Advertisement: Roman Religion Against the Grounds of the Catechism

Great is the number of them that embrace the religion of the present Church of Rome, being deceived by the glorious titles of universality, antiquity, and succession. And no doubt, though some be willfully blinded, yet many devoted this way never saw any other truth. Now of them and the rest I desire this favor: that they will but weigh and ponder with themselves this one thing which I will now offer to their consideration. That is: the Roman religion now established by the Council of Trent is, in the principal points thereof, against the very grounds of the catechism that have been agreed upon ever since the days of the Apostles by all churches. These grounds are four: the first is the Apostles' Creed; the second is the Decalogue or ten commandments; the third is the form of prayer called the Lord's Prayer; the fourth is the institution of the two sacraments — baptism and the Lord's Supper — 1 Corinthians 11:23.

That I may in some order manifest this which I say, I will begin with the Symbol or Creed. First of all it must be considered that some of the principal doctrines believed in the Church of Rome are these: that the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ and the head of the Catholic Church; that there is a fire of purgatory after this life; that images of God and saints are to be placed in churches and worshipped; that prayer is to be made to saints departed and their intercession to be required; that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daily offered in the mass for the sins of the living and the dead. These points are of such moment that without them the Roman religion cannot stand, and in the Council of Trent the curse of anathema is pronounced upon all such as deny these or any of them. And yet mark: the Apostles' Creed — which has been thought to contain all necessary points in religion to be believed, and has therefore been called the key and rule of faith — this creed has not any of these points. Nor do the expositions made thereof by the ancient fathers, nor any other creed or confession of faith made by any council or church for the space of many hundred years. This is a plain proof to any fair-minded man that these are new articles of faith never known in the Apostolic Church, and that the fathers and councils could not find any such articles of faith in the books of the Old and New Testaments. Answer is made that all these points of doctrine are believed under the article: I believe the Catholic Church — the meaning of which they will have to be this: I believe all things which the Catholic Church holds and teaches to be believed. If this be as they say, we must needs believe in the Church — that is, put our confidence in the Church for the manifestation and certainty of all doctrines necessary to salvation. And thus the eternal truth of God the Creator shall depend on the determination of the creature, and the written word of God in this respect is made insufficient, as though it had not plainly revealed all points of doctrine pertaining to salvation. And the ancient churches have been far overseen in that they did not propose the former points to be believed as articles of faith, but left them to these latter times.

Second: in this Creed, to believe in God and to believe the Church are distinguished. To believe in is pertaining to the Creator; to believe, to the creature — as Rufinus has noted, when he says that by this preposition in, the Creator is distinguished from the creature, and things pertaining to God from things pertaining to men. And Augustine says: it must be known that we must believe the Church and not believe in the Church, because the Church is not God but the house of God. Hence it follows that we must not believe in the saints, nor put our confidence in our works, as the learned Papists teach. Therefore Eusebius says: we ought of right to believe Peter and Paul, but to believe in Peter and Paul — that is, to give to the servants the honor of the Lord — we ought not. And Cyprian says: he does not believe in God who does not place in him alone the trust of his whole happiness.

Third: the article conceived by the Holy Spirit is overturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the mass into the body and blood of Christ. For here we are taught to confess the true and perpetual incarnation of Christ, beginning in his conception and never ending afterward, and we acknowledge the truth of his manhood and that his body has the essential properties of a true body — consisting of flesh and bone, having quantity, figure, and dimensions, namely length, breadth, and thickness, having part out of part as head out of feet and feet out of head, being also circumscribed, visible, and touchable. In a word, it has all things in it which by order of creation belong to a body. It will be said that the body of Christ may remain a true body and yet be altered in respect of some qualities, as namely circumscription. But I say again that local circumscription can by no means be severed from a body if it remains a body. For to be circumscribed in place is an essential property of every quantity, and quantity is the common essence of every body. And therefore a body in respect of its quantity must needs be circumscribed in one place. This was the judgment of Leo, when he said: the body of Christ is by no means outside the truth of our body. And Augustine, when he said: only God in Christ so comes that he does not depart; so returns that he does not leave us. But man according to body is in place, and goes out of the same place, and when he shall come to another place, he is not in the place from which he comes. To help the matter they distinguish thus: Christ's body in respect of its whole essence may be in many places, but not in respect of its whole quantity, whereby it is only in one place. But as I have said, they speak contradictions — for quantity by all learning is the essence of a body, without which a body cannot be.

