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 Mens Traditions are vaine and unprofitable.

THE Word of God contai­ned in the Old and New Te­stament, is the chiefe and principall meanes we have [Page 2] 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 summe, it is the only light that scattereth and disper­seth the darknesse of our understan­ding, and by whose pure brightnesse we are led into the way of the King­dome of Heaven. Therefore it is no wonder if the Pope and his disciples (enemies of Mans Salvation) have endeavoured, and doe endeavour sti [...] to take away that holy light from be­fore men, to the end that they wal­king in darknesse, may fall into eter­nall ruine and perdition. Now, the chief meanes they have used to attain to their ends, is first, to perswade and make the simple people beleeve, That the Scriptures are full of darknesse▪ and therefore that it belongeth not to every one to reade the same, but only to Doctors and learned men. Se­condly, That it doth not containe all [Page 3] 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 himselfe 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 appeare by many places of the Word of God, and necessary consequences drawne out of the same.

First, as touching the darknesse of the Scripture which they suppose, for to hinder the simple people from rea­ding [Page 4] the same: I say that in this very thing, they truely shew themselves to be those blinde and incredulous ones of whom S. Paul speakes 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 mindes of them that beleeve 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 it selfe, but of men that are blinde 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 foolish­nesse unto him: neither can he know them▪ because they are spiritually discerned, 1.Cor. 2. 14. And, our Lord teacheth us, that theywhich are not of God, can­not heare the Word of God,Joh. 8. 47.

The Word of God is not dark to them that have received the Spirit of [Page 5] 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 lampe unto the feet of the Faithfull, and a light unto their paths, the same is not dark unto them.
• But the Word of God is a lampe unto the feet of the Faithfull, 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 enlight­neth and maketh the simple to have understanding. Psal. 119. 130.
• Therefore the Word of God is plain unto the simple.

[Page 6] Secondly, The Pope and his Adhe­rents, teaching that the Word of God containeth not all things neces­sary to Salvation, shew themselves wholly and absolutely adverse to SaintPaul: 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 reproofe, for correction, and for instructi­on in righteousnesse, 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 vertue and power to save soules; S.James teacheth the same when he saith,Receive with meeknesse the en­grafted Word, which is able to save your soules,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 [Page 7] written,saith S.John, that you may be­leeve that Jesus is the Christ, the Sonne of God, and in beleeving 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 needlesse thing to have recourse to mens Traditions.

Againe, Christ saith, That they wor­ship him in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandements of men, Mark. 7. 7. He would not therefore have men to take upon them to make laws & com­mandements in his Church: But ra­ther that al should submit themselves to his doctrine and Commandements 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 commandements of men, Esay 29. 13.

In a word, Christ and his Apostles, in many places doe send us to the [Page 8] written Word of God, but never to an unwritten word, or humane Tra­ditions: But rather on the contrary, S. Paul exhorteth the faithfull to take heed least 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 doe not reject all kind of Traditions, but onely such as are contrary unto the Word of God, or invented by men for to impose a yoake 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. [Page 9] But our Adversaries build their Ar­ticles of faith upon the Tradition and the unwritten Word onely, which they preferre 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 doe compare the Tradition with the written Word of God, we shall finde that the Tradition excels it infinitely, for that it hath more necessity, more light, more firmenesse, 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 doe not impose a yoake 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 [Page 10] yoake 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 Faith­full ought not to reade and meditate upon the Word of God.

This doctrin is contrary to these places of the written word of God.

Blessed is he that readeth the Words of this Prophesie, &c. Apoc. 1. 3.

Seek unto the Book of the Law, and reade, &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 expresse 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.

[Page 11] If any man sinne, 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 expresse places.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image, or any likenesse of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, &c. Thou shalt not bow down thy selfe to them, nor serve them, &c. Exod. 20. 4. 5.

To whom will yee liken God, or what likenesse will yee compare unto him, Esay 40. 18.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fooles: And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God, into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to foure-footed beasts, Rom. 1. 22. 23.

[Page 12] 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 daies throughout the yeare.

This Doctrine is contrary unto the written Word of God, as you may see by these expresse places.

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, as king no question for conscience sake.

If any of them that beleeve not, bid you to a feast, and yee be disposed to goe, whatsoever is set before you, eate, as king no question for conscience sake, 1. Cor. 10. 25. 27.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressely, 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 ab­staine from meates which God hath crea­ted to be received with thanksgiving of them which beleeve, &c. 1. Tim. 4. 1. &c.

[Page 13] 5 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Romane Church, tea­cheth, That all Pastors, and other Ecclesiasticall 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 expresse texts following:

To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her owne husband, &c. 1. Cor. 7. 2.

But if they cannot containe, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burne, 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 then must be blamelesse, 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 [Page 14] children, and their owne 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 Latine.

This Doctrine is contrary to these expresse texts of the written Word of God.

Except yee utter by the tongue words easie to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for yee shall speak into the ayre. 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 blesse with the Spi­rit, how shall he that occupieth the roome of the unlearned, say Amen at thy gi­ving of thankes, seeing he knowes not [Page 15] what thou sayest? Yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my un­derstanding, that by my voyce I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknowne tongue, 1. Cor. 14. 9. 15. 16. 19.

7 The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, tea­cheth, That the Faithfull deserve Eternall life by their good works, and the glory of the kingdome of Heaven.

This Doctrine is contrary to the written word of God, as it is proved by these expresse places.

If it be by Grace, it is no more of Workes: otherwise Grace is no more Grace, Rom. 11. 6.

By Grace are yee saved through Faith, and that not of your selves: it is the gift of God. Not of workes, least any man should boast, Ephes. 2. 8. 9. Tit. 3. 5.

The Tradition and unwritten Word of the Roman Church, tea­cheth, [Page 16] That by the death and passion of Christ, we are delivered from the guilt and punishment of sinnes com­mitted before Baptisme: but not from the punishment of sinnes com­mitted after Baptisme, for which we must pay and satisfie 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 expresse 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 sinne, John 1. Epist. 1. 7.

By Grace are yee saved through Faith, and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God, not of works, least any man should boast, &c. Ephes. 2. 8. 9.

There is no condemnation to them [Page 17] 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 expresse 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 Masse is no more bread, but is transubstantiated in­to the Body of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood. That Christ is betweene the hands of the [Page 18] Priests, in as many places as there are Masses said, as big and as large as he was upon the Crosse.

This Doctrine is altogether contrary unto these expresse pla­ces of the written. Word of God.

Jesus took Bread, brake it, and gave it, &c. Math. 26.

As often as yee eat this Bread, &c. 1. Cor. 11. 26. Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that Bread, &c. 1. Cor. 11. 28.

The poore yee have alwaies with you: but me yee have not alwaies,John 12. 8.

I leave the World, and goe to the Father, John 16. 28.

Heaven must contain him, untill 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 [Page 19] women, ought not to partake of the holy Sacrament of the Lords supper, under both kinds.

This Doctrine is directly con­trary unto the written Word of God, as appeareth by these ex­presse texts.

Drinke yee all of it, Mat. 26. 27.

Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate 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 himselfe every day re­ally, by the hands of the Priests, both for the quicke and for the dead.

This Doctrine is directly con­trary to the written Word of God, that saith:

Christ is entred into Heaven it selfe, now to appeare in the presence of God for us. Yet not that he should [Page 20] offer himselfe often, as the high Priest entred into the holy place every yeare 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 sinne,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 doctrin is directly contrary unto the written word of God, as appeareth by these expresse texts.

God hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is [Page 21] his Body,Ephes. 1. ver. 22. 23.

Yee know that the Princes of the Gentils 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 yoake upon the conscien­ces of men that God hath not im­posed.

Seeing it forbids marriage to certain persons, which God for avoyding of fornication, comman­deth to every one.

Seeing it forbids the use of cer­tain [Page 22] 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 Ho­ly-daies, thereby depriving them of the means to earne their bread, which oftentimes is wanting on such daies, to poore men charged with wives and small children: the which thing is directly con­trary to the Commandement of God. Six daies shalt thou labour, and doe all thy work, Exod. 20. 9.

Againe, by bringing in such an infinite number of ceremonies, in part taken from the Pagans, and in part from the Jewes, with a numberlesse 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 [Page 23] and inventions of men, seeing they were broached onely to bring in into Christian Religi­on Error and Idolatry: as I shall prove hereafter more at large, as­well by expresse texts and necessa­ry consequences drawn out of the Word of God, as by invincible reasons.

CHAP. II.
That it is necessary that all the Faithfull should reade the holy Scripture, and that they are even bound thereunto, by the Com­mandement of our Lord Jesus Christ.

