Rome's DESTRUCTION: OR, express Texts and necessary Consequences drawn out of the Word of God, for the condemning of the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and Justifying of that of the Reformed Churches. First Written in French, by C. D. R. A French nobleman. And now Published in English at the Solicitation of divers Religious Men of this Nation. By JAM: mountain. Psal. 137. 8. O Daughter of Babylon who art to be destroyed: happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. LONDON, Printed by Stephen Bulkley, and are to be sold by Henry Twyford at the three Daggers in Fleetstreet▪ near the Inner-Temple-Gate. 1641. TO THE RIGHT honourable AND most Illustrious Lord, PHILIP Earl of Pembroke and Mongomery, Baron Herbert of Cardiff and Shurland, &c. Lord chamberlain of his majesty's Household, Knight of the Honourable Order of the Garter; and one of his majesty's most Honourable Privy counsel. RIGHT honourable, IF Books were to be esteemed for their bulk, and not for their Worth: I would not presume to Dedicate so little a Book as this is, to so great a Lord as You are. But since it is their goodness, and not their bigness, that makes them recommendable: the Book itself, I hope, shall answer for me. For in It, your Honour shall find a great deal of good matter, contained in a little room. In It, You shall see the Doctrine of the Church of Rome flatly condemned; and the Doctrine of the Reformed Church, fully Justified: And that, not by any passages taken out of the broken cisterns of the Traditions of men; but by many express Texts, and necessary Consequences drawn out of the Pure Fountain of the very word of God. In a word, though it be of a contemptible Stature: yet you shall find It to be a pretty tall Man of his hands; skilful in his weapons; and so full of mettle and spirit, that like a little DAVID (Coming in the name of the Lord, and being armed with his Word) he foils and utterly overthrows that Great Goliath of Gath, I mean the Church of Rome. And now, most Illustrious Lord, the thing that hath encouraged me to make choice of Your Honour, and seek after Your Patronage, is, that my Author (of Noble extraction himself) Dedicated this Book of his to a Great and Religious Princess of my Nation, Daughter to that Renowned Prince, the late Duke of ROHAN: by which example, I thought myself obliged not to disparage it in England. But the most prevalent Motive, and, as I may say, the very Loadstone that hath attracted me thereunto, is, chiefly, those transcendent virtues which I see shine so brightly in Your honour, and wherewith God hath adorned Your soul as with a garment: I mean that Fervent love You have to the Truth: That Ardent Affection You show to the Sincerity of Religion: and that Inbred and Holy Hatred You bear, not only to all Popery and Superstition: but also to the least thing that might conduce thereunto. And for the Confirmation of this testimony of mine: Give me leave, Most Noble Lord, to boast that I am very strong; and may, with as much right as any man, use in this the common English proverb, that saith, I come with a witness: since I bring no less with me than the voice of the whole kingdom. For indeed, Right honourable, though I have been in most places of England, and have carefully and diligently observed the bent and affections of the People: I never yet met with any man that dissented from that opinion. What hopes then should not I have that Your honour will accept of this poor Labour of mine, and afford It Your Protection, since It suits so well with Your disposition; and that You shall see in It the Truth of that Religion which You profess; and the falsehood of that Religion which You Detest. Vouchsafe therefore Most Illustrious Lord, to receive It with a gracious eye, and to afford It Your Countenance. I know that for Your honour's sake, it will be welcome to this Nation, when they see Your honourable Name in the front of It. And I make no question but after they have read It, they will love it also for its own sake. If in these times (wherein many look back towards Babylon again, and Popery hath been here so bold as to think herself at home) the public receive any fruit thereby, they shall be obliged unto Your honour for it: but I more especially, who will acknowledge myself bound so long as I live, to be and remain, Your honour's most humble and most devoted Servant, J. Mountain. To the Reader. THe Jesuits and other Doctors of the Roman Church, having lurked a long time under the cloak of a pretended Antiquity, personal Succession, false Miracles, counsels, and ancient Fathers: And now, perceiving that this old ragged covering is not able to hide any longer those Errors and Idolatries which the Pope hath brought into the Church, because that the people whom they have deceived, and by this means kept in their Errors, begin now to know That the Religion which hath the truth of the Word of God hath the Antiquity: and that on the contrary, That Religion which hath not this Truth, hath the falsehood and Novelty. Moreover, That there is no succession of true Pastors, where there is no succession of true doctrine: That Miracles belongeth now to Antichrist, and are a mark of apostasy, and not of the Truth: as the Word of God plainly teacheth, Mat. 24. 24. 2. Thes. 2. 9: That they are forced to confess, That divers counsels and ancient Fathers have Erred, and that they are not rules of the Word of God, but that they ought to be ruled by the same Word. They have been forced (running from their colours) to forsake their weather-beaten shelter, to seek for a new retreat, and cast themselves into a new entrenchment, there to hold and lurk yet a while, which is to ask of us some express texts out of the Word of God, and necessary Consequences drawn out of the same, for the proof of our Doctrine, and condemnation of theirs; thinking by such means to persuade the simple people, that we have bragged in vain that our Doctrine was conformable unto the word of God, & that we had express texts & necessary Consequences drawn out of the same for the confirmation thereof, and are not able to produce any. But these Doctors imagining to hide themselves thereby, have on the contrary, stripped themselves so stark naked, that it is impossible for them to subsist any longer. For I will show in this Treatise, with the help of the Lord, that according to their own maxim and proper Confession, the Doctrine of the Roman Church is most false: and That of the Reformed Church, most true. To come therefore to the Point, without using any long digression: We must understand, that our Adversaries do confess ingenuously, That the Doctrine which may be proved both by express texts out of the Word of God, and necessary Consequences drawn out of the same, is the true doctrine. And contrariwise, That that Doctrine which cannot be proved out of express texts of the Word of God, and necessary Consequences drawn out of the same, is the false. And that withal the Jesuits do brag impudently in some of their books, to have put to silence all Our Ministers: And make their boast, That neither Minister, nor any other, can produce any express Text out of the Bible, that either condemneth any of their Articles, or justifies any of ours, though we should produce them out of the Geneva Bible. Moreover, That by express Texts, they do not mean we should show them in the Bible, the very same words of the debated Article: but that they are contented with such like and equivalent words. And that we cannot justify any of our Articles of Faith, nor condemn any of theirs by any good Consequence drawn out of the pure Word of God. And in Jesuit Verons answer to my Book called The Caballe of the Jesuits, &c. after he hath brought some lines wherein I say that the only way to make them come out of this last entrenchment, is to produce express Texts out of the Word of God, for the proof of that which is in controversy: he answereth, That it is all he desireth of us, and offereth to be a P●●testant, if we be able to do it, even in one only Article. Again, in de Raconis Book, containing the Acts of the Conference held between him and Mr. du Moulin, Printed with the approbation of the Doctors, p. 15, the said de Raconis confesseth, That the Church is subject unto the written Word, not to go against it. And in the 31. Pag. he admitteth the said du Moulin to necessary Consequences drawn out of the Word of God. So that all we have now to do, is to produce express Texts out of the Word of God, and necessary Consequences drawn out of the same, for the condemning of the Doctrine of 〈◊〉 Roman Church, and Justify●●g of that of the Reformed. Which thing I do in this Treatise upon the chief points of controversy: Whereby every one may easily perceive, that according to our Adversaries own Confession, the Reformed Church hath the true Doctrine, and the Roman Church the false. And therefore all they that desire to have Salvation, aught to come out of it, and join themselves to the Reformed Church. THE MATTERS Contained in this TREATISE. CHAP. I. THat the Word of God is not dark to them that have received the Spirit of God, that they may know the things which are freely given them of God. Item, That it containeth all things necessary to Salvation, and by Consequent, that men's Traditions are vain and unprofitable. Pag. 1. CHAP. II. That it is necessary that all the faithful should read the holy Scriptures, and that they are even bound thereunto, by the commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ. p. 23. CHAP. III. That a Man can do no good work without the Grace of God, and that our works the●efore are not dispositive for the obtaining of that Grace as our Adversaries say. Pag. 27. CHAP. IV. That our Lord Jesus Christ, hath fully and perfectly satisfied the Justice of God for our sins, as well for the guilt as for the punishment; and Consequently, that it is a vain and an unprofitable thing to desire to satisfy again unto the same by works. p. 31. CHAP. V. That a Man not being able to satisfy the Justice of God for his own sins; cannot by Consequent satisfy for the sins of others. p. 44. CHAP. VI. That the pretended treasure of the Roman Church, was only established to make void the merits of Christ, and to make a little Saint of him that nobody may know among the rest of the Saints. Pag. 50. CHAP. VII. That our good works have no merit at all, and that all the merits of the faithful are in one Christ alone. Pag. 57 CHAP. VIII. That the Invocation of Saints departed, is contrary unto the Word of God, and tendeth to no other end but to give unto the creature the honour and glory that belongeth unto the Creator. p. 64. CHAP. ix.. That the Images of the Roman Church, are made against the commandment of God; and that the Adoration they give unto them, is mere Idolatry. p. 74. CHAP. X. That four Rules show unto us that there is a Figure in these words, This is my Body: and that the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, is contrary unto the truth of God, and destroys the human nature of Christ. Item, That in all Sacraments, the Word is, is put for signifieth or representeth. Pag. 84. CHAP. XI. That it is not enough (for to have eternal life) to eat Christ's flesh: but we must also drink his blood. And therefore all Christians indifferently, aught to communicate under both kinds, according to the commandment of Christ and the Apostle Saint Paul. p. 112. CHAP. XII. That the pretended Sacrifice of the mass, was only established for to annihilate the power and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the cross. And that there is but one only Sacrificator Sacrificing expiatorily in the Evangelical Law, to wit, Christ Jesus our Lord. Pag. 125. CHAP. XIII. That S. Peter was not established by Christ, Head of the universal Church, and Prince of the Apostles. And Consequently, that the Pope, who challengeth this title but as S. Peter's Successor, hath intruded himself into that Office, without any lawful calling: And shows himself to be Antichrist, in doing quite contrary to that which Christ and S. Peter did. p. 148. Express Texts, and necessary Consequences drawn out of the Word of God, for the condemning of the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and justifying of that of the Reformed Churches. CHAP. I. That the Word of God is not dark to them that have received the Spirit of God, that they may know the things which are freely given them of God. Item, That it containeth all things necessary to Salvation; and by consequent, that men's Traditions are vain and unprofitable. THE Word of God contained in the Old and New Testament, is the chief and principal means we have to know him. It is it alone that declareth us his will, and teacheth u● what the honour and service is we owe unto him. In sum, it is the only light that scattereth and disperseth the darkness of our understanding, and by whose pure brightness we are led into the way of the kingdom of Heaven. Therefore it is no wonder if the Pope and his disciples (enemies of man's Salvation) have endeavoured, and do endeavour sti●● to take away that holy light from before men, to the end that they walking in darkness, may fall into eternal ruin and perdition. Now, the chief means they have used to attain to their ends, is first, to persuade and make the simple people believe, That the Scriptures are full of darkness▪ and therefore that it belongeth not to every one to read the same, but only to Doctors and learned men. Secondly, That it doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation. That ●t is but a piece of a rule, a nose of wax, a two-handed sword. But for to supply the Scriptures want, there is a Tradition and unwritten Word, which they cause to be received with like credit and certainty as the very Word of God. And with this artifice and cunning, the Pope hath set up himself in the Temple of God, and hath changed the Christian Religion, into Idolatry, superstition and false Doctrine; causing the people to receive whatsoever he saith and decrees, as the very Word and ordinance of God, though they be things directly contrary to the same: which things, by the grace of God, I shall make plainly appear by many places of the Word of God, and necessary consequences drawn out of the same. First, as touching the darkness of the Scripture which they suppose, for to hinder the simple people from reading the same: I say that in this very thing, they truly show themselves to be those blind and incredulous ones of whom S. Paul speaks when he saith, If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the God of this World hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, Lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the Image of God, should shine unto them, 2. Cor. 4. ver. 3. 4. If the Word of God be dark, it is not in regard of itself, but of men that are blind by nature in things that are of God. The natural man, saith S. Paul, receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them▪ because they are spiritually discerned, 1. Cor. 2. 14. And, our Lord teacheth us, that they which are not of God, cannot hear the Word of God, Joh. 8. 47. The Word of God is not dark to them that have received the Spirit of God, that they may know the things which are freely given to them of God, 1. Cor. 2. 12. I prove it by these arguments. Whatsoever is a lamp unto the feet of the faithful, and a light unto their paths, the same is not dark unto them. But the Word of God is a lamp unto the feet of the faithful, and a light unto their paths, Psal. 119. 105. Therefore the Word of God is not dark unto them. Item, Whatsoever illuminateth, and makes the simple to have understanding, the same is plain unto them. But the Word of God enlighteneth and maketh the simple to have understanding. Psal. 119. 130. Therefore the Word of God is plain unto the simple. Secondly, The Pope and his Adherents, teaching that the Word of God containeth not all things necessary to Salvation, show themselves wholly and absolutely adverse to Saint Paul: these words are plain toTimothy: The holy Scriptures, saith he, are able to make thee wise unto Salvation, through Faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, That the Man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. The written Word of God, hath the virtue and power to save souls; S. James teacheth the same when he saith, Receive with meekness the engrafted Word, which is able to save your souls, Jam. 1. 21. If you continue in my Word, saith Christ, You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free, Joh. 8. 31. 32. These things are written, saith S. John, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and in believing you may have life through his name, Joh. 20. 31. The written Word of God therefore containeth all things necessary to Salvation, and it is a needless thing to have recourse to men's Traditions. Again, Christ saith, That they worship him in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, Mark. 7. 7. He would not therefore have men to take upon them to make laws & commandments in his Church: But rather that all should submit themselves to his doctrine and commandments contained in his Word, without either adding unto it, or diminishing from it, Deut. 4. 2. Apoc. 22. 18. 19 The fear of this people, saith he, is towards me through the commandments of men, Esay 29. 13. In a word, Christ and his Apostles, in many places do send us to the written Word of God, but never to an unwritten word, or human Traditions: But rather on the contrary, S. Paul exhorteth the faithful to take heed lest they be surprised by the Traditions and vain deceits of men. If any man, saith he, yea, even an Angel from Heaven, preach unto you any other Gospel than that which you have received, let him be accursed, Galat. 