Fourth: in the Creed we confess that Christ is ascended into heaven, and there after his ascension sits at the right hand of his Father, and that according to his manhood. Hence I conclude that Christ's body is not really and locally in the sacrament and in every host which the priest consecrates. This argument was good when Vigilius against Eutyches said: when it — the flesh — was on earth, it was not in heaven; and because it is now in heaven, it is not on earth. And he adds afterward that this is the Catholic faith and confession. And it was good when Fulgentius said: according to his human substance he was absent from earth when he was in heaven, and he left the earth when he ascended into heaven. And: the same inseparable Christ, according to his whole manhood leaving the earth, locally ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand, and according to the same whole manhood he is to come to judgment. And it was good when Cyril said: no man doubts but that when he ascended into heaven, though he is always present by the power of his Spirit, he was absent in respect of the presence of his flesh. And it was good when Augustine said: according to the flesh which the Word assumed, he ascended into heaven — he is not here; there he sits at the right hand of the Father; and he is here according to the presence of his majesty. And: he went as he was man, and he stayed as he was God; he went by that whereby he was in one place; he stayed by that whereby he was everywhere.

Fifth: again, in that we believe the Catholic Church, it follows that the Catholic Church is invisible — because things seen are not believed. And the answer commonly used — that we believe the holiness of the Church — will not serve the turn. For the words are plain, and in them we make confession that we believe not only the holiness of the Church but also the Church itself.

Sixth: lastly the articles — remission of sins, resurrection of the body, and life everlasting — contain a confession of special faith. For the meaning of them is this: I believe the remission of my own sins and the resurrection of my own body to life everlasting — and that by the judgment of learned antiquity. Augustine says: if you also believe that you shall rise again and ascend into heaven — because you are sure of so great a patron — you are certain of so great a gift. And: make not Christ less, who brings you to the kingdom of heaven for remission of sins; without this faith, if any come to baptism, he shuts the gate of mercy against himself. And: whoever faithfully believes and holds this profession of his faith — in which all his sins are forgiven him — let him prepare his will to the will of God and not fear his passage by death. And: the whole sacrament of baptism stands in this, that we believe the resurrection of the body and remission of sins to be given us by God. And: he gave these keys to the Church, that whoever in his Church should not believe his sins to be forgiven, they should not be forgiven unto him; and whoever believed and turned from them, abiding in the bosom of the said Church, shall at length be healed by faith and amendment of life. And: that which you have heard to be fulfilled in the glorious resurrection of Christ, believe that the very same shall be fulfilled in you — in the last judgment the resurrection of your flesh shall restore you for all eternity; for unless you believe that you are to be repaired by death, you cannot come to the reward of life eternal. And in ancient time the article of the resurrection has been rehearsed on this manner: the resurrection of this flesh; and the last applied to it: to everlasting life. Hence then two main opinions of the Church of Rome are quite overthrown: one, that we cannot by special faith be certain of the remission of our sins and the salvation of our souls; the other, that a man truly justified may fall away and be damned. Now this cannot be, if the practice of the ancient Church is good, which has taught us to believe everlasting life jointly with remission of sins.

To come to the Decalogue: first of all it is a rule in expounding the several commandments that where any vice is forbidden, there the contrary virtue is commanded, and all virtues of the same kind with all their causes, occasions, and furtherances. This rule is granted by all. And hence it follows that counsels of perfection — if they have in them any furtherance of virtue — are enjoined in and by the law, and therefore prescribe no state of perfection beyond the scope of the law.