FRom the very same Spring, floweth the prohibition which the Pope and his As­sociates make to the Lay people, [Page 24] to reade the Word of God with­out special leave: wherein their ma­nifest hypocrisie appeareth plain­ly, and the feare 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 yee think yee have eternall life, and they are they which testifie 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 heare them, Luk, 16. 29. The Jesuits and other the Popes Disciples answer, that there is Let them heare them: but not, Let them reade them. But what will they answer to these expresse pla­ces? Seek yee out of the Book of the [Page 25] Lord, and reade, Esay 34. vers. 16. Blessed is hee that readeth, and they that heare the words of this Prophesie, 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. Neverthelesse, Saint John exhorteth all the Faithfull to pra­ctise the reading thereof, saying; Blessed is he that readeth the words of this Prophesie. Let the word of Christ, saith Saint Paul, dwell in you richly, in all wisedome, teaching and admonishing one another, &c. Col. 3. 16. Saint Peter tels us, That we shall doe well to hearken unto the words of the Prophets, 2. Pet. 1. 19. The Jews of Berea, did dayly 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 [Page 26] called more Noble than them of Thes­salonica. It is therefore lawfull for every Faithfull Christian to reade 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 principall 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 VVord from the people: and so deprive them of the chiefe meanes to know God: which is to cast them headlong into dark­nesse and ignorance of their salva­tion, and finally into damnation. For, what can that man doe that is deprived of the knowledg of God and of his wil, but run into damna­tion.

CHAP. III.
That a man can doe no good Worke without the Grace of God: And that our Workes 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 bee considered three manner of wayes. First, as dispositive. Secondly, as satisfac­tory; and Thirdly, as meritorious. Before we be in the state of Grace, they will have our Works to bee dispositive to purchase Grace; and after grace received; to be satisfac­tory for the temporall punish­ment that remaineth for sin: And after satisfaction finished, then they will have their workes to de­serve [Page 28] the Kingdome of Heaven. A doctrine which is directly con­trarie unto the word of God, as I shall prove it hereafter out of expresse texts, which I shall pro­duce out of the VVord of God, and necessary consequences drawn out of the same.

In the first place, they teach that our Works doe dispose and prepare us to obtain the grace of God. But now, I aske of them, whether we doe good Works be­fore we be in grace, or whether we doe them after? yea or no. If they say that we doe them before; they know that men naturally are dead in sinne; I prove it by this expresse text out of Saint Paul: And you saith he, being dead in your sinnes, and through the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickned together with him; having forgiven you all trespasses, Colos. 2. 13. Now even [Page 29] as a dead man cannot doe so much as to stir his fingers end, unlesse he be raised againe: So a man dead in sinne, cannot doe any good work, unlesse 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 doe, accor­ding to his good pleasure, Phil. 2. 13.

The holyest men, though endu­ed with the spirit of God, and or­dinarily accompanied with his grace, have alwaies acknowledged themselves to be sinners, and very unable to doe good works. Saint Paul speaketh thus of himselfe, and also of all others in his per­son, For I was alive without the Law once: but when the Commandement came, sinne revived, and I died. I am carnall, sould under sinne, I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) [Page 30] dwelleth no good thing: For to will is present with me, but how to performe that which is good, I finde not. For the good that I would doe, I doe not: but the evill which I would not, that I doe, Rom. 7. 9. 14. 15. 18. 19.

Is it not then a meere ridicu­lous foolery, to teach, that a man destitute of the Grace of God, may doe any good work to obtain Grace, seeing that these which have this Grace already, doe not doe the good they would, but doe the evill which they would not, having alwaies some corruptions of the flesh opposing the desires of the spirit? And therefore they must confesse, that we doe good workes after we have received Grace: whence it followeth that their Doctrine is false, as I prove it by this argument.

If we doe good works after we are received into Grace: Then it [Page 31] followeth, that our works doe not dispose us to obtaine that Grace which we have already, and with­out which we cannot apply our selves 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 satisfie again unto the same by works.

THat which our Adversaries teach concerning satisfa­ction, is, That God relea­seth unto the sinner all the guilt, [Page 32] and forgiveth him the eternall pu­nishment due unto it: But that he will have it turn'd into a Temporal punishment: alledging, that if in our Justification, nothing were found but the forgivenesse of sins, it would be perfect mercy; but that there is some other thing where­by the justice of God appeareth. To be short, The Doctrin of these Doctors, is, that God (for the ma­nifestation of his justice) wil have the justified sinner to satisfie Gods justice for the Temporal punish­ment of his sinnes: otherwise, his justice is not satisfied.

Answer. It is an old wile of Sa­than, which he hath alwaies practi­sed by his false Prophets, to smo­ther and bury as much as in him lyeth, the meanes whereby God is pacified with us, and his justice ful­ly satisfied. Therefore I aske of them, whether Christ hath satis­fied [Page 33] to the justice of God, or no? If he hath not satisfied it, he is not our Saviour, and we are still in our sinnes, lyable to the curse of the Law, Galat. 3. 13. But if Christ hath satisfied the justice of God for sinne; 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 satis­fie the same again.

Now that Christ hath satisfied fully the justice of God for sinne: these expresse texts shewe it clear­ly and plainly.

He hath born our griefes, and car­ried our sorrowes. 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 iniquitie of us all,Esay 53. 4. 5. 6. And the Apo­stle [Page 34] SaintPaul teacheth us,That he hath reconciled all things unto himselfe (having made peace through the blood of his Crosse) 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 himselfe a ransome 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 eternall punishment, but not for that Temporal punish­ment reserved for the sinner ju­stified, for which he is bound to satisfie the justice of God. But this is brought in to no purpose: For I will stop up this passage up­on them in producing expresse texts and necessary consequences drawn out of the Word of God, [Page 35] that shew plainely the contrary.

First of all, the Prophet Esay hath told us in the forenamed place, that Christ hath not onely borne our griefes, but our sor­rowes also, which are not the guilt, but the punishment of our sinnes. And to say that this is true as touching the eternall and not the Temporall 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 Gods justice, is a condemnation. Therefore there is no punishment imposed to satisfie the justice of God.

Secondly, The same Apostle teacheth us, Thatby Grace we are saved through Faith, and that not of our selves: it is the gift of God: not of works, least any man should boast, [Page 34] SaintPaul teacheth us,That he hath reconciled all things unto himselfe (having made peace through the blood of his Crosse) 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 himselfe a ransome 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 eternall punishment, but not for that Temporal punish­ment reserved for the sinner ju­stified, for which he is bound to satisfie the justice of God. But this is brought in to no purpose: For I will stop up this passage up­on them in producing expresse texts and necessary consequences drawn out of the Word of God, [Page 35] that shew plainely the contrary.

First of all, the Prophet Esay hath told us in the forenamed place, that Christ hath not onely borne our griefes, but our sor­rowes also, which are not the guilt, but the punishment of our sinnes. And to say that this is true as touching the eternall and not the Temporall 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 Gods justice, is a condemnation. Therefore there is no punishment imposed to satisfie the justice of God.

Secondly, The same Apostle teacheth us, That by Grace we are saved through Faith, and that not of our selves: it is the gift of God: not of works, least any man should boast, [Page 36] 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 doe forgive the sinnes of his children in such sort as he will remember them no more: it followeth, that he will not be satisfied with temporall punishments. But the first propo­sition is true. I will forgive their iniquity, saith the Lord, and I will remember their sinne no more, Jerem. 31. 34. Esay 43. 25. Heb. 10. 27. Ergo, the last also, and therefore [Page 37] 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 onely, yea or no. If fully and per­fectly, then it followeth that he hath satisfied it aswel for the guilt, as for the punishment of sinne: and by consequent, that we ought nei­ther to satisfie it for the one, nor for the other. If inperfectly and in part onely: it followeth, that he is our Saviour but in part; for he is not our Saviour, unlesse he hath fully satisfied the Justice of God for us.

5 Again, Whatsoever is done by ones selfe, is not done by an other: But Jesus Christ our Lord hath purged our sinnes by him­selfe: Christ, saith Saint Paul, ha­ving by himselfe purged our sinnes, [Page 38] sate downe on the right hand of the Majesty on high, Heb. 1. 3. It is not done therfore but by Christ. And if the purgation of sinnes be not but by Christ; it followeth, that it is not done by Temporall pu­nishment and Humane satisfacti­ons. But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, the Consequent also. And therefore to desire to satisfie a­gain the Justice of God, is to de­base too much the worth and me­rits of the blood of Christ, and to esteeme his satisfaction as a thing of nought. For it is he only that was able to satisfie the same, for them that have obtained free mercy. And to alledge as they doe, that the Physicke 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 penall works [Page 39] are not the means wherby we may apply unto our selves the vertue and efficacy of the blood of Christ. It is by faith that he is apprehen­ded and applyed unto us. For as the body is fed and nourished by means of the corporall mouth, that receiveth and apprehendeth the food. So the soule is nouri­shed and sustained by Faith that receiveth and apprehendeth our Lord Jesus Christ and his merits, by which onely means Christ is applied unto it for it's spirituall food.

In a word, I maintain that it is altogether impossible for a man to satisfie the Justice of God. Yea, even for all men put together, to satisfie it for the least sinne, whe­ther for the guilt, or for the pu­nishment. For God is infinite, he therefore that offends him, de­serves an infinite and an Eternall [Page 48] punishment. Punishments ought to be according to the offences: And the offences, according to the quality of the persons offended. And to alledge, that Eternall pu­nishments are turned into Tem­porall, is as vain and ridiculous. For Gods 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 doe it by halfes.