1. 8. The written Word of God therefore containeth all that which is necessary to salvation: and consequently, we need not seek after any other unwritten Word for that purpose. Moreover, We do not reject all kind of Traditions, but only such as are contrary unto the Word of God, or invented by men for to impose a yoke upon the consciences of men, which God hath not imposed. The true Church, groundeth no Articles of faith upon the Traditions of men, but upon the Word of God. But our Adversaries build their Articles of faith upon the Tradition and the unwritten Word only, which they prefer before the holy Scriptures, and set it up far above the same. Gabriel de S. Maria, in his treatise of the Authority of Scripture, chap. 7. pag. 162. saith, that If we do compare the Tradition with the written Word of God, we shall find that the Tradition excels it infinitely, for that it hath more necessity, more light, more firmness, and more authority than the written Word of God. The Church of God useth some Traditions, but such as are not contrary unto the Word of God, and which do not impose a yoke upon the consciences of men: But the Traditions of the Roman Church, which (as our Adversaries say) excel the Word of God infinitely, are directly contrary unto the same and impose a yoke upon the consciences of men, which God hath not imposed; which is clearly verified in these examples following. 1 In the first place, The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth, That all the faithful ought not to read and meditate upon the Word of God. This doctrine is contrary to these places of the written word of God. Blessed is he that readeth the Words of this prophecy, &c. Apoc. 1. 3. Seek unto the Book of the Law, and read, &c. Esay 34. 39 2 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth, That Saints departed are our advocates and mediators towards God. This Doctrine is contrary to these express places of the written Word of God. God is one, and the Mediator one between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus, 1. Tim. 2. 5. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, John 1. Epist. 2. 1. 3 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth, That we must make Images of God, to worship him by them. This Doctrine is contrary unto the written Word of God, as appeareth by these express places. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, &c. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them, &c. Exod. 20. 4. 5. To whom will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare unto him, Esay 40. 18. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools: And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God, into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to fourfooted beasts, Rom. 1. 22. 23. 4 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth, That all Christians ought to abstain from certain meats, both in Lent, and other days throughout the year. This Doctrine is contrary unto the written Word of God, as you may see by these express places. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, as king no question for conscience sake. If any of them that believe not, bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, as king no question for conscience sake, 1. Cor. 10. 25. 27. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe, &c. 1. Tim. 4. 1. &c. 5 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth, That all Pastors, and other ecclesiastical persons in the Christian Church, ought not to marry, but rather that they should make a vow never to marry. This Doctrine is contrary to the written Word of God, as is proved by these express texts following: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband, &c. 1. Cor. 7. 2. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn, 1. Cor. 7. 9 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge, Heb. 13. 4. A Bishop than must be blameless, the husband of one wife: ruling well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. Item, Let the Deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children, and their own houses well, 1. Tim. 3. 2. &c. Saint Paul also calleth the forbidding of marriage, a doctrine of Devils, 1. Tim. 4. 1. 6 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth, that in all places Divine Service and Prayers ought not to be said but in Latin. This Doctrine is contrary to these express texts of the written Word of God. Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. I will pray with the Spirit, and will pray with understanding also: I will sing with the Spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knows not what thou sayest? Yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, 1. Cor. 14. 9 15. 16. 19 7 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth, That the faithful deserve eternal life by their good works, and the glory of the kingdom of Heaven. This Doctrine is contrary to the written word of God, as it is proved by these express places. If it be by Grace, it is no more of works: otherwise Grace is no more Grace, Rom. 11. 6. By Grace are ye saved through Faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast, Ephes. 2. 8. 9 Tit. 3. 5. The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth, That by the death and passion of Christ, we are delivered from the guilt and punishment of sins committed before baptism: but not from the punishment of sins committed after baptism, for which we must pay and satisfy the justice of God, both in this life by penance, and after this life in a fire of Purgatory. This Doctrine is contrary to these express places of the written Word of God. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, Being justified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom. 3. 23. 24. The blood of Jesus Christ, cleanseth us from all sin, John 1. Epist. 1. 7. By Grace are ye saved through Faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast, &c. Ephes. 2. 8. 9 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, &c. Rom. 8. 1. 9 The fifth Gospel of Cardinal Bellarmine, teaches, That Saints departed are in some kind our Redeemers, lib. 1. de. Indulg. cap. 4. This Doctrine is contrary to the written Word of God, as it is proved by these express texts. There is no Salvation in any other but in Christ Jesus: neither is there any other name under Heaven given unto men, whereby we must be saved; Act. 4. 12. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, John 1. Epist. 1. 7. 10 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth, That after consecration, the bread of the mass is no more bread, but is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood. That Christ is between the hands of the Priests, in as many places as there are Masses said, as big and as large as he was upon the cross. This Doctrine is altogether contrary unto these express places of the written. Word of God. Jesus took Bread, broke it, and gave it, &c. Math. 26. As often as ye eat this Bread, &c. 1. Cor. 11. 26. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, &c. 1. Cor. 11. 28. The poor ye have always with you: but me ye have not always, John 12. 8. I leave the World, and go to the Father, John 16. 28. Heaven must contain him, until the time of restitution of all things, which God hath foretold, &c. Acts. ●. 21. 11 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teaches. That the Lay people, men and women, ought not to partake of the holy Sacrament of the Lord's supper, under both kinds. This Doctrine is directly contrary unto the written Word of God, as appeareth by these express texts. drink ye all of it, Mat. 26. 27. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that cup, 1. Cor. 11. 28. 12 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth also: That Christ Jesus sacrificeth himself every day really, by the hands of the Priests, both for the quick and for the dead. This Doctrine is directly contrary to the written Word of God, that saith: Christ is entered into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Yet not that he should offer himself often, as the high Priest entered into the holy place every year with blood of others, &c. Heb. 9 24. 25. By the which Will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Now, where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin, Heb. chap. 10. 10. 14. 18. 13 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, teacheth, That Saint Peter was appointed by Christ, to be head of the Universal Church, and Prince of the Apostles. This doctrine is directly contrary unto the written word of God, as appeareth by these express texts. God hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his Body, Ephes. 1. ver. 22. 23. ye know that the Princes of the gentiles exercise Dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you, &c. Mat. 20. 25. 26. And he gave some Apostles: and some Prophets: and some Evangelists: and some Pastors and Teachers, ephess.. 4. 11. It appeareth therefore plainly, that this Tradition and unwritten word of the Roman Church, is altogether contrary unto the written Word of God; and that it imposeth a yoke upon the consciences of men that God hath not imposed. Seeing it forbids marriage to certain persons, which God for avoiding of fornication, commandeth to every one. Seeing it forbids the use of certain meats which God doth not forbid, but rather commandeth to be used with thanksgiving. Seeing it forbids all men to work upon a great number of holidays, thereby depriving them of the means to earn their bread, which oftentimes is wanting on such days, to poor men charged with wives and small children: the which thing is directly contrary to the commandment of God. Six days' shalt thou labour, and do all thy work, Exod. 20. 9 Again, by bringing in such an infinite number of ceremonies, in part taken from the Pagans, and in part from the Jews, with a numberless number of Pilgrimages and other such like things, as is almost impossible to declare and represent by particulars. It is not then without cause and reason, that we reject these Traditions and inventions of men, seeing they were broached only to bring in into Christian Religion Error and Idolatry: as I shall prove hereafter more at large, as well by express texts and necessary consequences drawn out of the Word of God, as by invincible reasons. CHAP. II. That it is necessary that all the faithful should read the holy Scripture, and that they are even bound thereunto, by the commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ. FRom the very same Spring, floweth the prohibition which the Pope and his Associates make to the Lay people, to read the Word of God without special leave: wherein their manifest hypocrisy appeareth plainly, and the fear they have that by reading of the same, men should come to know that the Doctrine which they have invented, is false, and wholly contrary unto the Word of God. Our Lord Jesus Christ teacheth us far otherwise: Search, saith he, the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me, John 5. 39 And under the Parable of the rich Glutton, he sends them still to the Scripture, saying, They have Moses and the Prophets, Let them hear them, Luk, 16. 29. The Jesuits and other the Pope's Disciples answer, that there is Let them hear them: but not, Let them read them. But what will they answer to these express places? Seek ye out of the Book of the Lord, and read, Esay 34. vers. 16. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein, Revel. 1. 3. If sobriety must be kept in any Book of the holy Scripture, it is in that of the Revelation. nevertheless, Saint John exhorteth all the faithful to practise the reading thereof, saying; Blessed is he that readeth the words of this prophecy. Let the word of Christ, saith Saint Paul, dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another, &c. Col. 3. 16. Saint Peter tells us, That we shall do well to harken unto the words of the Prophets, 2. Pet. 1. 19 The Jews of Berea, did daily search the Scriptures, to know whether those things were so, as Saint Paul taught, Act. 17. 11. And are commended for it in the Scriptures, being called more Noble than them of Thessalonica. It is therefore lawful for every faithful Christian to read the Word of God, that by it they may know the Doctrine, and judge whether it be of God or no. In a word, as I have said already, the principal means we have to know God and his Will, is his word, by which he declareth unto us his mercy in Christ Jesus, and assureth us of his love. Now, the Pope and his Disciples take away and hide (as much as in them lies) this word from the people: and so deprive them of the chief means to know God: which is to cast them headlong into darkness and ignorance of their salvation, and finally into damnation. For, what can that man do that is deprived of the knowledge of God and of his will, but run into damnation. CHAP. III. That a man can do no good work without the Grace of God: And that our works therefore are not dispositive for the obtaining of that grace, as our Adversaries say. THe Pope and his Associates teach also, That our works ought to be considered three manner of ways. First, as dispositive. Secondly, as satisfactory; and Thirdly, as meritorious. Before we be in the state of Grace, they will have our Works to be dispositive to purchase Grace; and after grace received; to be satisfactory for the temporal punishment that remaineth for sin: And after satisfaction finished, than they will have their works to deserve the kingdom of Heaven. A doctrine which is directly contrary unto the word of God, as I shall prove it hereafter out of express texts, which I shall produce out of the word of God, and necessary consequences drawn out of the same. In the first place, they teach that our Works do dispose and prepare us to obtain the grace of God. But now, I ask of them, whether we do good Works before we be in grace, or whether we do them after? yea or no. If they say that we do them before; they know that men naturally are dead in sin; I prove it by this express text out of Saint Paul: And you saith he, being dead in your sins, and through the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him; having forgiven you all trespasses, Colos. 2. 13. Now even as a dead man cannot do so much as to stir his finger's end, unless he be raised again: So a man dead in sin, cannot do any good work, unless God raise him first, and regenerate him inwardly by his spirit. The same Apostle teacheth it plainly in another place, saying, That it is God which worketh in us both to will and to do, according to his good pleasure, Phil. 2. 13. The holiest men, though endued with the spirit of God, and ordinarily accompanied with his grace, have always acknowledged themselves to be sinners, and very unable to do good works. Saint Paul speaketh thus of himself, and also of all others in his person, For I was alive without the Law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. I am carnal, sold under sin, I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: For to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good, I find not. For the good that I would do, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do, Rom. 7. 9 14. 15. 18. 19 Is it not then a mere ridiculous foolery, to teach, that a man destitute of the Grace of God, may do any good work to obtain Grace, seeing that these which have this Grace already, do not do the good they would, but do the evil which they would not, having always some corruptions of the flesh opposing the desires of the spirit? And therefore they must confess, that we do good works after we have received Grace: whence it followeth that their Doctrine is false, as I prove it by this argument. If we do good works after we are received into Grace: Then it followeth, that our works do not dispose us to obtain that Grace which we have already, and without which we cannot apply ourselves to good works. But the Antecedent is true: therefore the Consequent also. CHAP. IV. That our Lord Jesus Christ hath fully and perfectly satisfied the justice of God for our sins, both for the guilt and punishment thereof: and consequently, that it is a vain and unprofitable thing to desire to satisfy again unto the same by works. THat which our Adversaries teach concerning satisfaction, is, That God releaseth unto the sinner all the guilt, and forgiveth him the eternal punishment due unto it: But that he will have it turned into a Temporal punishment: alleging, that if in our Justification, nothing were found but the forgiveness of sins, it would be perfect mercy; but that there is some other thing whereby the justice of God appeareth. To be short, The doctrine of these Doctors, is, that God (for the manifestation of his justice) will have the justified sinner to satisfy God's justice for the Temporal punishment of his sins: otherwise, his justice is not satisfied. Answer. It is an old wile of Satan, which he hath always practised by his false Prophets, to smother and bury as much as in him lieth, the means whereby God is pacified with us, and his justice fully satisfied. Therefore I ask of them, whether Christ hath satisfied to the justice of God, or no? If he hath not satisfied it, he is not our Saviour, and we are still in our sins, liable to the curse of the Law, Galat. 3. 13. But if Christ hath satisfied the justice of God for sin; it followeth, that it is satisfied; and declared in this alone satisfaction of his; and by consequent, that it is a vain and an unprofitable thing, to desire to satisfy the same again. Now that Christ hath satisfied fully the justice of God for sin: these express texts show it clearly and plainly. He hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, Esay 53. 