Secondly, the commandment — you shall not make to yourself any graven image, and so on — has two several parts. The first forbids the making of carved or graven images; the second forbids the adoration of them. Now the first part is notably expounded by Moses in Deuteronomy 4:16: Take good heed unto yourselves that you corrupt not yourselves and make you a graven image or representation of any figure in the likeness of male or female. Mark the reason of this prohibition in the same place: for, says he, you saw no image in the day the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb. And in verse 15: you heard the voice of the words but saw no likeness save a voice. Now the reason being understood of the image of God himself, the prohibition must needs be so understood. Again there is no question that God directs his commandment against a sin in speculation, but against some common and wicked practice of the Jews — and that was to represent God himself in likenesses and bodily forms — Isaiah 40:18. And that was also the practice of the Gentiles, who were far more gross in this kind than the Jews — Romans 1:23. This then is plain to any fair-minded man: the first part of the commandment forbids the making of graven images or likenesses of the true Jehovah, and thus the Roman Catechism understands the words. As for the second part, it must be understood according to the meaning of the first, and therefore it forbids us to bow down to any image of God. Hence it follows that to worship God or saints in or at images, and to worship images with religious worship, is abominable idolatry. And common reason might teach us thus much: for they that adore and worship the true God in images bind the presence of God, his operation, grace, and his hearing of us to certain things, places, and signs to which he has not bound himself by commandment or promise. And that is to worship God and to seek for his blessings otherwise than he has commanded himself to be worshipped or promised to hear us. Upon this ground is plainly overthrown the excuse which they make — that they worship not images but God and saints in images — for neither God nor the saints acknowledge this kind of honor but they abhor it. Whence it follows necessarily that they worship nothing beside the image or the device of their own brain, in which they feign to themselves such a God as will be worshipped and receive their prayers at images. It will be said that the Papists tie the worship and invocation of God to images no otherwise than God tied himself to the sanctuary and the temple of Solomon. And I say again: it was the will of God that he would show his presence and be worshipped at the sanctuary, and the Jews had the warrant of God's word for it. But we have no like warrant — either by promise or commandment — to tie God's presence to an image or crucifix. Again, reason may yet further discover their idolatry. They who worship they know not what, worship an idol. But the Papists worship they know not what, and I prove it thus: to the consecration of the host there is required the intention of the priest at the least virtually, as they say. And if this be true, it follows that none of them can come to the mass or pray in faith but he must always doubt of what is lifted up by the hands of the priest in the mass — whether it be bread or the body and blood of Christ. For none can have any certainty of the intention of the priest in consecrating this bread and this wine, but rather may have just occasion of doubting by reason of the common ignorance and looseness of life in such persons.

Thirdly, the commandment touching the Sabbath gives a liberty to work six days in the ordinary affairs of our callings, and this liberty cannot be repealed by any creature. The Church of Rome therefore errs in that it prescribes set and ordinary festival days not only to God but also to saints, enjoining them as strictly and with as much solemnity to be observed as the Sabbath of the Lord.

Fourthly, the third commandment — or as they say the fourth — enjoins children to obey father and mother in all things, especially in matters of moment such as their marriage and choice of their callings, and that even unto death. And yet the Church of Rome, against the intent of this commandment, allows that clandestine marriages and the vow of religion shall be in force though they be without and against the consent of wise and careful parents.

Fifthly, the last commandment of lust forbids the first motions to sin that are before consent. I prove it thus: lusting is forbidden in the former commandments as well as in the last, yes, lusting that is joined with consent — as in the commandment you shall not commit adultery, lusting after our neighbor's wife is forbidden; and in the next, lusting after our neighbor's goods, and so on. Now if the last commandment also forbade no more than lust with consent, it is confounded with the rest, and by this means there shall not be ten distinct words or commandments — which to say is absurd. It remains therefore that the lust here forbidden goes before consent. Again, the philosophers knew that lust with consent was evil even by the light of nature. But Paul — a learned Pharisee and therefore more than a philosopher — knew not lust to be sin, that is forbidden in this commandment, Romans 7. Therefore the lust forbidden here is without consent. Wicked then is the doctrine of the Roman Church, teaching that in every mortal sin there is required an act commanded of the will — and hence they say many thoughts against faith and unclean imaginations are no sins.

Sixth and lastly: the words of the second commandment — and show mercy to thousands on them that love me and keep my commandments — overthrow all human merits. For if the reward is given of mercy to them that keep the law, it is not given for the merit of the work done.

To come to the third part of the catechism: the Lord's Prayer is a most absolute and perfect form of prayer. For which cause it was called by Tertullian the breviary of the gospel, and Celestine says: the law of praying is the law of believing and the law of working. Now in this prayer we are taught to direct our prayers to God alone — Our Father, and so on — and that only in the name and mediation of Christ. For God is our Father only by Christ. It is needless therefore to use any invocation of saints or to make them our mediators of intercession unto God, and it is sufficient if we pray only unto God in the name of Christ alone.

Second: in the fourth petition we say thus: Give us our daily bread. In which words we acknowledge that every morsel of bread is the mere gift of God. What madness then is it for us to think that we should merit the kingdom of heaven by works that cannot merit so much as bread?