Therefore they consider the Ju­stice of God, and the desert of sinne very ill, when as they think to be able to satisfie the same, and that by such means, as should open the gates of Heaven to the rich, rather than to the poore. For the principall means they appoint un­to man to satisfie Gods Justice withall, for the punishment of sins, is to buy pardons and indulgences [Page 41] of the Pope, and give to the Churh; the which indeed the rich may do, but not the poore. Wher­upon it will follow, that we must say quite contrary to that which Christ saith, Blessed are the poore, for to such is the kingdome of Hea­ven, Math. 5. 3.

Our Adversaries doe bring in some places of Scripture to prove their pretended satisfactions; but against their true sence: as that of the Apostle to the Hebrews, Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every sonne whom he recei­veth, Heb. 12. 6.

Again, they say that David ha­ving confessed his sin to Nathan, did neverthelesse, bear the punish­ment of his sin, it being said unto him, The childe 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.

[Page 42] I answer, That in all these pla­ces there is not a word spoken of satisfying Gods Justice, who in­deed tryeth his children, and fa­therly chastiseth them, not to sa­tisfie his Justice, but to correct them and make them wiser for the time to come, shewing them and making them feele 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 thē to profit unto repentance. He [Page 43] chastened David fatherly, when he took away his childe, and Saul in Justice, in taking away his king­dome from him.

The Faithfull are also called to suffer in this life, for to follow the steps of our Lord Jesus Christ. For even hereunto were yee called saith S. Peter, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving us an exam­ple that yee 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 yee shall have tribula­tion, saith our Lord to his Disci­ples, John 16. 33. And in another place, Whosoever taketh not his crosse, and followes after me, he is not worthy of me, Math. 10. 38. Therefore the pains and afflictions that be­fall the Faithfull, are not to satisfie the Justice of God, neither for the guilt, nor for the punishment [Page 44] of sinnes, but to follow the steps of Jesus Christ our Lord.

CHAP. V.
That a man not being able to satis­fie the Justice of God for his own sinnes, cannot by consequent sa­tisfie for the sinnes of others.

OUr Adversaries have not been contented to teach, that a man is able to satis­fie the Justice of God for the pu­nishment due to his own sinnes: but have gone a great deale far­ther, and are come to such a height of absurdity, as to teach, That one man may satisfie 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, [Page 45] they alleadge that a justified man, in this life, may doe more satis­factory workes than is needfull for the paying of the Temporall punishment remaining for his sinnes. And that having finished the satisfaction ordained for the said punishment: All the penall and satisfactory workes that hee doth afterwards, are superaboun­dant: which workes being apply­ed unto another with an intention to satisfie for him, are allowed as satisfactory for the punishment of his sins.

Answ. I have shewed already and proved out of expresse texts of the Word of God, and invin­cible reasons, That a man is not able to satisfie the justice of God for himselfe, and by consequent, much lesse for another. Never­thelesse, it is necessary to shew a­gaine, the impiety of this doctrine.

[Page 46] First if a man ought and may sa­tisfie the justice of God for ano­ther, it followes 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 bee saved, but the name of Jesus. Act. 4. 12.

Moreover, I demand of these Doctors, whether a man can sa­tisfie for another, before hee have fully and wholy satisfied for his owne sinnes, and have none left behinde? for otherwise, how can a man satisfie for another, if himselfe be still indebted? If so be then, a man cannot be without sinne: it followeth he cannot sa­tisfie for himselfe, and consequent­ly much lesse for another. But [Page 47] the first is true, therefore the last also. I prove the Antecedent of my Argument by the proper confession of these Doctors, yeel­ding us that concupisence remain­eth still in a man: but yet they say (for an evasion) that it is not sinne as touching the guilt, but an inclination and an alluring unto sinne, being onely an originall punishment of the sinne of Adam; wherein they deceive themselves grosly: for whatsoever is a trans­gression of the Commandement of God, is sinne as touching the guilt. But concupiscence is a transgression of the commande­ment of God, Thou shalt not covet, Exod. 20. 17. Rom. 7. 7. There­fore concupiscence is sin as touch­ing the guilt.

Item, If sinne begets concu­piscence in a man, it followeth that concupiscence is sinne as [Page 48] touching the guilt: for what o­ther thing can sin beget in a man, but sinne it selfe? But the Ante­cedent is true: forSinne, saith SaintPaul, taking occasion by the commandement, wrought in mee all manner of concupiscence, Rom.7. 8. Ergo the Consequent also: and therefore a man is never without sinne: sinne I say in the very guilt, concupiscence remaining still in him.Salomon teacheth us so much, when he saith, Thata Just man falleth into sinne seaven times a day, Pro.24. 16. If we say,saith Saint John,that wee have no sinne, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us. 1. Epist.1. 8. I am carnall, saith Saint Paul,sould under sinne. I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing. For the good that I would, I doe not: but the evill I would not, that I doe,Rom.7. 14. 18. 19. It is enough [Page 49] now O Lord,saidElias, 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 sinnes, Matth. 6. 11. and Luke 11. 4. Whence it appeares plainely, that a man is not able to keepe him­selfe one day without offending his God: That he hath sinne al­wayes dwelling in him, and con­sequently that he cannot wholly satisfie the justice of God.

In a word, I aske of these Do­ctors, how shall that man take up­on him to satisfie for another, that is not able to know whether hee hath sufficiently satisfied for him­selfe or no? and how shall one sinner trust to the satisfaction of another sinner, that knowes not in what case the other standeth be­fore his God?

CHAP. VI.
That the pretended treasure of the Roman Church, was established onely for to weaken the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ: and to make a little Saint of him that no body may know from the rest of the Saints.

BUt it was not yet enough for our Adversaries to teach men to satisfie the Justice of God; and that they may doe 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 Holinesse is the Guar­dian, and may distribute them to those that have not satisfied suffi­ciently. [Page 51] And it is here that they make Christ a little Saint, that no body can know among the rest of the Saints: Behold we here how they argue, to cloak this Doctrin.

Saint Peter and Saint Paul, (say they) about the latter end of their life, had done so many painefull works, that they had fully accom­plished their satisfaction: After that, they suffered martyrdome; this martyrdome 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 worke of super­erogation. And so may one say of so many other Saints, besides the infinite satisfaction of the blood of Christ and of the Vir­gine Marie, who at the very point of her death, was found to [Page 52] have gathered and heaped up to­gether a very great heape of sa­tisfactions. In summe, with the passion of Christ, saith Paniga­rolle, Lesson. 11. Page. 333. inas­much as it is satisfactory, are joy­ned also (O horrible impiety!) the passion and superabundancies of al the Saints, wherewith is framed the treasury of the holy mother Church, to supply the want of them in whom their owne satis­factory workes are wanting.

All this being builded upon this naughty foundation of their pretended satisfaction, which I have already refuted by expresse 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 [Page 53] for feare, to see the merits of the passion of the sonne 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?

SaintPeter teaches us thatthere is no salvation in any other but in Christ Jesus: And that there is no other name under heaven given unto men, whereby wee must bee saved.Act. 4. 12. Item,To him give all the Prophets witnesse, that through his Name whosoever beleeveth in him, shall receive remission of sins, Act. 10. 43. and contrariwise, these Doctors teach men to seeke for salvation and remission of sinnes [Page 54] in the name of Saints.

Saint Paul teacheth us that we have redemption through the blood of Christ, even the forgivenesse of sins, Col. 1. 14. But these Doctors teach men to seeke after Redemp­tion and remission of sins through the blood of Martyrs.

Saint John affirmeth, that the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sinne. 1. Epist. 1. 7. and that the faithfull have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lambe. Revel. 7. 14. But these Doctors, on the contrary, teach men to wash and to cleanse their sinnes in the blood of Saints de­parted: which is to reject the death and passion of Christ, as Pa­nigarolle teaches it plainely in his ninth Lesson, Page 278, saying, It is a great sinne and foolery to say I trust to be saved by the blood of Je­sus Christ. Panigarolle▪ Lesson 9. p. [Page 55] By so many expresse places of the word of God, and necessary conse­quences drawne out of the same, the pretended satisfaction of our adversaries is cast to the ground and cut even to the very deepest roote: as likewise their Purgato­rie, which they have built upon the same foundation. For, Pur­gatory was invented but for these two ends. The first, to satisfie the justice of God for the punishment of sinnes. Now if we must not satisfie Gods justice for the pun­ishment of sinnes, as I have pro­ved it clearely: It followeth there needeth no Purgatory.

The second is for to intrap and to catch money from the simple people. For, how commeth it to passe, that the Prelates of the Romane Church, have so many thousand pounds of yearely re­venews? That one part of the No­bility [Page 56] is incommodated and be­hind hand; and that the greatest part of the people starve with hunger; but because these men have by divers meanes cunny­catcht a great part of their e­states, and especially by great Donations that many have given at their death, to redeeme their soules from the paine which they thought to suffer in a fire of Pur­gatorie? 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 yeares? Will a man in that perplexity care to leave his poste­rity after him miserable and wretched, in giving away all his estate, So hee may be exempted from the torments of that fire, which, as they say, is seven times hotter than our fire is in this [Page 57] world? Those therefore that laid the first foundation thereof, shew­ed themselves most ungodly and full of covetousnesse, which is the roote 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 Faithfull is in one Christ alone.