4. 5. 6. And the Apostle Saint Paul teacheth us, That he hath reconciled all things unto himself (having made peace through the blood of his cross) whether they be things in Earth, or things in Heaven, Colos. 1. 20. Again, The Mediator is one between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, 1. Tim. 2. 5. 6. Now the Jesuits and other Doctors of the Roman Church (to avoid this) use to make a distinction of guilt and punishment, saying that Christ hath satisfied for the guilt and eternal punishment, but not for that Temporal punishment reserved for the sinner justified, for which he is bound to satisfy the justice of God. But this is brought in to no purpose: For I will stop up this passage upon them in producing express texts and necessary consequences drawn out of the Word of God, that show plainly the contrary. First of all, the Prophet Esay hath told us in the forenamed place, that Christ hath not only borne our griefs, but our sorrows also, which are not the guilt, but the punishment of our sins. And to say that this is true as touching the eternal and not the temporal punishment, is to no purpose. For S. Paul saith, That there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 1. But what punishment soever is imposed for the satisfying of God's justice, is a condemnation. Therefore there is no punishment imposed to satisfy the justice of God. Secondly, The same Apostle teacheth us, That by Grace we are saved through Faith, and that not of ourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast, Saint Paul teacheth us, That he hath reconciled all things unto himself (having made peace through the blood of his cross) whether they be things in Earth, or things in Heaven, Colos. 1. 20. Again, The Mediator is one between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, 1. Tim. 2. 5. 6. Now the Jesuits and other Doctors of the Roman Church (to avoid this) use to make a distinction of guilt and punishment, saying that Christ hath satisfied for the guilt and eternal punishment, but not for that Temporal punishment reserved for the sinner justified, for which he is bound to satisfy the justice of God. But this is brought in to no purpose: For I will stop up this passage upon them in producing express texts and necessary consequences drawn out of the Word of God, that show plainly the contrary. First of all, the Prophet Esay hath told us in the forenamed place, that Christ hath not only borne our griefs, but our sorrows also, which are not the guilt, but the punishment of our sins. And to say that this is true as touching the eternal and not the temporal punishment, is to no purpose. For S. Paul saith, That there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 1. But what punishment soever is imposed for the satisfying of God's justice, is a condemnation. Therefore there is no punishment imposed to satisfy the justice of God. Secondly, The same Apostle teacheth us, That by Grace we are saved through Faith, and that not of ourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast, Ephes. 2. 8. 9 And in the Epistle to the Romans, he saith, All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his Grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom. 3. 23. 24. It is not therefore by paying on our part for the punishment of our sins; it being altogether incompatible, freely to acquit and discharge a debt, and yet desire to be satisfied for it to the uttermost farthing. 3 Again, if God do forgive the sins of his children in such sort as he will remember them no more: it followeth, that he will not be satisfied with temporal punishments. But the first proposition is true. I will forgive their iniquity, saith the Lord, and I will remember their sin no more, Jerem. 31. 34. Esay 43. 25. Heb. 10. 27. Ergo, the last also, and therefore there remains no punishment for the justified sinner. 4 Moreover, Jesus Christ our Lord hath satisfied the justice of God for us, either fully and perfectly, or imperfectly and in part only, yea or no. If fully and perfectly, than it followeth that he hath satisfied it as welll for the guilt, as for the punishment of sin: and by consequent, that we ought neither to satisfy it for the one, nor for the other. If inperfectly and in part only: it followeth, that he is our Saviour but in part; for he is not our Saviour, unless he hath fully satisfied the Justice of God for us. 5 Again, Whatsoever is done by one's self, is not done by an other: But Jesus Christ our Lord hath purged our sins by himself: Christ, saith Saint Paul, having by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, Heb. 1. 3. It is not done therefore but by Christ. And if the purgation of sins be not but by Christ; it followeth, that it is not done by temporal punishment and human satisfactions. But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, the Consequent also. And therefore to desire to satisfy again the Justice of God, is to debase too much the worth and merits of the blood of Christ, and to esteem his satisfaction as a thing of nought. For it is he only that was able to satisfy the same, for them that have obtained free mercy. And to allege as they do, that the physic is prepared, but that we must drink it: That it is true, that we receive all good things from the blood of Christ, but we must apply it, is to no purpose. For our penal works are not the means whereby we may apply unto ourselves the virtue and efficacy of the blood of Christ. It is by faith that he is apprehended and applied unto us. For as the body is fed and nourished by means of the corporal mouth, that receiveth and apprehendeth the food. So the soul is nourished and sustained by Faith that receiveth and apprehendeth our Lord Jesus Christ and his merits, by which only means Christ is applied unto it for its spiritual food. In a word, I maintain that it is altogether impossible for a man to satisfy the Justice of God. Yea, even for all men put together, to satisfy it for the least sin, whether for the guilt, or for the punishment. For God is infinite, he therefore that offends him, deserves an infinite and an eternal punishment. Punishments ought to be according to the offences: And the offences, according to the quality of the persons offended. And to allege, that eternal punishments are turned into temporal, is as vain and ridiculous. For God's Justice being infinite, cannot be satisfied but by an infinite punishment. And if God through his mercy remits any thing unto the sinner, he will not do it by halves. Therefore they consider the Justice of God, and the desert of sin very ill, when as they think to be able to satisfy the same, and that by such means, as should open the gates of Heaven to the rich, rather than to the poor. For the principal means they appoint unto man to satisfy God's Justice withal, for the punishment of sins, is to buy pardons and indulgences of the Pope, and give to the church; the which indeed the rich may do, but not the poor. Whereupon it will follow, that we must say quite contrary to that which Christ saith, Blessed are the poor, for to such is the kingdom of Heaven, Math. 5. 3. Our Adversaries do bring in some places of Scripture to prove their pretended satisfactions; but against their true sense: as that of the Apostle to the Hebrews, Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth, Heb. 12. 6. Again, they say that David having confessed his sin to Nathan, did nevertheless, bear the punishment of his sin, it being said unto him, The child that is borne unto thee, shall surely die, 2. Sam. 12. 14. and divers other places, where it is said that God chastiseth his children. I answer, That in all these places there is not a word spoken of satisfying God's Justice, who indeed trieth his children, and fatherly chastiseth them, not to satisfy his Justice, but to correct them and make them wiser for the time to come, showing them and making them feel how much sin is displeasing unto him. There is two sorts of Judgements of God; the one of revenge, the other of correction: by the one, God punisheth his enemies, confounding them in his wrath. David prayeth he might not be punished in this kind. Lord, saith he, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chastise me in thy hot displeasure, Psal. 6. 2. By the other of correction, God doth not chasten to cast away and to destroy, but to admonish his children, and make them to profit unto repentance. He chastened David fatherly, when he took away his child, and Saul in Justice, in taking away his kingdom from him. The faithful are also called to suffer in this life, for to follow the steps of our Lord Jesus Christ. For even hereunto were ye called saith S. Peter, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving us an example that ye should follow his steps, 1. Epist. 2. 21. All, saith S. Paul, that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution, 2. Tim. 3. 12. In the World ye shall have tribulation, saith our Lord to his Disciples, John 16. 33. And in another place, Whosoever taketh not his cross, and follows after me, he is not worthy of me, Math. 10. 38. Therefore the pains and afflictions that befall the faithful, are not to satisfy the Justice of God, neither for the guilt, nor for the punishment of sins, but to follow the steps of Jesus Christ our Lord. CHAP. V. That a man not being able to satisfy the Justice of God for his own sins, cannot by consequent satisfy for the sins of others. OUr Adversaries have not been contented to teach, that a man is able to satisfy the Justice of God for the punishment due to his own sins: but have gone a great deal farther, and are come to such a height of absurdity, as to teach, That one man may satisfy for another: and that God accepteth for the satisfaction of the one, whatsoever is done by the other. Now, to give some colour to this Doctrine, they allege that a justified man, in this life, may do more satisfactory works than is needful for the paying of the temporal punishment remaining for his sins. And that having finished the satisfaction ordained for the said punishment: All the penal and satisfactory works that he doth afterwards, are superaboundant: which works being applied unto another with an intention to satisfy for him, are allowed as satisfactory for the punishment of his sins. Answ. I have showed already and proved out of express texts of the Word of God, and invincible reasons, That a man is not able to satisfy the justice of God for himself, and by consequent, much less for another. Nevertheless, it is necessary to show again, the impiety of this doctrine. First if a man ought and may satisfy the justice of God for another, it follows necessarily that Christ is not an alone Saviour: but that he that satisfieth for another, is also a Saviour of that man. O horrible impiety! For there is no salvation in any other, neither is there any other name under heaven given unto men, saith Saint Peter, whereby we must be saved, but the name of Jesus. Act. 4. 12. Moreover, I demand of these Doctors, whether a man can satisfy for another, before he have fully and wholly satisfied for his own sins, and have none left behind? for otherwise, how can a man satisfy for another, if himself be still indebted? If so be then, a man cannot be without sin: it followeth he cannot satisfy for himself, and consequently much less for another. But the first is true, therefore the last also. I prove the Antecedent of my Argument by the proper confession of these Doctors, yielding us that concupiscence remaineth still in a man: but yet they say (for an evasion) that it is not sin as touching the guilt, but an inclination and an alluring unto sin, being only an original punishment of the sin of Adam; wherein they deceive themselves grossly: for whatsoever is a transgression of the commandment of God, is sin as touching the guilt. But concupiscence is a transgression of the commandment of God, Thou shalt not covet, Exod. 20. 17. Rom. 7. 7. Therefore concupiscence is sin as touching the guilt. Item, If sin begets concupiscence in a man, it followeth that concupiscence is sin as touching the guilt: for what other thing can sin beget in a man, but sin itself? But the Antecedent is true: for sin, saith Saint Paul, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, Rom. 7. 8. Ergo the Consequent also: and therefore a man is never without sin: sin I say in the very guilt, concupiscence remaining still in him. Solomon teacheth us so much, when he saith, That a Just man falleth into sin seven times a day, Pro. 24. 16. If we say, saith Saint John, that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1. Epist. 1. 8. I am carnal, saith Saint Paul, sold under sin. I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing. For the good that I would, I do not: but the evil I would not, that I do, Rom. 7. 14. 18. 19 It is enough now O Lord, said Elias, take away my life, for I am not better than my Fathers, 1. King. 19 4. And Christ teaches us to say every day, Forgive us our sins, Matth. 6. 11. and Luke 11. 4. Whence it appears plainly, that a man is not able to keep himself one day without offending his God: That he hath sin always dwelling in him, and consequently that he cannot wholly satisfy the justice of God. In a word, I ask of these Doctors, how shall that man take upon him to satisfy for another, that is not able to know whether he hath sufficiently satisfied for himself or no? and how shall one sinner trust to the satisfaction of another sinner, that knows not in what case the other standeth before his God? CHAP. VI. That the pretended treasure of the Roman Church, was established only for to weaken the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ: and to make a little Saint of him that nobody may know from the rest of the Saints. BUt it was not yet enough for our Adversaries to teach men to satisfy the Justice of God; and that they may do it superabundantly, one for another: But they maintain moreover, That the treasure of their holy mother Church, is framed and replenished with these superabundant satisfactions: of which treasure His holiness is the Guardian, and may distribute them to those that have not satisfied sufficiently. And it is here that they make Christ a little Saint, that nobody can know among the rest of the Saints: Behold we here how they argue, to cloak this doctrine. Saint Peter and Saint Paul, (say they) about the latter end of their life, had done so many painful works, that they had fully accomplished their satisfaction: After that, they suffered martyrdom; this martyrdom was a good work done in Grace. Therefore it was satisfactory and meritorious. But so is it, that it was not satisfactory for them: for they had already wholly and fully satisfied. It was therefore a work of supererogation. And so may one say of so many other Saints, besides the infinite satisfaction of the blood of Christ and of the virgin Marie, who at the very point of her death, was found to have gathered and heaped up together a very great heap of satisfactions. In sum, with the passion of Christ, saith Panigarolle, Lesson. 11. Page. 333. inasmuch as it is satisfactory, are joined also (O horrible impiety!) the passion and superabundancies of all the Saints, wherewith is framed the treasury of the holy mother Church, to supply the want of them in whom their own satisfactory works are wanting. All this being builded upon this naughty foundation of their pretended satisfaction, which I have already refuted by express texts out of the Word of God, and invincible reasons: deserves not a new refutation. But what Christian man is there that hearing but such impieties read, will not wonder at the patience of God? And shall not shiver for fear, to see the merits of the passion of the son of God, thus trampled under feet; and that they should make of him a little Saint, that no man can know among so many Saints, nor sever his merit and satisfaction, from so many merits and superaboundant satisfactions! O Doctors! how long will ye trample under feet the merits of the death and passion of the son of God? Saint Peter teaches us that there is no salvation in any other but in Christ Jesus: And that there is no other name under heaven given unto men, whereby we must be saved. Act. 4. 12. Item, To him give all the prophet's witness, that through his Name whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins, Act. 10. 43. and contrariwise, these Doctors teach men to seek for salvation and remission of sins in the name of Saints. Saint Paul teacheth us that we have redemption through the blood of Christ, even the forgiveness of sins, Col. 1. 14. But these Doctors teach men to seek after Redemption and remission of sins through the blood of Martyrs. Saint John affirmeth, that the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. 1. Epist. 1. 7. and that the faithful have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the lamb. Revel. 7. 