebus nomina saepe suis 4. There can be no Transubstantiation where the thing that is given in the distribution of the Sacrament is call'd by the ancients a sign a figure because none can be a sign or a figure of himself as Christ should be if he should be given as present corporally or bodily under the accidents Austin Now Austin saith Non dubitavit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum â—um daret figuram corporis sui The Lord was pleased to say This is my body
when he did give the figure or the sign of it And the most of the ancient Fathers do interpret the words in this sense as we will shew God willing in another Treatise purposely handling of this matter Scripture as we shewed somewhat higher calls it Sigillum or signaculum justitiae fidei a seal of the Righteousness of Faith and what is a seal of a thing cannot be the thing it self The Objections that the Papists have against Protestants as to their Transubstantiation out of the Scriptures as well as out of the ancient Fathers we will not touch them here referring them to that Treatise which we spoke of before where it shall be most fully handled of Only I cannot pass this Objection by which I did read in one Anonymus Jesuit framed against our last reason Jesuita Anonymus namely that nothing can be a sign of it self He maketh this instance That something can be a sign of it self as David could had been a sign of himself as fighting with Goliah in the Valley of Terebinth if he had presented himself upon the Theater But I answer 1. David had not been a sign of himself but of his actions he performed at the time of the Combate 2. If David had been sewed up in a Sack or else had lain upon the Theater being covered with a skin of an ass as they say Christ is covered with the species of bread and wine so that no body could have seen him I do not understand how he could have been a sign of himself or of his actions either and shew'd how valiantly he had fought with Goliah I will omit here that this Sacrament was instituted for the remembrance of Christ Man and that the remembrance is only of a thing absent as likewise many of their exceptions against us because I refer all this to the aforesaid Treatise Only I will shew my second Proposition which is that the Supper of the Lord is no sacrifice for the living and the dead And this as short as ever I can by this general argument Where there is no Priest no Altar no proper Hoast there is no proper sacrifice for sin In the New Testament there is no such thing The Major is very true and plain They Papists allow their sacrifice to be proper if so she must have a proper altar a proper Priest a proper Hoast because the nature of Relatives is such that they do in general relate to one another and so saith Bellarmine Bellar. de Missa lib. 1. c. 16. De cuten san lib. 3. c. 4. De Miss lib. 1. c. 14. Altaria non consueverunt erigi nisi ad sacrificia proprie dicta The altars use not to be erected unless for sacrifices properly so called And again Sine altari non potest sacrificari Without an altar there can be no sacrifice And again Nunquam altare proprie dictum erigitur nisi ad sacrificia proprie dicta An altar properly so called is never erected but for sacrifices properly so called If we therefore evince that there is no proper altar nor Priest nor sacrifice in the New Testament that is besides Christ himself We shall shew our conclusion evidently that there is no sacrifice neither As to the Altar there is no material altar to be sound in the holy Scriptures as one that should be used in the New Testament Christ the instituter of this holy Sacrament Luk. 22.21 1 Cor. 10.21 Bellar. de missa lib. 1. cap. 17. celebrated the same on the Table the Apostle Paul calls it a Lords-Table there is no mention made of an altar which had been done if it had been in use hence the great Bellarmine Ap stoli non utebantur nominibus sacerdotii sacrificii altaris The Apostles did not use the name of Priesthood sacrifice altar as knowing well that there could be none after the material sacrifices were sealed up But the Papists object out of Hebr. Obj. 13.10 We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat Heb. 13.10 who serve the tabernacle I answer that it is an ignoratio elenchi We do not deny an improper altar of which this Text speaketh but we deny a proper and a material altar That this Text speaketh improperly the words themselves shew viz. We have an altar whereof to eat c. Can any body eat a material altar and that this altar is an invisible and an improper one the sacrifice that the Apostle would have to be offered upon it doth plainly evince it Heb. 13.15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually that is the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name So the old Fathers likewise Ambros in Epist ad Hebr. Bernh in ser om S. Ser. 4. Nazian Orat. 24. â—ell l. 1. 〈◊〉 miss â—ap 14. Dan. 9. Ambrose saith Nihil horum est visibile neque sacerdos neque sacrificium neque altare Nothing of these is visible neither the Priest nor the sacrifice nor the altar Bernhard Altare nihil aliud arbitror esse quam corpus Domini I think the altar to be nothing else but the body of the Lord. Nazianzen the Divine calls it an altar which is above that is Christ himself And for the last the Papists themselves must yield here an improper altar to be understood as Bellarmine confesseth Non urgeo ipsum locum I do not urge this place and so doth Thomas Anselmus the Divines of Collen and others As to the Sacrifice there is none proper neither so prophesieth Daniel that the Sacrifice and Oblation should cease and so we see in the fulfilling of the same Prophesie Heb. 9.26 So saith Paul Nor yet that he should offer himself often but now once in the end of the world c. And in another place Heb. 10.12 And every Priest standeth every day ministring and offering but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God. Where the Apostle plainly sheweth that Christ offered himself but once and so cannot be offered any more Yea it is observable that the Apostle urgeth the sufficiency of Christs oblation and the excellency of it by this argument 1. Because he offered himself but once and did not repeat it often as an insufficient sacrifice And 2. because he sat down on the right hand of God for ever having done his work perfectly which the Priests could not do because they did stand which signifieth one that hath not done his work as yet but must lay his hand once more to it before he can sit down and rest himself from his work Therefore the Papist commencing daily sacrifices of Christ after that one sacrifice do derogate from the sufficiency of it and make him liable to standing where he sits already for ever at the right hand of God. This was the reason likewise why God did destroy Jerusalem and the Temple after the fulfilling of Christs Mediatorship as to