AS for the merits of works, we need no long discourse for to shew that they have none at all; seeing that the very best of our works are full of de­fects, being alwaies mingled with [Page 58] some corruptions of the flesh; and man is so subject to sin as that he doth not the good he would, but the evill which he would not; Where­fore the Prophet Esay saith, That we are al as an unclean thing, and that al 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 farre 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 doe. 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 doe, Luk. 17. 10.

Moreover, whatsoever is given us by Grace and Mercy of God, is [Page 59] 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 Faithfull, 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 expresse 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 yee saved, and that not of your selves; it is the gift of God: not of works, least any man should boast, Ephes. 2. 8. 9. and in another place,But af­ter that the kindnesse and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousnesse which [Page 60] we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy-Ghost,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 onely 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, then it followeth, that it doth not proceed from our works. But the first is true: Ther­fore 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 our selves, we will remain constant to that, being [Page 61] assured that by Christ his onely merits, obedience and satisfacti­on, we are absolved and justified before God: which thing the Pro­phet Esay teacheth us when hee 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 ransome 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 sinnes, 1. Epist. 2. 2.

Now our Adversaries alledge certain places of Scripture, which say, that God rewardeth good works: Wherupon they build this syllogisme:

I deny the Major. For there are some undeserved rewards. A Fa­ther may promise his Son a fine suit of cloathes, if he write a good coppie: Now that sonne deserves not that suite of clothes for do­ing well that coppie. For what profit cometh to the father there­by? neverthelesse, the father will give the promised suit onely be­cause of his promise. Even so doth God to his children, gi­ving his Kingdome unto them without any desert, but onely be­cause he hath promised it.

Moreover, a father may be in­duced to give the promised suire to his sonne, because of his du­ty in doing his coppie well, give­ing his father content by that meanes. But none of the faithfull, [Page 63] can doe 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 guiltie of the breach of the whole Law. For who is he that hath not fay­led in some one point or other of the Law? And therefore our Adversaries are very farre wide of that pretended merit they doe attribute to their good workes.

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 keepe a great noyse, and cry out very lowd 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 proofe, they are mightily puzzled, have­ing nothing to shew but some few allegories which they bring in upon certaine points of contro­versie: Like unto Foxes which runne into thickets and bushie [Page 65] places to save themselves: True it is, they make a great bucklet of these words, This is my body: which they thinke are very cleare to prove, that the bread is transub­stantiated into the body of Christ. But I will shew 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 shew what slender cause they have to maintaine the Invocation of Saints departed, and to teach that Christ is not our onely Mediator with God: but that all the Saints in heaven are also our Mediators: and that we must draw neere unto God by them, as wee come neere unto the King by his familiar servants, intreating them to pray for us. [Page 66] A Doctrine which is absolutely false, as I shall prove hereafter out of diverse expresse places, and necessary consequences drawne out of the Word of God.

First of all then, wee aske of them one expresse text out of the Word of God, or one necessary consequence drawne out of the same for the proofe 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 meerely invented by men a­gainst the Word of God, as I will shew hereafter. And albeit it were not contrary unto the same; I yet maintaine that it ought to bee rejected of every Christian, because it is a vaine worshipping of God, to worship him after the Doctrine and com­mandements of men. As our [Page 67] Lord Jesus Christ tearmeth it. Marke 7. 7.

Moreover, I prove that this doctrine cannot be without great sinne. For whatsoever is done without the Word of God, is done without faith. Faith, saith Saint Paul, commeth 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 sinne.

In briefe, 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 [Page 68] in whom we have beleeved, Rom. 10. 14. But we doe not beleeve in the Saints departed; but in one onely God, Father, Son, and holy Ghost. Therefore we ought not to call upon Saints departed, but upon God alone, in whom we beleeve.

That Doctrine which teacheth men to goe 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 goe directly to Christ, and that he is the onely Way, to goe to the Father. Come unto me, saith he, al ye that labour and are heavie laden, and I will give you rest, &c. Math. 11. 28. He would not have us then goe unto him by the Saints departed. I am, saith he, the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man commeth unto the Father but by me, John 14. 6.

That Doctrine which teacheth [Page 69] 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, ThatGod alone knoweth the hearts of all the sonnes of men, 1. Kin. 8. 38.

Whereupon it followeth, That the Saints departed doe 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 onely Mediator between God and man, to wit, Christ Jesus: It followeth, That the Saints departed are not our Mediators with God, and by Con­sequent, [Page 70] that it is unprofitable to pray unto them to pray for us. But the Antecedent is true; Ther­fore 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 con­troversie 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 expresse 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 [Page 71] 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, aswell 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 Jesuite, in his answer to my Book, Of the Cabale 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, Therfore he hath but one Crown.

But this answer comes from a grosse 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 [Page 72] the same example he produceth, that if we aske one, How much mony 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 aske how many Ad­vocates we have with God? and reading the whole Word of God, I finde that it shews 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 Logick, whereunto he sends me, seeing he sheweth himself so ignorant ther­in, that he may learn better how to judge of Consequences.

Moreover, God will not give his glory unto another; I am, saith [Page 73] he, the Lord, such is my name. I will not give my Glory unto another, nor my prayse 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 appeare, 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 onely unto the Creator.

CHAP. IX.
That the Images of the Roman Church, are made against the Commandement of God▪ and that the adoration which they give un­to them, is meere Idolatry.

AS for the Images of theRo­manChurch, It is certaine that they are made directly against the Commandement of God, (as I have shewed before) which in the second Commande­ment 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 reare you up a standing Image, neither shall you set up any Image of stone in your Land, to how down unto it: for I [Page 75] am the Lord your God,Levit. 26. 1.

Our Adversaries doe answer, That God hath forbidden Images, for to worship them, but not as touching the representation. But I will even in that, shew that they transgresse the Commandement of God, and commit Idolatry. For if they cause Images to be erected for to worship them: It follow­eth, that they swerve from the Commandement of God, and that they are Idolaters. But the first is true; I prove it by the second Councell of Nice, That comman­deth straightly to have Images, and to worship them. Besides, let any man see the books of their Schoolemen upon this point of Images, and they shall finde them all reach, That the Image ought to be worshipped with the Ima­gined, making but one adoration of the Image, and of the thing [Page 76] represented by the Image.

When they see themselves con­vinced by their owne 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 Israelits did well to make the Gol­den calfe, and Moses very ill in breaking of it. For these Calves thought to worship the true God by means of that calfe, Exod. 32. 5. 6. Ezekias had likewise done ill in taking away the Brasen 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 shew us one [Page 77] expresse 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 alledge, 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 passe unto the fi­nall object, and therefore they are no Idolaters.

But that will not serve their turn: For whosoever giveth unto the creature that worship which [Page 78] belongeth unto the Creator, is an Idolater. But the Doctors of the Roman Church confesse 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 al­ledging that their Adoration pas­seth to the finall 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 finall object, is as vain. For, the Image being then first wor­shipped, at least partaketh with the Adoration; which is meere Idolatry.

[Page 79] Now, these Doctors telling us (for a shift) That the Adoration passeth to the finall object, in that confesse under-hand tacitely, 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 himselfe 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 theRoman Church, (that are not well instructed in the Doctrine of their Doctors) think assuredly, that the adoration of I­mages isDulia, and the adoration of the things imagined or repre­sented, to beLatria. 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, [Page 80] (saithPanigarole 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 ofDulia.But it will never be proved, That the wor­ship of the Image, isDulia,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 aske of our Adver­saries one expresse text out of the Word of God, or any one neces­sary Consequence drawne 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 rayling instead of answering.

We aske them again, who hath [Page 81] 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, therfore he cānot be represented by such mate­riall and corporall things, it being an horrible blasphemy to go about to represent the God-head with such things. Wherefore the Pro­phetEsay cryeth aloud against such Idolaters;To whom then will yee liken God? or what likenesse will yee compare him unto? or to whom shall I be equall, 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 SaintPaul saith,That professing themselves to be wise, they became fooles, and changed the Glory of the uncorruptible God, into an Image [Page 82] made like to corruptible Man, and to Birds and foure-footed Beasts,Rom. 1. 22. 23.

This adoration of Dulia, which they give unto Saints, cannot chuse but be a great sinne, 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 sinne and Idolatry.

In summe, 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 beleeved to be gods; as of Jupiter, Hercules, Apollo, Juno, Venus, Diana, and o­thers. But these Idolaters here, see by the Word of God, how [Page 83] much Idolatry is in abomination unto the Lord: and neverthelesse, they worship the Images of things, which as themselves confesse are no gods, as of the true Crosse, of the Virgin Mary, of Saint Francis, of Saint Dominick, and others: and are come so farre even as to wor­ship Tabernacles, Boxes, and such other like things. But if any man thinke that I accuse them wrong­fully, and lay to their charge that which they doe not teach: Let him take the paines to reade their Canons and Books, and namely, the Lessons of Francis Panigarolle, a renowned Doctor amongst them, and he shall finde, that the Pagans, never came to such a height of Idolatry.