14. But these Doctors, on the contrary, teach men to wash and to cleanse their sins in the blood of Saints departed: which is to reject the death and passion of Christ, as Panigarolle teaches it plainly in his ninth Lesson, Page 278, saying, It is a great sin and foolery to say I trust to be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. Panigarolle▪ Lesson 9 p. By so many express places of the word of God, and necessary consequences drawn out of the same, the pretended satisfaction of our adversaries is cast to the ground and cut even to the very deepest root: as likewise their purgatory, which they have built upon the same foundation. For, Purgatory was invented but for these two ends. The first, to satisfy the justice of God for the punishment of sins. Now if we must not satisfy God's justice for the punishment of sins, as I have proved it clearly: It followeth there needeth no Purgatory. The second is for to entrap and to catch money from the simple people. For, how cometh it to pass, that the Prelates of the Roman Church, have so many thousand pounds of yearly revenues? That one part of the Nobility is incommodated and behind hand; and that the greatest part of the people starve with hunger; but because these men have by divers means cunnycatcht a great part of their estates, and especially by great Donations that many have given at their death, to redeem their souls from the pain which they thought to suffer in a fire of purgatory? For, is there any thing in the world, which a man will not give at the very point of death to free himself from going into a fire for the space of many hundred years? Will a man in that perplexity care to leave his posterity after him miserable and wretched, in giving away all his estate, So he may be exempted from the torments of that fire, which, as they say, is seven times hotter than our fire is in this world? Those therefore that laid the first foundation thereof, showed themselves most ungodly and full of covetousness, which is the root of all evils, as Saint Paul saith, Timoth. 6. 10. as likewise enemies of the glory, and merits of the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. CHAP. VII. That our good works have no merit at all: and that all the merit of the faithful is in one Christ alone. AS for the merits of works, we need no long discourse for to show that they have none at all; seeing that the very best of our works are full of defects, being always mingled with some corruptions of the flesh; and man is so subject to sin as that he doth not the good he would, but the evil which he would not; Wherefore the Prophet Esay saith, That we are all as an unclean thing, and that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, Esay 64. 6. Whence it followeth, that they have no merit at all. For what can such polluted works that are so far from that perfection they ought to have, deserve at the hands of God? And though they were done as they ought, yet could they deserve nothing. For a man deserveth nothing in doing that which he is bound to do. When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you (saith our Lord Jesus Christ) say, we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do, Luk. 17. 10. Moreover, whatsoever is given us by Grace and Mercy of God, is not given us by the merits of our works. If it be of Grace, saith Saint Paul, it is no more of works: otherwise, Grace is no more Grace, Rom. 11. 6. But the salvation of the faithful, and the glory that they shall have in the kingdom of God, is given them through the Grace and mercy of God. Therefore it is not given them by the merits of their works. The second proposition of this Argument is also proved by many express texts out of the Word of God. All have sinned, saith S. Paul, being justified freely by his Grace, Rom. 3. 23. 24. By Grace are ye saved, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast, Ephes. 2. 8. 9 and in another place, But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holyghost, Tit. 3. 4. 5. In a word, whatsoever absolves and justifies us before God, from the same I say, comes all our merit: But it is the only obedience, merit and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ that absolves and justifies us before God. Therefore, from him alone proceedeth all our merit: and if all our merit proceeds from Christ alone, than it followeth, that it doth not proceed from our works. But the first is true: therefore the last also. Let our Adversaries now deny as much as they will, That all our merit is in one Christ alone, and let them establish other merits in their works: as for ourselves, we will remain constant to that, being assured that by Christ his only merits, obedience and satisfaction, we are absolved and justified before God: which thing the Prophet Esay teacheth us when he saith, That he was wounded for our transgressions, and that the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, Esay 53. and so doth the Apostle S. Paul, saying, That the Mediator is one between God and man, the man Christ Jesus: who gave himself a ransom for all, 1. Tim. 2. 5. 6. and Saint John teacheth it also plainly, when he saith, That Jesus Christ the Righteous is the propitiation for our sins, 1. Epist. 2. 2. Now our Adversaries allege certain places of Scripture, which say, that God rewardeth good works: whereupon they build this syllogism: Wheresoever there is a reward, there is merit. But there is a reward to good works, Mat. 5. 12. Apoc. 22. 12. Therefore there is merit. I deny the Major. For there are some undeserved rewards. A Father may promise his Son a fine suit of clothes, if he write a good copy: Now that son deserves not that suit of clothes for doing well that copy. For what profit cometh to the father thereby? nevertheless, the father will give the promised suit only because of his promise. Even so doth God to his children, giving his kingdom unto them without any desert, but only because he hath promised it. Moreover, a father may be induced to give the promised suit to his son, because of his duty in doing his copy well, giving his father content by that means. But none of the faithful, can do their duty towards God. All have sinned, saith Saint Paul, Rom. 3. 23. and Whosoever, saith Saint James, offendeth in one point of the Law, he is guilty of all. Jam. 2. 10. All therefore are guilty of the breach of the whole Law. For who is he that hath not failed in some one point or other of the Law? And therefore our Adversaries are very far wide of that pretended merit they do attribute to their good works. CHAP. VIII. That the Invocation of Saints departed, is contrary unto the Word of God, and tendeth to no other end but to give unto the creatures the honour and glory that belongeth unto the Creator. THese Doctors keep a great noise, and cry out very loud that they are the true Church: and that the doctrine which they teach, is conformable unto the Word of God: but when it cometh to the proof, they are mightily puzzled, having nothing to show but some few allegories which they bring in upon certain points of controversy: Like unto Foxes which run into thickets and bushy places to save themselves: True it is, they make a great bucklet of these words, This is my body: which they think are very clear to prove, that the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ. But I will show in its due place, in few words, That they pervert the meaning of this place of Scripture, taking this word is, properly and without a figure, which in all Sacraments ought to be taken for Signifieth of Representeth. Now I will show what slender cause they have to maintain the Invocation of Saints departed, and to teach that Christ is not our only Mediator with God: but that all the Saints in heaven are also our Mediators: and that we must draw near unto God by them, as we come near unto the King by his familiar servants, entreating them to pray for us. A Doctrine which is absolutely false, as I shall prove hereafter out of diverse express places, and necessary consequences drawn out of the Word of God. First of all then, we ask of them one express text out of the Word of God, or one necessary consequence drawn out of the same for the proof of this doctrine. There they stand as mute as fishes: Behold then a doctrine that hath neither prop nor foundation in the Word of God, but is merely invented by men against the Word of God, as I will show hereafter. And albeit it were not contrary unto the same; I yet maintain that it ought to be rejected of every Christian, because it is a vain worshipping of God, to worship him after the Doctrine and commandments of men. As our Lord Jesus Christ termeth it. Mark 7. 7. Moreover, I prove that this doctrine cannot be without great sin. For whatsoever is done without the Word of God, is done without faith. Faith, saith Saint Paul, cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Rom. 10. 17. But the Invocation of Saints departed is done without the Word of God: Therefore it is done without Faith. Whatsoever is done without Faith, is sin, saith the same Apostle, Rom. 14. 23. But the Invocation of Saints departed is done without Faith: Therefore the Invocation of Saints departed is sin. In brief, That Doctrine which teacheth men to pray unto Saints departed, is contrary unto the Word of God, that teacheth, That we ought to call upon none, but on him in whom we have believed, Rom. 10. 14. But we do not believe in the Saints departed; but in one only God, Father, Son, and holy Ghost. Therefore we ought not to call upon Saints departed, but upon God alone, in whom we believe. That Doctrine which teacheth men to go unto God by his Saints, as a man goes to the King by his familiar servants, is contrary unto the Word of God, which teacheth us to go directly to Christ, and that he is the only Way, to go to the Father. Come unto me, saith he, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, &c. Math. 11. 28. He would not have us then go unto him by the Saints departed. I am, saith he, the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me, John 14. 6. That Doctrine which teacheth that there is divers Mediators with God, is contrary unto the Word of God, which teaches us, That God is one, and the Mediator one, between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus, 1. Tim. 2. 5. Item, That God alone knoweth the hearts of all the sons of men, 1. Kin. 8. 38. Whereupon it followeth, That the Saints departed do not know our prayers, which are made in the heart; and that by Consequent, it is a vain and an idle thing to pray unto them. The Argument which we draw out of this place of Saint Paul against the Invocation of Saints departed, is thus. If there be one only Mediator between God and man, to wit, Christ Jesus: It followeth, That the Saints departed are not our Mediators with God, and by Consequent, that it is unprofitable to pray unto them to pray for us. But the Antecedent is true; therefore the Consequent also. Our Adversaries, to put off this blow, make a distinction, saying, That Saint Paul in this place, speaketh not of a Mediator of Intercession, but of a Mediator of Redemption: and therefore that this place is not brought to the purpose for the Intercession of Saints: a thing which is in controversy between them and us. To which I answer, First, That they are not able to prove that distinction of a Mediator of Redemption, and a Mediator of Intercession, either by any express texts out of the Word of God, or any necessary consequence drawn out of the same: and therefore that it is false. Secondly, That on the contrary, the Word of God teaching us, that we have an Advocate with God, which is Christ Jesus: teacheth us Consequently, that he is our alone Mediator of Intercession, as well as ●f Redemption. If any man sin, saith S. John, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, John. 1. Epist. 2. 1. Veron the Jesuit, in his answer to my Book, Of the cabal of the Jesuits, pag. 18. answereth, That to say there is one Mediator, Therefore there is but one Mediator, is no good Consequence; and he bringeth in for example one that should say, I have a Crown: It were no good Consequence to say, therefore he hath but one Crown. But this answer comes from a gross ignorance. For that is not to be able to judge of what is Consequent to a thing, and what is not. Let him learn therefore by the same example he produceth, that if we ask one, How much money have you in your purse? and he answereth Categorically, I have one Crown; the Consequent is good, Therefore you have but one Crown in your purse. Even so, I ask how many Advocates we have with God? and reading the whole Word of God, I find that it shows me but one Advocate with God, which is Christ Jesus. The Consequence is good then, Therefore we have but one Advocate with God, which is Christ Jesus our Lord. It is then our Jesuits part to study Master du Moulins logic, whereunto he sends me, seeing he showeth himself so ignorant therein, that he may learn better how to judge of Consequences. Moreover, God will not give his glory unto another; I am, saith he, the Lord, such is my name. I will not give my Glory unto another, nor my praise unto the Idol, Esay 42. 8. He would not have us then to give unto the creatures that Invocation which belongeth unto him. Whereby it doth appear, That this Invocation of Saints departed, is wholly and absolutely contrary unto the Word of God, having no other end but to give un- the creature the honour and glory that belongeth only unto the Creator. CHAP. ix.. That the Images of the Roman Church, are made against the commandment of God▪ and that the adoration which they give unto them, is mere Idolatry. AS for the Images of the RomanChurch, It is certain that they are made directly against the commandment of God, (as I have showed before) which in the second commandment of the Law, saith, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image of any thing that is in Heaven above, &c. Exod. 20. 4. And in another place, Ye shall make you no Idols nor graven Image, neither rear you up a standing Image, neither shall you set up any Image of stone in your Land, to how down unto it: for I am the Lord your God, Levit. 26. 1. Our Adversaries do answer, That God hath forbidden Images, for to worship them, but not as touching the representation. But I will even in that, show that they transgress the commandment of God, and commit Idolatry. For if they cause Images to be erected for to worship them: It followeth, that they swerve from the commandment of God, and that they are Idolaters. But the first is true; I prove it by the second council of Nice, That commandeth straightly to have Images, and to worship them. Besides, let any man see the books of their schoolmen upon this point of Images, and they shall find them all reach, That the Image ought to be worshipped with the Imagined, making but one adoration of the Image, and of the thing represented by the Image. When they see themselves convinced by their own Decrees, Books, and Canons, they say, That the Error is not in the worshipping by means of the Images, but by them to worship false gods, as the Pagans did; but as for them, they, by means of the Images, worship the true God. I answer; By this reason, the Israelites did well to make the Golden calf, and Moses very ill in breaking of it. For these Calves thought to worship the true God by means of that calf, Exod. 32. 5. 6. Ezekias had likewise done ill in taking away the brazen Serpent; for this people thought to worship the true God, by burning Incense to it, 2. King. 18. 4. and yet God had commanded it should be set up. But it would puzzle our Adversaries vilely to show us one express place in the Word of God, wherein it is commanded to make Images of God for to worship him by them. These men are like unto those Idolaters which the King of Assyria sent to inhabit the Cities of Samaria in stead of the Children of Israel, whom he had brought into Babylon, Who feared the Lord, and served their graven Images, 2. King. 17. 32. 33. 41. Again, these Doctors allege, That they worship their Images distinctly; that is, the Images of God with the adoration of Latria, and the Images of Saints with Dulia. Item, That they make their adoration pass unto the final object, and therefore they are no Idolaters. But that will not serve their turn: For whosoever giveth unto the creature that worship which belongeth unto the Creator, is an Idolater. But the Doctors of the Roman Church confess they give unto the Image (which blasphemously they say to be of God) the Adoration that belongeth to God: Therefore they are Idolaters. Neither can they escape, in alleging that their Adoration passeth to the final object: For to worship the creature with the Creator, is manifest Idolatry. And indeed, were it not Idolatry to worship Images of Gold, of Silver, of Wood and Stone, with God, with the same Adoration that belongeth to God? And to say that the Adoration passeth unto the final object, is as vain. For, the Image being then first worshipped, at least partaketh with the Adoration; which is mere Idolatry. Now, these Doctors telling us (for a shift) That the Adoration passeth to the final object, in that confess underhand tacitly, that they are Idolaters, worshipping Wood and Stone, which is the first object of their adoration: which is an abomination unto the Lord, who calleth himself a jealous God, and that cannot endure we should any manner of way give unto the creature the honour which is due unto Him. Many in the Roman Church, (that are not well instructed in the Doctrine of their Doctors) think assuredly, that the adoration of Images is Dulia, and the adoration of the things imagined or represented, to be Latria. But that is not their Doctrine. For they make but one adoration both of the Image and of the thing represented by the Image. If we worship God, (saith Panigarole in his lessons, pag. 439.) by means of the Image, God and the Image are both worshipped with one adoration of Latria. And if by means of the Image we worship the Saint, both the Saint and the Image are worshipped with one Adoration of Dulia. But it will never be proved, That the worship of the Image, is Dulia, and that of the Imagined or represented by the Image is Latria; because both are but one Adoration: These are the very words of this Doctor. In fine, We ask of our Adversaries one express text out of the Word of God, or any one necessary Consequence drawn out of the same, where it is commanded to make Images of God to worship him by them. That puts them into a grievous rage, and makes them presently to fall to railing instead of answering. We ask them again, who hath told them, that God may be represented by Images of Gold, Silver, Wood and Stone. God is a Spirit, saith Christ, and those that worship him, must worship him in Spirit and Truth, John 4. 