Third: in the next petition — Forgive us our debts — four opinions of the Roman religion are directly overthrown. The first is concerning human satisfactions. For the child of God is here after his conversion taught to humble himself day by day and to pray for the pardon of his daily sins. Now to make satisfaction and to sue for pardon are contrary. The second opinion here overthrown is touching merits. For we acknowledge ourselves to be debtors unto God — yes, bankrupts — and that beside the main sum of many thousand talents we daily increase the debt. Therefore we cannot possibly merit any of the blessings of God. It is mere madness to think that they who cannot pay their debts but rather increase them day by day should deserve or purchase any of the goods of the creditor or the pardon of their debts. And if any favor is shown them, it comes of mere goodwill without the least desert. In a word, this must be thought upon: if all we can do will not keep us from increasing the main sum of our debt, much less shall we be able by any merit to diminish the same. By good right therefore do all the servants of God cast down themselves and pray: Forgive us our debts. The third opinion is that punishment may be retained while the fault is wholly remitted. But this cannot stand, for here sin is called our debt because by nature we owe God obedience, and for the defect of this payment we further owe him the forfeiture of punishment. Sin then is called our debt in respect of the punishment. And therefore when we pray for the pardon of sin, we require the pardon not only of fault but of the whole punishment. And when a debt is pardoned, it is absurd to think that the least payment should remain. The fourth opinion is that a man in this life may fulfill the law — whereas in this place every servant of God is taught to ask a daily pardon for the breach of the law. Answer is made that our daily sins are venial and not against the law but beside the law. But this which they say is against the petition, for a debt that comes by forfeiture is against the bond or obligation. Now every sin is a debt causing the forfeiture of punishment, and therefore is not beside but directly against the law.

Fourth: in this clause — as we forgive our debtors — it is taken for granted that we may certainly know that we are in love and charity with men when we make reconciliation. Why then may we not certainly know that we repent and believe and are reconciled to God, which all Roman Catholics deny?

Fifth: in the last words — and lead us not into temptation — we pray not that God should free us from temptation, for it is sometimes good to be tempted, Psalm 26:1. But that we be not left to the malice of Satan and held captive of the temptation, for here to be led into temptation and to be delivered are opposed. Now hence I gather that he who is the child of God, truly justified and sanctified, shall never fall wholly and finally from the grace of God. And I conclude on this manner: that which we ask according to the will of God shall be granted — 1 John 5. But this the child of God asks — that he might never be wholly forsaken of his Father and left captive in temptation. This therefore shall be granted.

Sixth: this word Amen signifies a special faith touching all the former petitions — that they shall be granted, and therefore a special faith concerning remission of sins, which the Roman Church denies.

To come to the last place, to the institution of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23. In which first of all the real presence is by many circumstances overthrown. Out of the words he took and broke, it is plain that what Christ took was not his body, because he cannot be said with his own hands to have taken, held, and broken himself — but the very bread. Again, Christ did not say under the form of bread, or in bread, but: This — that is, bread — is my body. Third: bread was not given for us but only the body of Christ, and in the first institution the body of Christ was not then really given to death. Fourth: the cup is the new covenant by a figure — why may not the bread be the body of Christ by a figure also? Fifth: Christ ate the supper but not himself. Sixth: we are bidden to do it until he come — Christ then is not bodily present. Seventh: Christ bids the bread to be eaten in remembrance of him, but signs of remembrance are of things absent. Eighth: if the Popish real presence be granted, then the body and blood of Christ are either severed or joined together. If severed, then Christ is still crucified. If joined together, then the bread is both the body and blood of Christ — whereas the institution says the bread is the body and the wine is the blood.

Again, here is condemned the administration of the sacrament under one kind only. For the commandment of Christ is: drink you all of this — Matthew 26:27. And this commandment is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these words: do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me — verse 25. And no power can repeal this commandment, because it was established by the sovereign head of the Church.

These few lines, as also the former treatise, I offer to the view and reading of them that favor the Roman religion, willing them with patience to consider this one thing: that their religion, if it were Catholic and Apostolic as they pretend, could not be contrary so much as in one point to the grounds of all catechisms that have been used in all churches confessing the name of Christ ever since the days of the Apostles. And whereas it crosses the said grounds in sundry points of doctrine — as I have proved — it is a plain argument that the present Roman religion is degenerate. I write not this despising or hating their persons for their religion, but wishing unfeignedly their conversion in this world and their salvation in the world to come.

Finis.

Great numbers of people embrace the religion of the present Church of Rome, deceived by its impressive claims of universality, antiquity, and unbroken succession. And no doubt, though some are willfully blind, many who have committed themselves to this path have never seen any other truth. Of these and the rest I ask one favor: that they will weigh and consider for themselves this one thing I am now setting before them. The Roman religion as established by the Council of Trent is, in its principal points, contrary to the very foundations of the catechism that all churches have agreed on since the days of the apostles. These foundations are four: first, the Apostles' Creed; second, the Decalogue or Ten Commandments; third, the form of prayer called the Lord's Prayer; and fourth, the institution of the two sacraments — baptism and the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23).