CHAP. X.
That foure rules shew 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 humane 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 darknesse of a Tradition and unwritten Word. It is true, they boast much of [Page 85] these Words, This is my body: and make a shew to sticke close to those Foure 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 wholy destroyeth the hu­mane nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. The which I will prove by these foure rules following, which will put us out of all doubt; For they certainly shew 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, shew that there is a Figure.

The second, whether the time in which it is spoken, is to make a Figure.

[Page 86] 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 foure 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 doe shew, 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, ought to be under­stood sacramentally, and not lite­rally. Again, The circumstances of the preceding and subsequent words doe shew also, that there is a Figure. For in the foregoing words, the Scripture saith, that [Page 87] Christ took bread, brake it, and gave it. But it is not given till after the consecration: therefore he gave bread. And to the subsequent words hee addeth these words, This is my body, which is broken for you. But the body of Christ was not broken in the Lords Supper; no not on the very Crosse it selfe; 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 doe that in remembrance of him, 1. Cor. 11. 24. Therefore there is a figure in these words,This is my body.

[Page 88] 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 goe to his Father, as he testifieth of him­selfe, saying, I leave the World, and goe to the Father, John 16. 28. I am no more in the World, John 17. 11. Yee have the poore with you alwaies, but me yee have not alwaies, Mar. 14. 7. But hee 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; Doe this, saith he, in re­membrance of me. For as often as yee eate this bread, and drink this cup, yee doe shew the Lords death till he come, 1. Cor. 11. 26. And that, to [Page 89] represent unto us, That even as the bread and wine nourisheth our bodies in this Temporall life: So his flesh and his blood are the food of our soules in the Eternall life. Therefore there is a figure in these words, This is my body.

By the third rule, it appeareth also clearely, that these words, This is my body, are to be under­stood figuratively. For as it is impossible that twice two be not foure, but there must bee the first odde 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, sinne ex­cepted, saith the Apostle, Heb. 2. 17. Therefore it cannot be in di­vers places at once.

Our Adversaries would faine cover themselves with the omni­potency [Page 90] 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 Sonne should take a true humane 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 trans­forme the Pope into a monster ha­ving seven heads, and ten hornes, and al his Disciples into Grashop­pers: but he doth not doe it.

In a word, He will not have the body of his Sonne to be in divers places at once, because there would be in him Yea and Nay. Yea in that he will have every physicall and composed body to be in one onely place: Nay, If he would have the body of his Son which is such, to be in severall places at once.

Moreover, every true humane [Page 91] body is a materiall substance, that hath his naturall and inseparable properties, one of which is to be limited, circumscribed and con­tained in one certaine 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, Thatif some space be not given unto it that may con­tain it after the same manner as other bodies are, its humane nature is de­stroyed,Epist.37. ad Dardanum.Therefore there is a figure in these words,This is my body.

The fourth rule also shewes 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 [Page 92] ours in all things, sinne 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 crumme of the Hoste, 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 selfe same body, may be higher and lower than it selfe, and that there is some distance be­tween Christs 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 eares altoge­ther: and by Consequent, it hath a length without extent, that is, a length and no length.

3 Thirdly, That Christ did eat [Page 93] himselfe, 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 stomack, ha­ving the inside out, and the outside in, which is a thing more absurd than if the scabberd were in the sword; For being in the sword, it were in another thing than it selfe. 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 soone as Christ had supped, he went to the Garden of Olives, where he swate greate drops of blood, was apprehended, and fi­nally, Crucified. But the same that was in his and the Apostles sto­macks, did not sweat great drops [Page 94] 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 bin above said, That these words, This is my body, must not be taken literally, but fi­guratively.

Neverthelesse, our Adversaries are so wilfull and obstinate in this, as to affirme still, That these words must be taken literally and with­out a figure: and that the bread of the Masse, is transubstantiated in­to the body of Christ: alledging, that God is able to doe 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 goe about to tell us of his power. There is no opinion so extravagant or fanta­sticall, [Page 95] but may be maintained in saying that God is powerfull e­nough to make it to bee so. To prove a doctrine, onely because God is omnipotent; is an open confession of their weakenesse. There be some things that God cannot doe, because he is omni­potent. He cannot lye: He can­not contradict himselfe. Gods omnipotencie ought not to be a cloake unto Error, nor serve as a refuge to falshood and Ido­latry. Therefore wee must see first whether it bee his truth or no.

1. In the first place, the Apo­stle to the Hebrewes telleth us, that Christ is like unto his brethren in all things, sinne excepted, Heb. 2. 16. 17. Therefore it is a thing con­trarie unto the truth of God, to teach that he may be in a million of places at one and the same time. [Page 96] For to have a true body, and to be like unto his brethren in al things, he must be in one, and not in many places.

2. Himselfe tels us that hee leaveth the World, and goes to the Father, John 16. 28. That hee is no more in the World. John 17. 11. That we shall have the poore alwayes, but we shall not have him alwayes. Marke 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 wee have him invisibly under the Species of the bread and wine.

But that will not serve their turne. For, to have Christ in­visibly, is still to have Christ. That man were a lyer that should say he had no clothes, because they [Page 97] are hid in a trunke. Even so hee were a lyer that should say he had not Christ, because he is hidden under the Species of bread and wine. But he saith expresly, Wee shall not have him alwayes; That he leaves the World, and goes to the Fa­ther. Sentences which should be false if he were yet in the world betweene the hands of a Priest saying Masse, or lockt up in a pix or box. And as touching that which hee saith, Matth. 28. 20. That hee shall be with us unto the end of the World: That is very true: not according to his Humane na­ture, but according to his Divi­nity, power and efficacie of the holy Ghost, whereby he guideth, governeth, and ruleth his Church. We have Christ alwayes, according to the presence of his Majesty, saith Saint Austin; but according to the presence of his flesh, it was truly said [Page 98] unto the Apostles, Ye shall not have me alwayes, August. 50 Treatise upon Saint John.

3. Saint Peter saith, That Hea­ven must containe him untill the times of restitution of al 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 beleeve and confesse, That he a­scended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father. Item, That from thence hee 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 [Page 99] places as there are Masses said.

But for asmuch as they alledge, without any respect to Gods truth, that it is his wil, manifested in these words This is my body: I wil shew 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 signe, and the thing signifi­ed; the one thing terrestriall, and the other celestiall. It was his wil 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 signe and the terrestriall thing: And his body and blood, which are the celestiall and signi­fied thing. The signes received by the corporal mouth, and the thing signified by faith, according to [Page 100] 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 signifie. 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 alwayes to the signe the name of the thing signified, using in all Sacraments the word is for signifieth.

But forasmuch as all the dif­ficulty lyeth upon this word is, to know whether it ought to be taken properly, or by signifieth in this euunciation, 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 signes doe [Page 101] beare 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 signes in the Sa­crament of the Lords Supper, ought to beare 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 proofes.

1. The Circumcision was a Sa­crament among the Jewes, that signified the Covenant of God, as it is said in the 17 of Genesis, vers. 10. 2. 4. 7. Every man-childe among you shall be circumcised, and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt mee and you. But in the same chapter this Cir­cumcision is called the Covenant it selfe, I will make my Covenant [Page 102] betweene me and thee. As for mee, behold my Covenant is with thee. I will establish my Covenant betweene 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 signe. So Christ following the style of the holy Scripture, did call the bread his body.

2. The Paschall Lambe was also a Sacrament among the Jews, which represented the passeover of the Angel that passed by in E­gypt. Neverthelesse it is called e­ven the passeover it selfe. And thus shall ye eate it: with your loynes girded, your shooes on your feet, and your staffe in your hand: and ye shall eate it in haste: for it is the Lords passeover. Exod. 12. 11.

3. The Arke of the Covenant was also a Sacrament among the Jewes, which represented the [Page 103] Lord: but it is called the Lord himselfe 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 Arke of God whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hostes that dwelleth up­on it betweene the Cherubins, 2 Sam. 6. 2.

4. The Rock from which came out waters in the Wildernesse, was also a signe and a sacrament among the Jewes, that signified the refection and spirituall food which the faithfull have in our Lord Jesus Christ: but it is cal­led Christ, even by Saint Paul. Our Fathers did all eate the same spi­rituall meate: and did all drinke the same spirituall drink: for they all drank of that spirituall rock that fol­lowed them: and that Rock was Christ, 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4.

[Page 104] P [...]anigarolle in his Lessons, page 477. deceiveth himselfe 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 sence and meaning of the Apostle, he would not have said that the rock was Christ, but that Christ was the rocke. 2. Also he would not have said in the passive tense was, but in the present tense is: For he is alwayes both the fundamen­tall and chiefe corner stone of the Church.