24. God is infinite and incomprehensible, therefore he cannot be represented by such material and corporal things, it being an horrible blasphemy to go about to represent the godhead with such things. Wherefore the ProphetEsay cryeth aloud against such Idolaters; To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare him unto? or to whom shall I be equal, saith the holy One? Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath Created these things, Esay 40. 18. 25. 26. And the Apostle Saint Paul saith, That professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the Glory of the uncorruptible God, into an Image made like to corruptible Man, and to Birds and fourfooted Beasts, Rom. 1. 22. 23. This adoration of Dulia, which they give unto Saints, cannot choose but be a great sin, and Idolatry: For this adoration is made without any warrant out of the Word of God, and by Consequent, done without Faith, which cannot be but sin and Idolatry. In sum, Our Adversaries are greater Idolaters in worshipping of their Images, than the Pagans and ancient Idolaters were. For those had not the knowledge of the true God, and were not taught and instructed by his Word. Besides, They worshipped the Images of things which they believed to be gods; as of Jupiter, Hercules', Apollo, Juno, Venus, Diana, and others. But these Idolaters here, see by the Word of God, how much Idolatry is in abomination unto the Lord: and nevertheless, they worship the Images of things, which as themselves confess are no gods, as of the true cross, of the Virgin Mary, of Saint Francis, of Saint Dominick, and others: and are come so far even as to worship Tabernacles, Boxes, and such other like things. But if any man think that I accuse them wrongfully, and lay to their charge that which they do not teach: Let him take the pains to read their Canons and Books, and namely, the Lessons of Francis Panigarolle, a renowned Doctor amongst them, and he shall find, that the Pagans, never came to such a height of Idolatry. CHAP. X. That four rules show unto us, that there is a Figure in these Words, This is my body. And that the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, is contrary unto the truth of God, and destroys the human nature of Christ. Item, That in all Sacraments, the Word, is, is put for signifieth, or representeth. BY that which hath been said already, It appeareth plainly, That the Doctrine of our Adversaries is altogether contrary unto the Word of God, and therefore it is no wonder, that they have forsaken the light, for to hide themselves under the darkness of a Tradition and unwritten Word. It is true, they boast much of these Words, This is my body: and make a show to stick close to those four small Words of the Gospel, upon which words they will not admit of any Figure or interpretation, but will take them at the bark of the Letter, to draw out of the same a Doctrine contrary unto the Analogy of Faith, and that wholly destroyeth the human nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. The which I will prove by these four rules following, which will put us out of all doubt; For they certainly show unto us when there is a Figure in any place of the holy Scripture. The first is, when the matter, and the circumstances of the preceding and subsequent words, show that there is a Figure. The second, whether the time in which it is spoken, is to make a Figure. The third, whether understanding the place literally and without a Figure, there should from thence arise an impossible thing. The fourth, if taking it literally and without a Figure, there should follow any absurdity. According to these four rules, we must examine this place, This is my body, and see whether there be a Figure in it or no. As for the first, the matter and the circumstances do show, That there is a Figure in these words, This is my body: For Christ was instituting of a Sacrament. Now, whatsoever is said in matters of Sacraments, aught to be understood sacramentally, and not literally. Again, The circumstances of the preceding and subsequent words do show also, that there is a Figure. For in the foregoing words, the Scripture saith, that Christ took bread, broke it, and gave it. But it is not given till after the consecration: therefore he gave bread. And to the subsequent words he addeth these words, This is my body, which is broken for you. But the body of Christ was not broken in the Lord's Supper; no not on the very cross itself; therefore they must be understood figuratively. Moreover, he said, giving the Cup to his Apostles, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, Luk. 21. 20. the which cannot be understood without a Figure: For a Cup, or that which is in it, is not a Testament substantially. Item, he saith, He will drink no more of the fruit of this Vine, Mat. 26. 29. He commandeth, to do that in remembrance of him, 1. Cor. 11. 24. Therefore there is a figure in these words, This is my body. By the second rule it appeareth also, That there is a figure in these words, This is my body. For the time in which Christ instituted the holy Sacrament of his Supper, was the same time in which he would leave the World, and go to his Father, as he testifieth of himself, saying, I leave the World, and go to the Father, John 16. 28. I am no more in the World, John 17. 11. ye have the poor with you always, but me ye have not always, Mar. 14. 7. But he willing to have his Church to make a commenmoration of his death, he Instituteth a Sacrament, wherein he ordaineth bread to be broken, and the Cup to be distributed in remembrance of him; do this, saith he, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come, 1. Cor. 11. 26. And that, to represent unto us, That even as the bread and wine nourisheth our bodies in this temporal life: So his flesh and his blood are the food of our souls in the eternal life. Therefore there is a figure in these words, This is my body. By the third rule, it appeareth also clearly, that these words, This is my body, are to be understood figuratively. For as it is impossible that twice two be not four, but there must be the first odd number umpire: So it is likewise impossible, That a true body be in divers places at once. But the body of our Lord Jesus Christ is a true body, Like unto his brethren in all things, sin excepted, saith the Apostle, Heb. 2. 17. Therefore it cannot be in divers places at once. Our Adversaries would fain cover themselves with the omnipotency of God; but it is in vain: for the question is of his will, and not of his power. But it was his will that his son should take a true human body, and by Consequent, that he should be in one, and not in divers places. It is most true, That God is omnipotent; but he doth not all that he is able to do. For he could transform the Pope into a monster having seven heads, and ten horns, and all his Disciples into grasshoppers: but he doth not do it. In a word, He will not have the body of his son to be in divers places at once, because there would be in him Yea and Nay. Yea in that he will have every physical and composed body to be in one only place: Nay, If he would have the body of his Son which is such, to be in several places at once. Moreover, every true human body is a material substance, that hath his natural and inseparable properties, one of which is to be limited, circumscribed and contained in one certain place. Take away from bodies the distance of places, saith Saint Austin, and they shall be nowhere, and because they shall be nowhere, they shall not be at all. And speaking of the body of Christ, he saith, That if some space be not given unto it that may contain it after the same manner as other bodies are, its human nature is destroyed, Epist. 37. ad Dardanum. Therefore there is a figure in these words, This is my body. The fourth rule also shows us very plainly, That there is a figure in these words, This is my body. For if we take them literally, and without a figure, there followeth divers absurdities. 1 First, That a body like unto ours in all things, sin excepted, should be in an infinite number of places at one and the same time. For they teach it is in as many places as there are Masses said: and that it is whole in every crumb of the host, and in every drop in the Chalice, and yet budges not from Heaven: neither is it in the space which is between both, and by Consequent, that one and the self same body, may be higher and lower than itself, and that there is some distance between Christ's body and the body of Christ. 2 Secondly, That a true body hath all its parts under one point, having the head where the feet are, the eyes, mouth, and ears altogether: and by Consequent, it hath a length without extent, that is, a length and no length. 3 Thirdly, That Christ did eat himself, and drank his own body and blood, seeing (after their own Doctrine) his body is also in the Chalice. And that by Consequent, he had his head in his mouth, and his whole body in his stomach, having the inside out, and the outside in, which is a thing more absurd than if the scabbard were in the sword; For being in the sword, it were in another thing than itself. But these Doctors put the body of Christ into the body of Christ. 4 Fourthly, That there is a Christ suffering, and a Christ not suffering: A Christ crucified, and a Christ not crucified. For as soon as Christ had supped, he went to the Garden of Olives, where he swate great drops of blood, was apprehended, and finally, Crucified. But the same that was in his and the Apostles stomachs, did not sweat great drops of blood, was not apprehended, nor crucified: And by Consequent, he was not our Saviour, seeing he hath not suffered for us. It appeareth therefore plainly by that which hath been above said, That these words, This is my body, must not be taken literally, but figuratively. Nevertheless, our Adversaries are so wilful and obstinate in this, as to affirm still, That these words must be taken literally and without a figure: and that the bread of the mass, is transubstantiated into the body of Christ: alleging, that God is able to do it: but as I have said already, the Question is of his will, and not of his power. They should have proved first, That it is his Truth and his Will, before they go about to tell us of his power. There is no opinion so extravagant or fantastical, but may be maintained in saying that God is powerful enough to make it to be so. To prove a doctrine, only because God is omnipotent; is an open confession of their weakness. There be some things that God cannot do, because he is omnipotent. He cannot lie: He cannot contradict himself. God's omnipotency ought not to be a cloak unto Error, nor serve as a refuge to falsehood and Idolatry. Therefore we must see first whether it be his truth or no. 1. In the first place, the Apostle to the Hebrews telleth us, that Christ is like unto his brethren in all things, sin excepted, Heb. 2. 16. 17. Therefore it is a thing contrary unto the truth of God, to teach that he may be in a million of places at one and the same time. For to have a true body, and to be like unto his brethren in all things, he must be in one, and not in many places. 2. Himself tells us that he leaveth the World, and goes to the Father, John 16. 28. That he is no more in the World. John 17. 11. That we shall have the poor always, but we shall not have him always. Mark 14. 7. It is therefore a thing contrary unto the truth of God, to teach that he is here on earth in a million of places at once. They answer to this, that we have Christ no more visibly: but that we have him invisibly under the Species of the bread and wine. But that will not serve their turn. For, to have Christ invisibly, is still to have Christ. That man were a liar that should say he had no clothes, because they are hid in a trunk. Even so he were a liar that should say he had not Christ, because he is hidden under the Species of bread and wine. But he saith expressly, we shall not have him always; That he leaves the World, and goes to the Father. Sentences which should be false if he were yet in the world between the hands of a Priest saying mass, or locked up in a pix or box. And as touching that which he saith, Matth. 28. 20. That he shall be with us unto the end of the World: That is very true: not according to his human nature, but according to his Divinity, power and efficacy of the holy Ghost, whereby he guideth, governeth, and ruleth his Church. We have Christ always, according to the presence of his Majesty, saith Saint Austin; but according to the presence of his flesh, it was truly said unto the Apostles, Ye shall not have me always, August. 50 Treatise upon Saint John. 3. Saint Peter saith, That Heaven must contain him until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets since the World began, Act 3. 21. It is therefore a thing contrary unto the Truth of God, to teach that he is here on earth below in the hands of a Priest, in as many places as there are Masses said. 4. In the Apostles Creed we believe and confess, That he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father. Item, That from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, Therefore it is a thing contrary unto the truth of God, to teach that he is here below on earth in the hands of a Priest, in as many places as there are Masses said. But for as much as they allege, without any respect to God's truth, that it is his will, manifested in these words This is my body: I will show that it is no more his will, which cannot be contrary to his truth. For the will of our Lord Jesus Christ was to institute a Sacrament. But in all Sacraments there should be two distinct things; to wit, the sign, and the thing signified; the one thing terrestrial, and the other celestial. It was his will therefore that these two things should be in the Sacrament of the supper, which he instituted: that is, the bread and the wine, which are the sign and the terrestrial thing: And his body and blood, which are the celestial and signified thing. The signs received by the corporal mouth, and the thing signified by faith, according to that which the Apostle saith, Christ dwelleth in your hearts by faith. Ephes. 3. 17. Whereupon it followeth that it was not his will, that the bread and wine should be transubstantiated into his body, which they should signify. And indeed, he did not say, this is transubstantiated into my body: but only, This is my body. And that conformably unto the style of the holy Scripture, which giveth always to the sign the name of the thing signified, using in all Sacraments the word is for signifieth. But forasmuch as all the difficulty lieth upon this word is, to know whether it ought to be taken properly, or by signifieth in this ewnciation, this is my body: I prove that it ought not to be taken properly, but by signifieth. Here is my argument. If in all Sacraments, the signs do bear the name of the things signified: Item, if the word is, is put for signifieth or representeth: It followeth that the bread and the wine, which are signs in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, aught to bear the name of the body and blood of Christ. Item, that the word is, is put for signifieth or representeth. But the first proposition is true. Here are my proofs. 1. The Circumcision was a Sacrament among the Jews, that signified the Covenant of God, as it is said in the 17 of Genesis, vers. 10. 2. 4. 7. Every man-child among you shall be circumcised, and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. But in the same chapter this Circumcision is called the Covenant itself, I will make my Covenant between me and thee. As for me, behold my Covenant is with thee. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee. All that is said of the Circumcision; it was then called the Covenant, of the name of the thing whereof it was a sign. So Christ following the style of the holy Scripture, did call the bread his body. 2. The Paschall lamb was also a Sacrament among the Jews, which represented the Passover of the Angel that passed by in Egypt. Nevertheless it is called even the Passover itself. And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand: and ye shall eat it in haste: for it is the Lord's Passover. Exod. 12. 11. 3. The ark of the Covenant was also a Sacrament among the Jews, which represented the Lord: but it is called the Lord himself in the Word of God, as we see in these words, And David arose and went with all the people that were with him, from Baal of Juda to bring up from thence the ark of God whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth upon it between the Cherubins, 2 Sam. 6. 2. 4. The Rock from which came out waters in the wilderness, was also a sign and a sacrament among the Jews, that signified the refection and spiritual food which the faithful have in our Lord Jesus Christ: but it is called Christ, even by Saint Paul. Our Fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat: and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they all drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ, 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. P●anigarolle in his Lessons, page 477. deceiveth himself grossy, being of opinion that in this place Christ is called a rock, and therefore that this word Was, is to be taken for being, and not for signifying. 