3. To discerne the truth, wee must but consider the words of the Apostle: for hee saith That our Fathers did all eate of the same spirituall meate, and did all drinke of the same spirituall drinke, 1. Cor. 10. 2. But this spirituall meate was the Manna. Exod. 16. 15. [Page 105] which he calleth spirituall be­cause it was a figure of Christ: Likewise, this spirituall drinke, was the water issuing forth of the rock. Exod. 17. 6. Numb. 20. 10. 11. which also he calleth spiritu­all drinke, because its significati­on was spirituall. But as by this spirituall meat, Saint Paul did not meane Christ himselfe: So by this spirituall drinke he did not understand Christ himselfe, but the water that flowed out of the Rock. It is therefore cleare e­nough, that this Rock whereof he speaketh, is the same whence the waters flowed in the Wilder­nesse, which he calleth Christ, be­cause it was a figure of Christ.

The which is plainely shewed in the foregoing words of Sea, and Cloude. For the Sea, the Cloude, and the Rock are used in one and the selfe same kind, and to one [Page 106] and the selfe same end. Even so then as it was a true Sea, and a true cloude: so this Rock was a true Rock. And it is said it fol­lowed the people: because the streames of waters that issued forth of this Rock, followed this people a long time in the Wil­dernesse.

Againe, Christ saith, That he is the true Vine, John 15. 1. That he is the doore 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 it selfe, but a Sacra­ment thereof.

As for Baptisme, 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 naturall corrup­tion.

[Page 107] But without going from the Sa­crament, whereof we now treat▪ there is sufficient matter to shew 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 Lords 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 twise in the same place, and within three words one of another, viz. This is my bo­dy, which is broken for you, &c. These subtill Doctors, enemies of [Page 108] 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 subtilty; for according to this Doctrine, an arme 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 onely Sa­cramentally: It followeth, that [Page 109] this word is, ought 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 Lords 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 Mathew 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 foure [Page 110] corner Cap of a Jesuite is not a Jesuite: so the blood of the New Testament, is not the New Testa­ment.

Adde 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 summe, 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 expresse texts, and invincible reasons, is this propo­sition evidently proved: That in all Sacraments, the signes do beare the name of the thing signified; and that this word is, is put for signifieth or representeth; and Con­sequently, [Page 111] that the bread and wine, remaining still bread and wine, at the Sacrament of the Lords sup­per, doe beare the name of the body and blood of Christ whom they signifie. 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 signe 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 Mar­cion, chap. 40. Whereby it appea­reth that this popish doctrin is no lesse contrary unto the wil of God than unto his truth manifested in his Word.

CHAP. XI.
That it is not enough (for to have Eternall life) to eate Christs flesh; but that we must also drinke his blood; And therefore all Christi­ans indifferently ought to com­municate under both kindes, ac­cording to the Commandement of Christ, and the Apostle Saint Paul.

THe Pope and his Associats doe keepe men easily in their Idolatry and false doctrines, by these two meanes. 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 poyson which they give unto the simple to drink. It is a thing worthy of compassi­on [Page 113] to see sometimes these Do­ctors in the Pulpit torment them­selves, gnash their teeth for an­ger, and spew out a thousand inju­ries, slanders, & forg'd 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 workes, to amuse their hearers, and entertaine them in that opi­nion, that they preach a true, and wholesome doctrine. This is the cause the Papists sometimes doe intreat us to goe heare their sermons. O silly people, ye have not yet learned what the depths of Satan are, that can transforme himselfe into an Angel of light for to seduce men. Apoc. 2. 24. Ye [Page 114] hearken not to Christs warning, when he saith, Beware of false Pro­phets which come to you in sheepes clothing, but inwardly they are raven­ing [...]olfe [...]. Math. 7. 15. Ye know not that Antichrist hath two hornes like a Lambe, but speaketh as a Dra­gon. Apoc. 13. 11. Poore sedu­ced people that [...]eed your selves with shewes of good, wherewith they hide the falshood which they give you, without inquiring of the truth, so easie to be found in the Word of God to confound your Doctors. Aske 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 doe; and ye shall make them as dumb as fishes.

Those red Hats, and fur'd Hoods, assembled at the Councels of Con­stance and Trente, acknowledge in the thirteenth and fifth Sessions [Page 115] of the said Councels, 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 kindes was very frequent and ordin [...]ry in the beginning of Christian Re­ligion; and yet neverthelesse, they are so bold and impudent as to put an Anathema upon him that shall say that all every one of the Faithfull ought to receive under both kindes the Sacrament of the Eucharist, by the comman­dement of God. Declaring that this custome of receiving under one kinde, ought to be held as a Law: forbidding every Christian to beleeve or teach otherwise. Be­hold how these Doctors have ban­ded themselves openly against Christ, whom they have Anathe­matised with the Apostle Saint [Page 116] Paul. Our Lord, for saying unto his Disciples when he gave them the Cup, Drinke yee all of it: Math. 26. 27. And the Apostle, for commanding to every one of the Corinthians, to examine him­selfe, and so eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. 1. Corinth. 11. 28.

Now, because this is sufficient to make it appeare that the Pope is contrary unto Christ, they la­bour to put off this blow, alledg­ing that Christ spake to none but to his Apostles, which were pa­stours; and so, that this priviledge of receiving under both kindes, be­longs to Priests onely, and not to Lay men; but they cannot shun it so; for if Christ command all his Disciples to doe that which he had done in the supper: It follow­eth that all his Disciples indiffe­rently ought to communicate un­der [Page 117] both kinds; but the first is true, doe (saith he) this is remembrance of me. 1. Cor. 11. 24. Therefore the last also.

And seeing that the Jesuites at this day, besides the Conse­quences drawne out of the Word of God, doe aske of us still some expresse Texts and Arguments whereof the two first propositi­ons be in the Scriptures: Here be some.

Whosoever bids every man to exa­mine himselfe, and so eate of this Bread and drink of this Cup: com­mandeth all the Faithfull indifferent­ly to communicate under both kinds.

But Saint Paulcommandeth eve­ry one to examine himselfe, and so eate of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, 1.Cor.11. 28. Therefore he com­mandeth al the Faithful, indifferently to communicate under both kinds.

Again,Whosoever saith in the Sa­crament [Page 118] of the Lords Supper, Drink yee all of it: biddeth every one to drinke of this Cup, 1. Cor. 11. 28.

But Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith, Drink yee all of it.Math. 26. 27.

Therefore he commandeth every one to drink of this Cup, 1. Cor. 11.

Behold some expresse texts and cōsequences drawn out of the pure Word of God, for the proofe 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 onely.

First they produce a place out of Saint Luke, who saith, That in Emaus, as Christ sate at meat with the two Disciples, He took Bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to [Page 119] 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 doe inferre, 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 onely.

To which I answer, 1. That I have already brought expresse texts out of the Word of God, whereby it is expresly comman­ded to all Christians to drinke of [Page 120] the cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: and therefore that it is not in the Churches 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 haire and against their true mean­ing, to establish a doctrine con­trary unto expresse textes: 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 expresse and plaine texts. Drinke yee all of it. Math. 26. Let Every man examine himselfe, and so let him drink of this cup. 1. Cor. 11. 3.

That even from these places produced by them, no man can in­ferre [Page 121] that it is in the power of the Church to take away the Cup from the people. 1. For in that of Saint Lukes, it is not spoken of the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per, but of a common repast, at which it was Christs accustomed manner to breake 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 eate with such a one, It doth [Page 122] not follow that I dranke not with him.

3. That if in these places the Sacrament of the Lords supper be meant, and there was no wine at it: It followeth that neither Christ nor the Apostles dranke at it, and consequently that Priests are no more bound than the Lay peo­ple to communicate under both kindes. 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 kindes of bread and wine severally, to represent the separation that was made on the Crosse 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, [Page 123] but of Christs flesh given up­on the Crosse for the life of the World; not perceiving that by this meanes they even overthrow themselves. For here are Christs words, Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood, yee have no life in you. Who­soever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternall 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 eate the flesh of Christ by faith under the signe of bread, but we must also drinke his blood spiri­tually by faith under the signe of the wine, seeing Christ hath in­stituted this holy Sacrament un­der both signes of bread and wine; the one to be broken, and the o­ther to be shed or powred forth [Page 124] in remembrance of him: the which he chiefly recommended of the Cup, saying, Drinke yee 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 halfe of that holy sa­crament. And therefore it is to no purpose to alledge the concomi­tancie. For, to eate a morsell of bread in forme of a Wafer, is not to drinke Christs blood as hee biddeth it expresly, saying, That Except we drinke his blood, we have no life in us. John 6.

CHAP. XII.
That the pretended Sacrifice of the Masse was onely established for to annihilate the power and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Crosse. And that there is but one onely Sacrifi­cator sacrificing expiatorily in the Evangelicall Law, to wit, Jesus Christ our Lord.