1. For if it were the sense and meaning of the Apostle, he would not have said that the rock was Christ, but that Christ was the rock. 2. Also he would not have said in the passive tense was, but in the present tense is: For he is always both the fundamental and chief corner stone of the Church. 3. To discern the truth, we must but consider the words of the Apostle: for he saith That our Fathers did all eat of the same spiritual meat, and did all drink of the same spiritual drink, 1. Cor. 10. 2. But this spiritual meat was the Manna. Exod. 16. 15. which he calleth spiritual because it was a figure of Christ: Likewise, this spiritual drink, was the water issuing forth of the rock. Exod. 17. 6. Numb. 20. 10. 11. which also he calleth spiritual drink, because its signification was spiritual. But as by this spiritual meat, Saint Paul did not mean Christ himself: So by this spiritual drink he did not understand Christ himself, but the water that flowed out of the Rock. It is therefore clear enough, that this Rock whereof he speaketh, is the same whence the waters flowed in the wilderness, which he calleth Christ, because it was a figure of Christ. The which is plainly showed in the foregoing words of Sea, and cloud. For the Sea, the cloud, and the Rock are used in one and the self same kind, and to one and the self same end. Even so then as it was a true Sea, and a true cloud: so this Rock was a true Rock. And it is said it followed the people: because the streams of waters that issued forth of this Rock, followed this people a long time in the wilderness. Again, Christ saith, That he is the true Vine, John 15. 1. That he is the door of the Sheep, John 10. 7. And Saint Paul saith, That the bread which we break, is the Communion of the body of Christ, 1. Cor. 10. 16. Howbeit the bread is not the Communion itself, but a Sacrament thereof. As for baptism, S. Paul saith, That by it we are buried with Christ, Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. because it representeth the death of the old man, and of our natural corruption. But without going from the Sacrament, whereof we now treat▪ there is sufficient matter to show plainly, That in these words, This is my body, the word is, is put for signifieth, or representeth: For Christ saith, This is my body which is broken for you. But if we should here take this word is, properly and without a figure, it would follow, That the body of Christ was broken at the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper: which is a thing contrary unto the Word of God, that saith, He was not broken, that the Scripture should be fulfilled which saith, that a bone of him shall not be broken, John 19 33. 36. Now we must note, That this word is, is found here twice in the same place, and within three words one of another, viz. This is my body, which is broken for you, &c. These subtle Doctors, enemies of figures, will take the first properly, and without a figure, in these words, This is my body: but in the words following, which is broken for you, &c. they take it figuratively, saying, that breaking is attributed to the body of Christ, because the species which cover it, are broken by the Priest, that is to say, the colour, the quantity, the measures. A brave subtlety; for according to this Doctrine, an arm shall be broken, because the sleeve that containeth it, is broken. But here is yet more. S. Luke, and S. Paul say, That the Cup is the New Testament, &c. Luk. 22. 20. 1. Cor. 11. 25. Out of which we draw this infallible conclusion. If the Cup, or that which is in the Cup, cannot be the new Testament substantially, but only Sacramentally: It followeth, that this word is, aught to be expounded in this place for signifieth or representeth. But the first is true; Therefore the last also. Our Adversaries deny the Antecedent: affirming, That the Cup or that which is in the Cup, is the New Testament properly, and without a figure: and perceiving very well, that the bread is the Lord's body in the same kind as the Cup is the New Testament: and that if the word, is, must be expounded for signifieth or representeth, in this enunciation, This Cup is the New Testament, &c. that it must be expounded so in this enunciation, This is my body. But this hole is too little to creep out at. For behold, Saint Matthew saith, That this blood is the blood of the New Testament, Mat. 26. 28. Therefore it is not the New Testament. For even as the four corner Cap of a Jesuit is not a Jesuit: so the blood of the New Testament, is not the New Testament. Add moreover, that our Adversaries tell us, That the New Testament is founded upon the blood which they say is in the Chalice. Therefore by their own Doctrine, it is not the New Testament: for one thing founded upon another, is not the same thing with it. In sum, Christ saith, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood. Therefore it is not his blood; For a thing which is in another, is not the same thing in which it is. By so many express texts, and invincible reasons, is this proposition evidently proved: That in all Sacraments, the signs do bear the name of the thing signified; and that this word is, is put for signifieth or representeth; and Consequently, that the bread and wine, remaining still bread and wine, at the Sacrament of the Lord's supper, do bear the name of the body and blood of Christ whom they signify. And therefore the meaning of these words, this is my body, is, This signifieth or representeth my body: as divers Fathers have expounded it, and namely, Saint Austin in these words: The Lord made no difficulty to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. Austin against Adimentus chap. 12. And Tertullian also in these words: Christ having taken bread and distributed it to his Disciples, made it to be his body, saying this is my body, that is, the figure of my body, Tertullian contra Martion, chap. 40. Whereby it appeareth that this popish doctrine is no less contrary unto the will of God than unto his truth manifested in his Word. CHAP. XI. That it is not enough (for to have eternal life) to eat Christ's flesh; but that we must also drink his blood; And therefore all Christians indifferently aught to communicate under both kinds, according to the commandment of Christ, and the Apostle Saint Paul. THe Pope and his associates do keep men easily in their Idolatry and false doctrines, by these two means. The first, in holding them in a more than brutish ignorance, using them like beasts. The second, by sweet alluring speeches wherewith they cover the poison which they give unto the simple to drink. It is a thing worthy of compassion to see sometimes these Doctors in the Pulpit torment themselves, gnash their teeth for anger, and spew out a thousand injuries, slanders, & forged imputations against the good servants of God, and especially against Calvin. For the very remembrance of the name of that good Doctor, is able to make them stark mad: mingling in their sermons among their injuries, some words of Piety, recommendation, and praise of good works, to amuse their hearers, and entertain them in that opinion, that they preach a true, and wholesome doctrine. This is the cause the Papists sometimes do entreat us to go hear their sermons. O silly people, ye have not yet learned what the depths of Satan are, that can transform himself into an Angel of light for to seduce men. Apoc. 2. 24. Ye harken not to Christ's warning, when he saith, Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening ●olfe●. Math. 7. 15. Ye know not that Antichrist hath two horns like a lamb, but speaketh as a Dragon. Apoc. 13. 11. Poor seduced people that ●eed yourselves with shows of good, wherewith they hide the falsehood which they give you, without inquiring of the truth, so easy to be found in the Word of God to confound your Doctors. Ask them but where it is commanded in the Word of God to deprive Lay men and women from the Communion of the Cup, as they do; and ye shall make them as dumb as fishes. Those red Hats, and fured Hoods, assembled at the counsels of Constance and Trente, acknowledge in the thirteenth and fifth Sessions of the said counsels, That Christ did institute the Sacrament of the Supper under both kinds of bread and wine, and delivered it so to his Diciples: Confessing moreover that the use of both kinds was very frequent and ordin●ry in the beginning of Christian Religion; and yet nevertheless, they are so bold and impudent as to put an Anathema upon him that shall say that all every one of the faithful aught to receive under both kinds the Sacrament of the Eucharist, by the commandment of God. Declaring that this custom of receiving under one kind, aught to be held as a Law: forbidding every Christian to believe or teach otherwise. Behold how these Doctors have banded themselves openly against Christ, whom they have Anathematised with the Apostle Saint Paul. Our Lord, for saying unto his Disciples when he gave them the Cup, drink ye all of it: Math. 26. 27. And the Apostle, for commanding to every one of the Corinthians, to examine himself, and so eat of this bread and drink of this cup. 1. Corinth. 11. 28. Now, because this is sufficient to make it appear that the Pope is contrary unto Christ, they labour to put off this blow, alleging that Christ spoke to none but to his Apostles, which were pastors; and so, that this privilege of receiving under both kinds, belongs to Priests only, and not to Lay men; but they cannot shun it so; for if Christ command all his Disciples to do that which he had done in the supper: It followeth that all his Disciples indifferently aught to communicate under both kinds; but the first is true, do (saith he) this is remembrance of me. 1. Cor. 11. 24. Therefore the last also. And seeing that the Jesuits at this day, besides the Consequences drawn out of the Word of God, do ask of us still some express Texts and Arguments whereof the two first propositions be in the Scriptures: Here be some. Whosoever bids every man to examine himself, and so eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup: commandeth all the faithful indifferently to communicate under both kinds. But Saint Paul commandeth every one to examine himself, and so eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, 1. Cor. 11. 28. Therefore he commandeth all the Faithful, indifferently to communicate under both kinds. Again, Whosoever saith in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Drink ye all of it: biddeth every one to drink of this Cup, 1. Cor. 11. 28. But Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith, Drink ye all of it. Math. 26. 27. Therefore he commandeth every one to drink of this Cup, 1. Cor. 11. Behold some express texts and consequences drawn out of the pure Word of God, for the proof of our Doctrine, and condemnation of that of our Adversaries. Our Adversaries on their part, produce some places, by which they pretend to prove, that Christ and the Apostles have given the Communion under the species of Bread only. First they produce a place out of Saint Luke, who saith, That in Emaus, as Christ sat at meat with the two Disciples, He took Bread, and blessed it, and broke, and gave to them; and that there is no mention made that he gave them the Cup. Luke 24. Moreover they bring in two other places in the Acts of the Apostles, whereof the first saith, That The Disciples did continue in the Apostles doctrine, and in the communion and breaking of bread; and the other, That the Disciples were gathered together to break bread. Acts 2. 42. and chap. 20. 7. From which places they do infer, That it is in the power of the Church to take away the Cup from the Lay people: since in these places there is no mention made of the Cup, but of the bread only. To which I answer, 1. That I have already brought express texts out of the Word of God, whereby it is expressly commanded to all Christians to drink of the cup in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper: and therefore that it is not in the church's power to take away the cup from the Lay people. 2. It is a manifest impiety to make use of the Word of God for to oppose and contradict the same word, pulling for that purpose some texts as it were by the hair and against their true meaning, to establish a doctrine contrary unto express texts: which is an ordinary thing with these Romish Doctors, as appeareth here in this place, where they oppose the texts here above mentioned, to these two express and plain texts. drink ye all of it. Math. 26. Let Every man examine himself, and so let him drink of this cup. 1. Cor. 11. 3. That even from these places produced by them, no man can infer that it is in the power of the Church to take away the Cup from the people. 1. For in that of Saint Luke's, it is not spoken of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but of a common repast, at which it was Christ's accustomed manner to break the bread with giving of thanks, as you may see in Saint Math. 14. 19 and in S. Luke 9 16. 2. That though the Sacrament of the Eucharist were meant in these places, it were no good consequence to say: In these places there is no mention made, but of breaking of bread: Therefore there was no wine: For under the word Bread, the Scripture signifieth all things necessary for life, as you may see in these places of the Word of God. Gen. 37. 35. and chap. 43. 31. 32. 34. And though I say I did eat with such a one, It doth not follow that I drank not with him. 3. That if in these places the Sacrament of the Lord's supper be meant, and there was no wine at it: It followeth that neither Christ nor the Apostles drank at it, and consequently that Priests are no more bound than the Lay people to communicate under both kinds. But de Raconis denyeth it in a Treatise he made upon the conversion of Monsieur de Colincourt, page 87. saying, That the Apostles were bound to celebrate under both kinds of bread and wine severally, to represent the separation that was made on the cross of the blood of Christ from his body. Now for to prove their Transubstantiation, these Doctors produce some places out of the sixt of Saint John, where there is never a word spoken of the Eucharist, but of Christ's flesh given upon the cross for the life of the World; not perceiving that by this means they even overthrow themselves. For here are Christ's words, Except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. John 6. 53. 54. If these words be meant of the Eucharist: It followeth they deprive the people of life, taking from them the Cup. Moreover, it is not enough to eat the flesh of Christ by faith under the sign of bread, but we must also drink his blood spiritually by faith under the sign of the wine, seeing Christ hath instituted this holy Sacrament under both signs of bread and wine; the one to be broken, and the other to be shed or poured forth in remembrance of him: the which he chiefly recommended of the Cup, saying, drink ye all of it. Math. 26: and even as if he would have remedied the error that afterwards crept into the Church; viz. in taking away against his precept, the half of that holy sacrament. And therefore it is to no purpose to allege the concomitancy. For, to eat a morsel of bread in form of a Wafer, is not to drink Christ's blood as he biddeth it expressly, saying, That Except we drink his blood, we have no life in us. John 6. CHAP. XII. That the pretended Sacrifice of the mass was only established for to annihilate the power and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the cross. And that there is but one only Sacrificator sacrificing expiatorily in the Evangelical Law, to wit, Jesus Christ our Lord. BRiefly, whosoever shall consider the Pope's Doctrine, and of his Disciples, he shall see plainly, That it tendeth only to debase the merit and virtue of the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ: as you may observe by the Doctrine of their pretended sacrifice of the mass. For these Doctors teach, that it is a second sacrifice of Christ, propitiatory both for the quick and for the dead; which is plainly to deny that the Sacrifice of the cross hath the power and efficacy to take away sins, unless it be reiterated. But the Apostle Saint Paul teacheth us plainly, that the sacrifice of the cross, hath at once taken sin wholly away, when he saith, That by the will of God we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. And he addeth yet another sentence, that cutteth up this Error by the very roots. Now, Where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin, Heb. 10. 10. 14. 