BRiefly, whosoever shall consi­der the Popes Doctrine, and of his Disciples, he shall see plainly, That it tendeth onely to debase the merit and vertue of the death and passion of our Lord Je­sus Christ: as you may observe by the Doctrine of their pretended sacrifice of the Masse. For these Doctors teach, that it is a second sacrifice of Christ, propitiatory both for the quicke and for the [Page 126] dead; which is plainly to deny that the Sacrifice of the Crosse hath the power and efficacy to take away sinnes, unlesse it be reitera­ted. But the Apostle Saint Paul teacheth us plainly, that the sacri­fice of the Crosse, hath at once ta­ken sin wholly away, when he saith, That by the wil 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 Crosse there is for­givenesse of these things: There­fore there is no more oblation for sinne.

[Page 127] Against such cleare places, these Doctors arme themselves with a false distinction of Sacrifice, which they could never yet prove, nei­ther out of any expresse 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 continuall application of the merit of the sacrifice of the Crosse.

But this distinction is not able to take them off the hooks. For, the Apostle saying expressely, That there is no more oblation for sin, sheweth us plainly, That there is no other propitiatory sacrifice for sinne, of what kind soever, but that of the Crosse. It is therefore their part, that goe about to give the Apostle the lye, to prove [Page 128] that distinction, shewing by ex­presse texts, or at least by neces­sary consequences drawne out of the pure Word of God, that we ought to sacrifice againe the body of Christ unbloodily, to apply the merit of his bloody sacrifice: which thing they are never able to doe.

For to attaine to this proofe, 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 himselfe un­der the Species of bread and wine. And therefore the distinction of bloody and unbloody sacrifice is true.

We grant the Major, but wee deny the Minor, which is groun­ded [Page 129] upon a falshood. Wee doe not finde in any place of holy Scripture, that Melchisedeck offer­ed to God bread and wine. Wee reade in the 14 of Genesis, vers. 18. that he brought unto Abraham bread and wine for to feede and refresh him and his men that were wearied and travayl'd 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 shew hereafter wher­in consists this order of Mel­chisedeck, according to which or­der Christ is an everlasting Sacri­ficator. At this present, I will presse our Adversaries upon this pretended application, which is [Page 130] the last refuge of falshood brought to the baye upon her back.

We say then that in this pre­tended application, our Adversa­ries grant under hand tacitely, that the Masse is not the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. For, if it be but the application of Christs sacrifice: It followeth it is not Christs sa­crifice. For even as the applicati­on of a plaster is not a plaster; so the application of Christs sacri­fice, is not Christs sacrifice.

And here these Doctors con­fesse freely againe that the Masse is not Christs 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 Masse, say they, is a true sacrifice: There­fore [Page 131] the thing offered in the Masse, is destroyed and consumed.

They yeeld us that too, but to their confusion; for say we,

If the thing offered in the Masse, 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 Masse. It is not true, say they, but it is the Species of bread and wine that are destroyed and consumed: that is, the color, the taste, the roundnesse and quan­tity of the bread and wine. They confesse therefore freely that the Masse is not Christs sacrifice, see­ing that he is not destroyed, but onely a sacrifice of roundnesses, of measures, of lines, of castles in the ayre, well befitting such a Religion, wherein all is nothing but Maske and hypocrisie.

Moreover, the application of [Page 132] a thing, is not the thing applyed. As for example, The water of the Bath is applyed by meanes of the channel or conduit-pipe: Yet it is not the pipe. Physicke is admi­nistred with a cup or vessel, but it is not the vessel: and so of all o­ther things. But contrariwise, these suttle Doctors will have the application and the thing apply­ed to be one and the selfe same thing. For they say that Christs sacrifice is applyed by the sacri­fice of the same Christ. But they have not cunning enough yet to perswade us that although the Masse were good, it could be both the Physicke and the vessel toge­ther.

But, say our Adversaries, doe we an injury to the physick by ap­plying it with the vessell? doe we wrong to the water of the Bath, when we receive it by the channel? [Page 133] doe we wrong to the bloody sa­crifice, in applying it by the un­bloody sacrifice?

Yea Doctors, ye doe wrong to the Physick, when ye attribute un­to the vessel the vertue of healing, which is onely proper to the phy­sicke. Ye doe wrong to the wa­ter of the Bath, when ye attri­bute unto the conduit-pipe the cure which the water onely work­eth. Likewise ye doe wrong to the sacrifice of the Crosse, when yee attribute to your pretended sacri­fice of the Masse the vertue to ex­piate sinnes, as if the other alone were insufficient.

Wee hold therefore, that Christ cannot bee offered a­gaine in sacrifice for the forgive­nesse of sinnes, without making voyde the vertue and efficacy of the sacrifice of the Crosse. For of two plasters, either the one [Page 134] is sufficient to heale 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 sinnes, 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 followes 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 Crosse hath the vertue alone to expiate sins.

The Word of God doth not teach us that there is two different sacrifices of Christ, the one bloody [Page 135] the other unbloody. The Apostle to the Hebrewes imployeth many leafes 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 Lords Sup­per.

Finally, our Adversaries affirme that the Masse is an unbloody pro­pitiatory sacrifice instituted by Christ, both for the quick and for the dead. Enquired where he in­stituted it: they bring these words, Doe this. Admirable proofe! Doe this, that is to say, sacrifice me re­ally under the kindes of bread and wine in propitiatory sacrifice both for the quicke and for the dead. That is a good glosse. But by these words Doe this, Christ com­mandeth to doe that which he did at the Supper. Therefore they should have prooved first that [Page 136] Christ did at the Lords Supper sacrifice himselfe to God his Fa­ther, which he did not doe. Ne­verthelesse, some of them doe go about to prove it, alleadging 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 Crosse: 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 himselfe to God his Father in the sacrament. For he offered onely to his Disciples, saying unto them Take. But he offereth nothing to God, he maketh no Elevation of [Page 137] an Hoste. 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 sheweth, they did not think that bread to be transubstan­tiated into the body of Christ. For otherwise, it had been an ex­treame 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 doe, John 17. 4. Neverthelesse, there remained the principall thing, to wit, his death upon the Crosse. [Page 138] The Lambe 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 farre 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 Crosse, on which he gave himself for the life of the World.

Some others argue thus; All effusion of blood for the Remissi­on of sinnes, is a propitiatory Sa­crifice: But Christ saith that his blood is shed in the Eucharist for [Page 139] the Remission of sinnes: 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 sence that our Adversaries take it in. First, it is false that an effusion of blood is a propitiatory Sacri­fice for the Remission of sinnes: Unlesse 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 Crosse: 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 shal be [Page 140] shed: is to no purpose. For I have above stopt this passage, in shew­ing out of divers places of the ho­ly Scriptures, that this word, is, is oftentimes taken in the Future. And indeed, the Latine Bible of the Roman Church, and the Canon of the Masse, turnes 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 aske of them, whether Christs 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 inclosed in the vessell that containeth it. And besides, they call the Masse an un­bloody Sacrifice. Neverthelesse, [Page 141] contradicting themselves grosse­ly, they will not give over writing and affirming that Christ shed his blood there. We aske them then, how, and after what manner it is shed in the Masse. 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 onely that are shed. Now I leave it to the judg­ment of all men, whether this be not with one breath to deny, and affirme 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 onely acci­dents of wine are shed? They have bin 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 cōtain him, are broken. The conclusion which [Page 142] 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 onely a Sacrifice of thanksgi­ving: for there is but one propi­tiatory Sacrifice for sinne, which is that of the Crosse.

Now, even as there is but one onely expiatory Sacrifice, so there is but one onely 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 roome.

And it is here that these new sa­crificers labour in vain to prove their pretended calling: For it is [Page 143] 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 kindes 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 plainely here above: therefore the last also.

But to make the Error of this allegation appear the more plain­ly, [Page 144] we must but adde 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 falshood of such a proposition? This word, As, ther­fore, must not be understood of the Kingly, or Propheticall Office, and Priesthood of Christ. It is a presumption and temerity for men to assume unto themselves such titles: but onely for the preaching of the Gospel, admini­string of Sacraments, and things which onely regard the Mini­stery. Christ gave them not any other Office.

[Page 145] 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 Righteousnesse, and also, King of Peace: which are titles be­longing to Christ, and which the Prophets also give him. For he is King of Righteousnesse, 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 [Page 146] descent, having neither beginning of daies, nor end of life: but being made like unto the Sonne of God, abideth a Priest for ever. Behold then wher­in 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 plainely 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 sacrfice of the Masse: Then it would fol­low, that Christ should not be a Priest for ever, seeing the Masse shall not endure for ever.

Therefore, Even as the same Melchisedeck was not head of any Order of Priesthood, but onely a Priest after his own Order under the Law: So Christ the onely [Page 147] 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 againe our Lord Jesus Christ to God his Father, standes 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 crature to sacrifice the Creator; or for men sinners, to sacrifice the Lambe 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. Peters successor) hath intruded himselfe into that office, without any lawfull calling: and shew­eth himselfe to be Antichrist, in doing quite contrary to that which Christ and S. Peter did.