18. He meaneth by these things, the transgression of the Law of God. But in the Sacrifice of the cross there is forgiveness of these things: Therefore there is no more oblation for sin. Against such clear places, these doctor's arm themselves with a false distinction of Sacrifice, which they could never yet prove, neither out of any express text taken out of the Word of God, or necessary Consequence drawn out of the same. They say, that there is no more bloody sacrifice for sin; but that there is an unbloody sacrifice, according to the order of Melchisedeck, for the continual application of the merit of the sacrifice of the cross. But this distinction is not able to take them off the hooks. For, the Apostle saying expressly, That there is no more oblation for sin, showeth us plainly, That there is no other propitiatory sacrifice for sin, of what kind soever, but that of the cross. It is therefore their part, that go about to give the Apostle the lie, to prove that distinction, showing by express texts, or at least by necessary consequences drawn out of the pure Word of God, that we ought to sacrifice again the body of Christ unbloodily, to apply the merit of his bloody sacrifice: which thing they are never able to do. For to attain to this proof, some of them argue thus: Christ is a sacrificator after the order of Melchisedeck; but Melchisedeck offered an unbloody sacrifice: for he offered bread and wine. Therefore Christ after the same order, hath offered an unbloody sacrifice, when he hath offered himself under the Species of bread and wine. And therefore the distinction of bloody and unbloody sacrifice is true. We grant the Major, but we deny the Minor, which is grounded upon a falsehood. We do not find in any place of holy Scripture, that Melchisedeck offered to God bread and wine. We read in the 14 of Genesis, vers. 18. that he brought unto Abraham bread and wine for to feed and refresh him and his men that were wearied and travayled as they came from the defeat of the Kings: But there is not a word there that Melchisedeck offered bread and wine unto God. And therefore the conclusion of this argument is false, and by consequent also this pretended distinction of bloody and unbloody sacrifice. Now I will show hereafter wherein consists this order of Melchisedeck, according to which order Christ is an everlasting Sacrificator. At this present, I will press our Adversaries upon this pretended application, which is the last refuge of falsehood brought to the bay upon her back. We say then that in this pretended application, our Adversaries grant under hand tacitly, that the mass is not the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. For, if it be but the application of Christ's sacrifice: It followeth it is not Christ's sacrifice. For even as the application of a plaster is not a plaster; so the application of Christ's sacrifice, is not Christ's sacrifice. And here these Doctors confess freely again that the mass is not Christ's sacrifice. For they say that every true sacrifice requireth that the thing offered be destroyed and consumed: Whereupon we build this argument. Every true sacrifice requireth that the thing offered be destroyed and consumed. But the mass, say they, is a true sacrifice: Therefore the thing offered in the mass, is destroyed and consumed. They yield us that too, but to their confusion; for say we, If the thing offered in the mass, be destroyed and consumed, and this thing offered is the body of Christ: It followeth that the body of Christ is destroyed and consumed in the mass. It is not true, say they, but it is the Species of bread and wine that are destroyed and consumed: that is, the colour, the taste, the roundness and quantity of the bread and wine. They confess therefore freely that the mass is not Christ's sacrifice, seeing that he is not destroyed, but only a sacrifice of roundnesses, of measures, of lines, of castles in the air, well befitting such a Religion, wherein all is nothing but mask and hypocrisy. Moreover, the application of a thing, is not the thing applied. As for example, The water of the Bath is applied by means of the channel or conduit-pipe: Yet it is not the pipe. Physic is administered with a cup or vessel, but it is not the vessel: and so of all other things. But contrariwise, these subtle Doctors will have the application and the thing applied to be one and the self same thing. For they say that Christ's sacrifice is applied by the sacrifice of the same Christ. But they have not cunning enough yet to persuade us that although the mass were good, it could be both the physic and the vessel together. But, say our Adversaries, do we an injury to the physic by applying it with the vessel? do we wrong to the water of the Bath, when we receive it by the channel? do we wrong to the bloody sacrifice, in applying it by the unbloody sacrifice? Yea Doctors, ye do wrong to the physic, when ye attribute unto the vessel the virtue of healing, which is only proper to the physic. Ye do wrong to the water of the Bath, when ye attribute unto the conduit-pipe the cure which the water only worketh. Likewise ye do wrong to the sacrifice of the cross, when ye attribute to your pretended sacrifice of the mass the virtue to expiate sins, as if the other alone were insufficient. We hold therefore, that Christ cannot be offered again in sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, without making void the virtue and efficacy of the sacrifice of the cross. For of two plasters, either the one is sufficient to heal the wound, or both are requisite and necessary. If the one be sufficient, the other is superflous. If both are requisite and necessary: it followeth that one is not sufficient. Let us say then, if there be two propitiatory sacrifices for the remission of sins, the one bloody, and the other unbloody: The one of the two is sufficient, or both are requisite and necessary. If the one be sufficient, the other is superflous. If both are requisite and necessary: It follows that one alone is insufficient. So that admitting two propitiatory sacrifices, the one bloody, the other unbloody, is to deny that the sacrifice of the cross hath the virtue alone to expiate sins. The Word of God doth not teach us that there is two different sacrifices of Christ, the one bloody the other unbloody. The Apostle to the Hebrews employeth many leaves to declare this point, and treating fully of the Priesthood in the Christian Church, he there makes no mention at all of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Finally, our Adversaries affirm that the mass is an unbloody propitiatory sacrifice instituted by Christ, both for the quick and for the dead. inquired where he instituted it: they bring these words, do this. Admirable proof! do this, that is to say, sacrifice me really under the kinds of bread and wine in propitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead. That is a good gloss. But by these words do this, Christ commandeth to do that which he did at the Supper. Therefore they should have proved first that Christ did at the Lord's Supper sacrifice himself to God his Father, which he did not do. Nevertheless, some of them do go about to prove it, alleging the words which our Lord saith in Saint Luke, This is my body which is given for you. Luke 22. 19 Where given, say they? not on the cross: for he was not yet there; but under the Species of bread and wine at the same instant, and even while he pronounced these words: Whereupon they conclude that Christ offered himself to God his Father at the supper. I answer, that these words which is given for you, &c. prove no manner of way that Christ offered himself to God his Father in the sacrament. For he offered only to his Disciples, saying unto them Take. But he offereth nothing to God, he maketh no Elevation of an host. Moreover, Adoration is a necessary action in all Sacrifices: but the Apostles worshipped not the bread which Christ gave unto them, but remained at table with him: which showeth, they did not think that bread to be transubstantiated into the body of Christ. For otherwise, it had been an extreme irreverence in them not to worship that which Christ did present unto them. And for that he saith in the Present tense, which is given for you, &c. we see he speaketh often of his approaching death, as if it were present; I lay down, saith he, my life for my sheep, John 10. 15. 17. 18. I leave my life that I may take it again. Father, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do, John 17. 4. Nevertheless, there remained the principal thing, to wit, his death upon the cross. The lamb was slain from the foundation of the World, Apoc. 13. 8. I send you (saith God by the Prophet Malachy) the Prophet Eliah, Mal. 4. 3. that is, I will send you John the Baptist; which was not done of long time after. If therefore a thing so far off, was said as if it were present: how much more shall that be thought present, which is to be done at hand? There is nothing so frequent in the word of God as the changing of tenses: So as very often, the Past, or the Present, is taken for the future. Thus Christ speaketh of the Sacrifice of the cross, on which he gave himself for the life of the World. Some others argue thus; All effusion of blood for the Remission of sins, is a propitiatory Sacrifice: But Christ saith that his blood is shed in the Eucharist for the Remission of sins: Therefore the Eucharist is a propitiatory Sacrifice. I answer, That the two first propositions of this Argument are false, as also the conclusion, in the sense that our Adversaries take it in. First, it is false that an effusion of blood is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Remission of sins: unless that blood be offered unto God with the death of the Sacrifice. But Christ offered nothing unto God in the Eucharist, nor yet suffered death thereat. Again, It is false that Christ did shed his blood in the Eucharist. For it was not shed, but on the cross: and it is of that shedding he speaketh, saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you. And to reply that there is in the present tense is shed, and not in the future shall be shed: is to no purpose. For I have above stopped this passage, in showing out of divers places of the holy Scriptures, that this word, is, is oftentimes taken in the Future. And indeed, the Latin Bible of the Roman Church, and the Canon of the mass, turns it in the Future, qui pro vobis effundetur, which shall be shed for you. But it is worthy of Note, to see how our Adversaries grant without difficulty, that which they so painfully deny. For when we ask of them, whether Christ's blood came out of the veins in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or no? They answer, It did not come out of the veins. Then it was not shed there, say we. For a thing is not shed while it remaineth enclosed in the vessel that containeth it. And besides, they call the mass an unbloody Sacrifice. Nevertheless, contradicting themselves grossly, they will not give over writing and affirming that Christ shed his blood there. We ask them then, how, and after what manner it is shed in the mass. They answer, It is shed under the species of the wine. Then, say we, It is shed. It is not, say they; It is but the accidents of the wine only that are shed. Now I leave it to the judgement of all men, whether this be not with one breath to deny, and affirm both together. Why then do they tell us that it is shed, for to tell us presently after that it is not shed, but that the only accidents of wine are shed? They have been brought to lay the like absurdity upon these words, which is broken for you, being forced to maintain that the body of Christ is broken, because the species that contain him, are broken. The conclusion which they draw from this argument, is also false. For they conclude, that the Eucharist is a propitiatory Sacrifice for sin, both for the quick and for the dead: which is not so, but only a Sacrifice of thanksgiving: for there is but one propitiatory Sacrifice for sin, which is that of the cross. Now, even as there is but one only expiatory Sacrifice, so there is but one only Priest sacrificing expiatorily, to wit, Christ Jesus our Lord. There were many under the Law, because they were hindered by death from remaining: but our Lord Jesus Christ remaining a Priest for ever, and which cannot be hindered by death, needeth no other Priest to be appointed in his room. And it is here that these new sacrificers labour in vain to prove their pretended calling: For it is an imaginary charge, which was never established by Christ, nor practised by the Apostles. Behold how they argue. Christ said to his Disciples, As my Father hath sent me, so I send you. But Christ was sent of the Father to sacrifice under the kinds of bread and wine, after the order of Melchisedeck. Therefore he sent his Apostles to sacrifice under the species of bread and wine according to this order; and Consequently, hath made them Priests. I answer, That if it be false that Melchisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine: It followeth, it is as false that Christ sent his Apostles to sacrifice him under the kinds of bread and wine: but the first is true. I have proved it already plainly here above: therefore the last also. But to make the Error of this allegation appear the more plainly, we must but add this to the second proposition of their Argument. As Christ was sent of his Father, so he sent his Apostles. But Christ was sent of his Father to be a King, a Prophet, and for to sacrifice himself for the Redemption of many. Therefore he sent his Apostles to be Kings, prophets, and to sacrifice themselves for the Redemption of many. Who sees not the error and falsehood of such a proposition? This word, As, therefore, must not be understood of the Kingly, or prophetical Office, and Priesthood of Christ. It is a presumption and temerity for men to assume unto themselves such titles: but only for the preaching of the Gospel, administering of Sacraments, and things which only regard the ministry. Christ gave them not any other Office. And as touching the Order of Melchisedeck, after which Christ is a Priest for ever: It is not in regard of the sacrifices, but in regard of the persons sacrificing. The Apostle teacheth it plainly, handling the comparison between Christ and Melchisedeck. In the first place, he saith, Heb. 7. 2. That Melchisedeck is by Interpretation, King of righteousness, and also, King of Peace: which are titles belonging to Christ, and which the Prophets also give him. For he is King of righteousness, because he absolves and Justifies us by his obedience before God his Father. He is also King of Peace, because that making our peace and reconciliation, he directeth us into the way of everlasting peace. The Apostle goes on, and saith, That this Melchisedeck was without Father, without Mother, and without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life: but being made like unto the son of God, abideth a Priest for ever. Behold then wherein consisteth the agreement and similitude between our Lord Jesus Christ and Melchisedeck, which is not in the matter of the thing sacrificed, but in the Order and Calling of the persons sacrificing: which is proved again plainly in this, that Christ is a Priest for ever after that Order of Melchisedeck. For if this Order were and did consist in the pretended sacrifice of the mass: Then it would follow, that Christ should not be a Priest for ever, seeing the mass shall not endure for ever. Therefore, Even as the same Melchisedeck was not head of any Order of Priesthood, but only a Priest after his own Order under the Law: So Christ the only Priest under the Evangelical Law, needeth not to have a company of Priests sacrificing expiatorily; and therefore that infinite number of Sacrificers established in the Church of Rome for to sacrifice again our Lord Jesus Christ to God his Father, stands convinced of having no calling. Seeing they have intruded themselves into that Office without any commandment from God, taking unto themselves in so doing, the honour which belongeth to none but to our Lord and Saviour: it not belonging at all unto the creatire to sacrifice the Creator; or for men sinners, to sacrifice the lamb without sin. CHAP. XIII. That S. Peter was not established by Christ head of the Universal Church, and Prince of the Apostles, and Consequently, that the Pope (who challengeth this Title but as S. Peter's successor) hath intruded himself into that office, without any lawful calling: and showeth himself to be Antichrist, in doing quite contrary to that which Christ and S. Peter did. TO be short, It seemeth that our Adversaries will be Christians no longer: having not only forsaken the doctrine, but the very name also, for to take the name of Catholics. God in his Justice would not suffer that they should retain the name which belongeth only to true Christians, that follow his word, and trust in his promises. For to be a true Christian, it is not enough to believe only that there is a Christ: but we must rely on his promises, and receive him such as he was given unto us of the Father, that is, for our salvation, righteousness and satisfaction for our sins. But our Adversaries do not receive him so, seeing they have established their righteousness in their own works, by which they think to deserve the kingdom of God. They will say indeed, that his blood shed upon the cross is our Purgatory: but they do establish another in an Imaginary fire. They say that the sacrifice he made upon the cross hath taken away our sins: but they have established another sacrifice to blot them away again; and all against the Word of God. Therefore they cannot boast that they are Christians, but rather Antichristians, that have rejected the true Doctrine, for to embrace and follow the Doctrine of the Pope of Rome, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: So that he as God, sitteth in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God, 2. Thes. 2. 4. But for as much as the Pope's Disciples do cloak this mystery of iniquity with some places of Scripture, whereby they pretend to prove that S. Peter was established Head of the universal Church, and Prince of the Apostles; because they would maintain the Pope, who by cunning hath intruded himself into that office: I will show in few words that Saint Peter was not Prince of the Apostles, nor head of the universal Church, as they say. In the first place, the Word of God tells us, That our Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of his Church. God hath put all things (saith S. Paul) under his feet: and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body. Again, He is the head of the body, the Church: who is the beginning, the first born from the dead: that in all things he might have the preeminence, Ephes. 1. 22. 23. Colos. 1. 18. By these places it appears, that S. Peter was not Head of the Church; For she which is but one body, cannot have two heads. And it is to no purpose to say that Christ is the essential head, but that S. Peter was the ministerial head: For it is still to make a monster of the Church, in giving her two heads. Moreover, if S. Peter was ministerial head of the Church, and Prince of the Apostles, It must be by the institution of Christ: and if it be by Christ's institution, this institution is to be found in the word of God. Moreover, S. Peter must needs have exercised that office, or else it would have brought a confusion in the Church. But on the contrary, the word of God, showeth us, That Christ did not appoint Peter to be head of the Church, nor Prince of the Apostles. Item, That S. Peter did never exercise that office, as I shall prove by these texts and reasons following. As for the first point, S. Paul teacheth us, That our Lord for the gathering of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edification of his body, hath given some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Pastors and Teachers, Ephes. 4. 11. And in another place: God hath set some in the Church: First Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly Teachers, 1. Cor. 12. 28. He maketh no mention at all of any head of the Church, nor or Prince of the Apostles: and yet these are the places where this principality should have appeared, being very likely that if Christ had established Peter for head of the universal Church, and Prince of the Apostles; he would not have omitted to set down this principality in the first rank. But having left it out, it appeareth, That Christ did not ordain any one for head of the Church, and Prince of the Apostles. But let us learn of S. Peter himself whether there should be in the Church a Prince among the Apostles or no. I exhort (saith he, he doth not say, I command) the Elders that are among you; I that am an Elder with you (he doth not say above them) and a witness of the sufferings of Christ. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly: not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being Lords (Mark, as being Lords) over God's heritage: but being ensamples to the flock, 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. S. Petertherefore did not believe that any Bishop should be Prince among the Apostles, and have special lordship in the Church, as the Pope and his disciples do suppose. Upon the strife which arose twice among the Apostles about primacy, Christ decided their controversy, saying unto them, Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority upon them; Bus it shall not be so among you, Mat. 20. 25. 26. The word of God also in divers places recommendeth humility unto us: to become as little children, to be poor. Christ proposeth himself for an example thereof unto his Apostles: and will have his Apostles to be for an example unto all the World. That the son of man (saith he) is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, Mat. 18. 1. 2. 3. and chap. 20. 28. When the Apostles were sent to preach, they were sent as fellows: the which excludeth superiority, Math. 10. Moreover, Christ promiseth unto them, That they shall sit upon twelve Thrones, Judging the twelve Tribes of Israel, Luk. 22. 30. But he giveth not unto Peter a more eminent place for to preside, than to the rest. When the holy Ghost descended upon them, It was when they were all in one place, and without any prerogative, Acts 2. 1. 4. S. Paul saith, That there is no difference between him and them who seemed to be most eminent, Galat. 2. 6. He did not then acknowledge any of the Apostles to be above him, as head of the universal Church and Prince of the Apostles. Again, he saith, That the Gospel of the Uncircumcision was committed unto him, as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter, Galat. 2. 7. Behold then, they are equal in the labour and ministry of the Gospel. The Apostles that were at Jerusalem, hearing that Samaria had received the word of God: they sent them Peter and John, Acts 8. 14. Now, to be sent, shows no superiority; but, at most, equality of them that sendeth and of him that is sent. For the inferior never sendeth the superior. I do verily believe that the Pope would not approve of them that should send him to preach in England. S. Peter was rebuked by S. Paul, who withstood him to the face. The which he doth after such a manner, as he shows well enough that he did not esteem him as head of the Church, nor Prince of the Apostles, Gal. 2. 11. 14. It appears therefore by these places that S. Peter was not head of the universal Church, nor Prince of the Apostles. It remains now to see whether he did exercise that place: and whether the rest of the Apostles have yielded him the pre-eminence. At the council of Jerusalem, S. Peter propounded his opinion; but James, Bishop of the same place made the conclusion as President thereof, Acts 15. 7. 13. 19 and the Letters were not dispatched in Peter's name, but in the name of the whole Assembly: nevertheless, this was the place where S. Peter should have exercised this office of Head and Prince among the Apostles. Item, He is accused by the Disciples for conversing with the Gentiles. He maketh his defence and excuse, Act. 11. He was then accountable to his brethren for what he did. In sum, He calleth himself a fellow Elder with the Elders of the Church, and exhorteth them lovingly as his equals, 1. Pet. 5. 1. Therefore he did not think himself Head and Prince amongst them. But let us hear a pleasant objection which the Pope's disciples do make for to prove that S. Peter was Head and Prince of the Apostles. S. Peter, say they, is the first named in the Scripture. He was the first whose feet Christ did wash; The first that spoke at the council of Jerusalem; The first after Christ to whom the Angels did speak: all which prerogatives do show, that he was Head and Prince of the Apostles. This Argument deserves not an answer. For if the first-named in the holy Scriptures, is for that cause the superior: the last named shall be the least and the abjectest. Now, if that be true: Christ and Peter shall sit in the lowest rank in the Church. For Christ himself is postposed to S. Peter by S. Paul. Now, this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ, 1. Cor. 1. 12. S. John also names Peter the last; Philip, saith he, was of Bethsaida the City of Andrew and Peter, John 1. 44. S. Paul also placeth S. James before; James, Cephas, and John who seemed to be pillars, Galat. 2. 9 Therefore this is but a mere foppery, brought in a desperate cause for lack of better reasons. S. Peter might be among the Apostles, the first in age or in zeal, or in eloquence, or in virtue and miracles; but not at all in principality and superiority of jurisdiction. Moreover, they allege again, That Christ said to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. Therefore, say they Peter was established the head and foundation of the Church. I answer, That Christ did not build upon the person of Peter, but upon himself, and upon the confession of Faith which Peter had made: and therefore this conclusion, That S. Peter is head and foundation of the Church is false. For other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, saith S. Paul, 1. Cor. 3. 11. But this foundation which is laid is Christ Jesus: Therefore no man can lay any other foundation than Christ Jesus. Again, Christ hath plainly distinguished Peter from the Rock, that is, Simon Peter from the living rock upon which is builded the Church. For he saith not super te Petrum, but Super hanc petram, that is to say, upon this rock, and not upon thee Peter. Moreover, let every one judge whether it is more convenient the Church should be grounded upon Peter than upon Christ: upon the Son of the living God whom Peter had confessed: or upon Peter, who presently after denied the Son of the living God: upon him who hath vanquished Satan, or upon him whom Christ calleth Satan. Mat. 16. 23. Upon him who is called the chief corner stone; or upon him who was a scandal, that is to say, a stumbling stone. Again, the Pope's Disciples allege that Christ said thrice to 〈…〉 my sheep. But there is gr●●● difference betwixt feeding Christ's sheep, and to be Universal Head of the Church, and Prince of the Apostles. Christ saith not to him, feed my sheep universally or sovereignly: the same commission of feeding the sheep is given to all the Apostles. The holy Ghost, saith Saint Paul, hath established you Bishops, to feed the Church of God, whom he hath purchased with his own blood. Act. 20. 28. Feed the flock of Christ which is committed unto you, saith S. Peter. 1. Pet. 5. 21. Christ speaketh unto Peter only, and biddeth him three times feed his sheep, because he had denied him thrice. Christ draweth three confessions from him, to remedy his threefold denying: at the end of which he is reestablished in the office of a Pastor. Therefore this being proved, that Saint Peter was not head of the Church, nor Prince of the Apostles: It followeth that the Pope (who challengeth it but as his Successor) hath intruded himself into that office, without any lawful calling: and maintaineth himself therein by tyranny, doing and practising that which neither Christ nor Peter ever did or practised. 1. For neither Christ nor Peter ever showed themselves in Pontificalibus, crowned with three crowns: nor caused the Kings of the earth to kiss their feet, as the Pope doth at this day, having changed the Christian Religion into Idolatry, superstition and false doctrines, contrary unto the Word of God. 2. Saint Peter never exalted himself above men and Angels, as the Pope doth in that he willeth and commandeth all men to worship him; and the Angel refused it, saying to John that would have worshipped him, See thou do it not, I am a servant with thee, worship God. Apoc. 22. 9 Saint Peter likewise made Cornelius the Centurion to arise, saying unto him, That he himself was a man. Acts 10. 16. 3. Saint Peter never bragged that he had all power both in heaven and in earth, as the Pope doth. Item, he never gave away the kingdoms of the World, nor (for that end) dispensed with any Subjects for their oath of allegiance. 4. Saint Peter never caused himself to be called God as the Pope doth: Can. satisf. distinct. 96. nor said that he was neither God nor man, but somewhat betwixt the Divinity and the Humanity, as saith the gloss upon the Clementines, and never made himself to be called most holy Father. 5. Saint Peter never styled himself the Spouse of the Church, The Prince of the Apostles, the universal Monarch, the sovereign Pastor, the lion of Juda, the Saviour of the Church, as the Pope doth, council of Lateran Session. 6. Who in so doing, taketh upon him those titles which belong only unto Christ. 6. The council of Florence saith, That the Pope may add to the symbol of the Apostles; which is as much in effect as to account and acknowledge him to be God. For none but God alone can add to the symbol, And make Articles of Faith in his Church to bind the consciences of men. Upon this objection, De Raconismaketh a pleasant answer toPeter du Moulin; That which you produce (saith he in his triumph of truth, page 127.) of the council of Florence, that the Pope may add to the Apostles Creed: availeth nothing. The meaning of it, is only that he may (whether in a council or out of a council) establish Articles of Faith: But not that he will place them as thirteenth, fourteenth, or fifteenth Articles of the Apostles Creed. This Doctor being smitten on his visible head, was so amazed with the blow, that he knew not what he wrote. Master du Moulin tells him that the council of Florence saith, that the Pope may add to the Apostles Creed. Thereupon he answereth that the only meaning is, that the Pope may make Articles of Faith. Is not that well answered? Doubtless, if the Pope may add to the symbol, he may make Articles of Faith. Therefore he should have proved first that the Pope may add to the Creed, and then it had been time for him to tell that he may make Articles of Faith. But who hath told him that the only meaning is, that the Pope may make Articles of Faith? What audaciousness is it in this Doctor so to restrain and wrest the words of this council, which saith in express terms that the Pope may add to the Creed? Mark therefore that De Raconis doth not say that the Pope may not add to the Creed: but, that the Articles of faith which he may make, he will not place them as thirteenth, fourteenth, or fifteenth Articles of the Creed. I answer, it matters not: since the Pope will have whatsoever he saith and decreeth in matters of Religion, to be received with like credit, authority and certainty, as the Articles of the Creed. Moreover, I deny that the Pope may add to the Creed, and make Articles of Faith. And it is De Raconis part and the rest of the Doctors of the Roman Church, to prove it by express texts of the Word of God, or by necessary consequences drawn out of the same. For lack of which, I maintain that this alone is sufficient to prove that the Pope is Antichrist, since he takes upon him that power which belongeth only to God, which is to be able to add to the Creed, and make Articles of Faith to bind the consciences of men. In a word, if the Pope be wholly contrary to our Lord Jesus Christ, both in doctrine and in manners: It follows he is that Antichrist spoken of in the Word of God; since to be Antichrist, is nothing else but to be contrary to Christ, But the antecedent is true; I have proved it already here above as touching the doctrine. It is as easy also to prove it touching manners. 1. First, our Lord Jesus Christ showed himself so humble, that although he was King both of heaven and earth, yet would he not show himself to be such in this World. He fled unto a mountain when the Jews would have made him King. John 6. 15. He saith That his kingdom is not of this World. John 18. 30. But the Pope exalteth himself above the Emperor, and above all Kings & Princes of the earth: Therefore he is contrary unto Christ in his manners. 2. Christ's mind did not run upon heaping up treasures on earth; but his only care was to do the will of God his Father. He testifieth That the Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests: but he had not whereon to rest his head. Mat. 8. 20. S. Peter also saith, That he had neither Gold nor Silver, Act. 3. 6. But all the Pope's care is to gather up treasures and riches. Therefore he is contrary unto Christ in his Manners. 3. Christ, willing to show himself a pattern of humility, washed the feet of his Apostles, John 13. But the Pope will not be so officious; but on the contrary, he makes others to kiss his feet devoutly, out of his pride. Therefore, he is contrary unto Christ in his Manners. 4. Christ was Crowned with a crown of Thornes: but it pleaseth his holiness to wear three crowns that are not of the like matter. 5. Christ went into Cities and towns, preaching, and showing the Doctrine of Salvation, Luk. 8. But the Pope dispenseth with himself handsomely from that labour. 6. Christ commands his Apostles to give for nothing that which they have received for nothing, Mat. 10. 8. But the Pope is wiser than so, to give any of his wares gratis. 7. Christ teacheth us, That if any man will be his Disciple and follow him, that he must take up his cross, Mat. 10. that is, all manner of afflictions and poverty; denying himself and his affections. But the Pope follows not this precept: and by Consequent, cannot be put or placed into the number of Christ's Disciples. 8. Christ forbids Fornication: and the Pope ordaineth it, in suffering public stews in Rome and other places, that bring him in great profit. 9 The Pope likewise shows himself contrary unto Christ in greatness and Worldly pomp. It is an admirable thing to see him in his Pontificalibus, crowned with three crowns, or carried upon men's shoulders through the City of Rome, attended with Suitzers and other guards, both a horseback and a Foot; and to see the people upon their knees worshipping him in the streets. 10. In a word, The Pope is absolutely contrary unto Christ, in magnificence of apparel, garments, moveables, Horses, and Officers; all which he hath in great number. Item, in meats, drinks, baths, unctions, corporal delights, pleasures, music, plays, sports, and all Earthly contentments. Wherefore the Consequence of my Argument is most true, and therefore none ought to doubt but that he is that Antichrist spoken of in the Word of God. Item, That that Congregation which acknowledgeth him for its Head, is not the Church of Christ, but the Synagogue of Antichrist, from which we ought to separate ourselves, according to God's command, Apoc. 18. 4. and cleave to the Reformed Church, which is the true Church, the only Pillar of Truth, out of which there is no Salvation. Apoc. 14. 9 10. If any man worship the Beast and his Image, and receive his mark in his Forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the Wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the Cup of his indignation, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy Angels, and in the presence of the lamb. FINIS. Imprimatur, Tho. Wykes R. P. Episc. Lond. Capell. Domest.