TO be short, It seemeth that our Adversaries wil be Chri­stians no longer: having not only forsaken the Doctrin, but the very name also, for to take the name of Catholicks. God in his Justice would not suffer that they should retain the name which belongeth onely to true Christians, that fol­low his word, and trust in his pro­mises. For to be a true Christian, [Page 149] it is not enough to beleeve onely 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, righteousnesse and satisfaction for our sinnes. But our Adversa­ries doe not receive him so, seeing they have established their righte­ousnesse in their own works, by which they thinke to deserve the kingdome of God. They will say indeed, that his blood shed upon the Crosse is our Purgatory: but they doe establish another in an Imaginary fire. They say that the sacrifice he made upon the Crosse hath taken away our sinnes: but they have established another sa­crifice to blot them away againe; and all against the Word of God. Therefore they cannot boast that they are Christians, but rather An­tichristians, that have rejected the [Page 150] 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 shewing himselfe that he is God, 2. Thes. 2. 4.

But for as much as the Popes Disciples do cloak this mystery of iniquity with some places of Scrip­ture, wherby they pretend to prove that S. Peter was established Head of the Universall Church, and Prince of the Apostles; because they would maintaine the Pope, who by cunning hath intruded himself into that office: I wil shew in few words that Saint Peter was not Prince of the Apostles, nor head of the Universall Church, as they say.

In the first place, the Word of God tels us, That our Lord Jesus [Page 151] 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 ap­peares, that S. Peter was not Head of the Church; For Shee 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 Ministeri­all head: For it is still to make a monster of the Church, in giving her two heads.

Moreover, if S. Peter was mini­steriall head of the Church, and Prince of the Apostles, It must be by the institution of Christ: and if it be by Christs institution, this [Page 152] 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, sheweth us, That Christ did not ap­point Peter to bee 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 Ministery, 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 [Page 153] 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 Universall Church, and Prince of the Apostles; he would not have omitted to set down this principa­lity in the first ranke. But having left it out, it appeareth, That Christ did not ordaine any one for head of the Church, and Prince of the Apostles.

But let us learn of S.Peter him­selfe 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 witnesse of the sufferings of Christ. Feed the flocke of God which is among you, taking [Page 152] [...] [Page 153] [...] [Page 154] the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly: not for filthy lucre, but of a ready minde; neither as being Lords(marke, as being Lords)over Gods heritage: but being ensamples to the Flocke, 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. S.Petertherefore did not beleeve that any Bishop should be Prince among the Apostles, and have speciall 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 controversie, 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 poore. Christ propo­seth [Page 155] himselfe 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 mi­nistred 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 [Page 156] to be most eminent, Galat. 2. 6. He did not then acknowledge any of the Apostles to be above him, as head of the Universall 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 equall in the labor and ministery 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, shewes no superio­rity; but, at most, equality of them that sendeth and of him that is sent. For the inferiour never sen­deth the superiour. I doe verily beleeve that the Pope would not approve of them that should send him to preach in England.

S. Peter was rebuked by S. Paul, [Page 157] who withstood him to the face. The which hee doth after such a manner, as he shewes 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 Universall 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 yeelded him the preheminence.

At the Councell 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 Pe­ters name, but in the name of the whole Assembly: Neverthelesse, this was the place where S. Peter should have exercised this office [Page 158] 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 summe, He calleth himselfe 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 heare a pleasant obje­ction which the Popes 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 spake at the Councell of Jerusalem; The first after Christ to whom the Angels did speak: all [Page 159] which prerogatives doe shew, 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 superiour: the last named shall be the least and the abjectest. Now, if that be true: Christ and Pe­ter shall sit in the lowest ranke in the Church. For Christ himselfe 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 meere foppery, brought in a despe­rate cause for lacke of better rea­sons. [Page 160] S. Peter might be among the Apostles, the first in age or in zeale, or in eloquence, or in vertue and miracles; but not at all in princi­pality and superiority of jurisdi­ction.

Moreover, they alledge againe, That Christ said to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this rocke 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 himselfe, 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.

[Page 161] Againe, Christ hath plainely di­stinguished Peter from the Rock, that is, Simon Peter from the living Rocke upon which is builded the Church. For he saith not super te Petrum, but Super hanc petram, that is to say, upon this Rocke, 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 chiefe corner stone; or up­on him who was a scandal, that is to say, a stumbling stone.

Againe, the Popes Disciples al­ledge that Christ said thrice to [Page 162] [...] my sheep. But there is gr [...] difference betwixt feeding Christs sheep, and to be Universal Head of the Church, and Prince of the Apostles. Christ saith not to him, feed my sheep universally or soveraignly: 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 owne 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 one­ly, and biddeth him three times feed his sheep, because he had de­nyed 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 prooved, [Page 163] 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 lawfull cal­ling: and maintaineth himselfe therein by tyranny, doing and pra­ctising that which neither Christ nor Peter ever did or practised.

1. For neither Christ nor Peter ever shewed themselves in Pontifi­calibus, crown'd with three crowns: nor caused the Kings of the earth to kisse 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 him­selfe 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 [Page 164] to John that would have wor­shipped him, See thou doe 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 himselfe 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 king­domes of the World, nor (for that end) dispensed with any Sub­jects for their oath of allegiance.

4. Saint Peter never caused himselfe 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 Glosse upon the Clemen­tines, and never made himselfe to be called most holy Father.

[Page 165] 5. Saint Peter never stiled him­selfe the Spouse of the Church, The Prince of the Apostles, the Universall Monarch, the Sove­raigne Pastor, the Lyon of Juda, the Saviour of the Church, as the Pope doth, Councell of Lateran Ses­sion. 6. Who in so doing, taketh upon him those titles which be­long onely unto Christ.

6. The Councell of Florence saith, That the Pope may add to the Symbole 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 Symbole, And make Articles of Faith in his Church to bind the consciences of men.

Upon this objection,De Raco­nismaketh a pleasant answer toPeter duMoulin; That which you produce (saith hee in his triumph [Page 166] of truth, page 127.)of the Coun­cell of Florence, that the Pope may add to the Apostles Creed: avayleth nothing. The meaning of it, is only that he may (whether in a Councell or out of a Councell) establish Articles of Faith: But not that hee 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 tels him that the Councell of Flo­rence saith, that the Pope may add to the Apostles Creed. Thereup­on hee answereth that the onely meaning is, that the Pope may make Articles of Faith. Is not that well answered? Doubtlesse, if the Pope may add to the Sym­bole, hee may make Articles of Faith. Therefore he should have [Page 167] 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 onely meaning is, that the Pope may make Articles of Faith? What audaciousnesse is it in this Doctor so to restraine and wrest the words of this Councell, which saith in expresse tearmes 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.

[Page 168] 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 expresse texts of the Word of God, or by necessary consequences drawne 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 onely 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 followes hee 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 [Page 169] proved it already here above as touching the doctrine. It is as easie also to prove it touching man­ners.

1. First, our Lord Jesus Christ shewed himselfe so humble, that although he was King both of hea­ven and earth, yet would he not shew himselfe to be such in this World. He fled unto a Moun­taine when the Jewes would have made him King. John 6. 15. He saith That his kingdome is not of this World. John 18. 30. But the Pope exalteth himselfe above the Em­peror, and above al Kings & Prin­ces of the earth: Therefore he is contrary unto Christ in his man­ners.

2. Christs mind did not runne upon heaping up treasures on earth; but his onely care was to do the Wil of God his Father. He testifieth That the Foxes have holes, [Page 170] and the birds of the ayre 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 Popes care is to gather up treasures and riches. Therefore he is contrary unto Christ in his Manners.

3. Christ, willing to shew him­selfe a patterne 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 kisse his feet de­voutly, out of his pride. Therfore, he is contrary unto Christ in his Manners.

4. Christ was Crowned with a Crowne of Thornes: but it plea­seth his Holinesse to weare three Crownes that are not of the like matter.

5. Christ went into Cities and Townes, preaching, and shewing [Page 171] 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 Crosse, Mat. 10. that is, all manner of affli­ctions and poverty; denying him­selfe and his affections. But the Pope followes not this precept: and by Consequent, cannot be put or placed into the number of Christs Disciples.

8. Christ forbids Fornication: and the Pope ordaineth it, in suffe­ring publick Stewes in Rome and other places, that bring him in great profit.

[Page 172] 9. The Pope likewise shewes himselfe contrary unto Christ in greatnesse and Worldly pompe. It is an admirable thing to see him in his Pontificalibus, crowned with three Crownes, or carried upon mens shoulders through the Ci­ty of Rome, attended with Suit­zers and other guards, both a Horse-back 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 apparell, gar­ments, moveables, Horses, and Of­ficers; all which he hath in great number. Item, in meats, drinks, baths, unctions, corporal delights, pleasures, Musick, Playes, sports, and all Earthly contentments. Wherefore the Consequence of my Argument is most true, and therefore none ought to doubt [Page 173] but thar 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 our selves, according to Gods com­mand, Apoc. 18. 4. and cleave to the Reformed Church, which is the true Church, the onely 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 marke in his Forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the Wine of the wrath of God, which is powred 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 Lambe.