To show this in an orderly way, I will begin with the Creed. First, consider that some of the principal doctrines believed in the Roman Church are these: that the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ and head of the catholic church; that there is a fire of purgatory after this life; that images of God and the saints are to be placed in churches and venerated; that prayer is to be made to departed saints and their intercession sought; and that a propitiatory sacrifice is daily offered in the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead. These points are so essential to Roman Catholic teaching that without them it cannot stand — and in the Council of Trent, the curse of anathema is pronounced on all who deny any one of them. And yet notice: the Apostles' Creed — which has long been regarded as containing all necessary points of religion to be believed, and has therefore been called the key and rule of faith — contains none of these points. Neither do the ancient fathers' explanations of it, nor any other creed or confession of faith produced by any council or church for many centuries. This is plain evidence to any fair-minded person that these are new articles of faith never known in the apostolic church — and that the fathers and councils could find no such articles of faith in the books of the Old and New Testaments. The response is made that all these teachings are believed under the article 'I believe the holy catholic church' — the meaning of which they take to be: 'I believe everything which the catholic church holds and requires to be believed.' If this is so, we must in effect believe in the church itself — that is, place our confidence in the church for the manifestation and certainty of all doctrines necessary to salvation. And thus the eternal truth of God the Creator would depend on the determinations of a creature, and the written word of God would in this regard be declared insufficient — as if it had not plainly revealed all points of doctrine necessary to salvation. And the ancient churches would be greatly at fault for not setting forth the above points as articles of faith, but leaving them to these later times.

Second: in the Creed, 'to believe in God' and 'to believe the church' are distinguished. 'To believe in' applies to the Creator; 'to believe' applies to a creature — as Rufinus has noted, saying that by the preposition 'in,' the Creator is distinguished from the creature, and things belonging to God are distinguished from things belonging to people. Augustine says: 'It must be understood that we believe the church, but do not believe in the church — because the church is not God but the house of God.' It follows that we must not believe in the saints, nor place our confidence in our works, as the learned Roman Catholics teach. Therefore Eusebius says: 'We rightly believe Peter and Paul — but to believe in Peter and Paul, that is, to give to the servants the honor due to the Lord, we ought not.' And Cyprian says: 'He does not believe in God who does not place in Him alone the trust of his whole happiness.'

Third: the article 'conceived by the Holy Spirit' is overturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Mass into the body and blood of Christ. In this article we confess the true and permanent incarnation of Christ — beginning in His conception and never ending — and we acknowledge the truth of His humanity. His body has the essential properties of a real body: it consists of flesh and bone, has quantity, shape, and dimensions (length, breadth, and thickness), has parts distinct from one another (head distinct from feet, feet from head), and is bounded in space, visible, and tangible. In short, His body has everything that by the order of creation belongs to a physical body. It may be objected that Christ's body can remain a true body while being altered in some qualities — such as its spatial location. But I say again that spatial location cannot be separated from a body if it is to remain a body. To be located in space is an essential property of every quantity, and quantity is the common essence of every body. Therefore a body, by virtue of its quantity, must necessarily be located in one place. Leo spoke to this when he said: 'The body of Christ in no way falls outside the truth of our body.' Augustine said: 'Only God in Christ so comes that He does not depart; so returns that He does not leave us. But a human being, with respect to his body, is in one place — when he goes to another place, he is no longer in the place from which he came.' To get around this, they draw a distinction: Christ's body may be in many places with respect to its whole essence, they say, but not with respect to its whole quantity, by which it is in only one place. But as I have said, this is self-contradictory — for quantity, according to all sound reasoning, is of the essence of a body, without which a body cannot be.

Fourth: in the Creed we confess that Christ ascended into heaven and sits there, after His ascension, at the right hand of the Father — and this according to His humanity. From this I conclude that Christ's body is not really and locally present in the sacrament or in every host the priest consecrates. This argument was already sound when Vigilius, writing against Eutyches, said: 'When it — the flesh — was on earth, it was not in heaven; and because it is now in heaven, it is not on earth.' He then adds that this is the catholic faith and confession. It was sound when Fulgentius said: 'According to His human substance He was absent from earth when He was in heaven, and He left the earth when He ascended into heaven.' And: 'The same inseparable Christ, according to His whole humanity, departed from earth and bodily ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand, and according to that same complete humanity He will come to judgment.' It was sound when Cyril said: 'No one doubts that when He ascended into heaven, although He is always present by the power of His Spirit, He was absent as to the presence of His flesh.' And it was sound when Augustine said: 'According to the flesh which the Word assumed, He ascended into heaven — He is not here; there He sits at the right hand of the Father; and He is here according to the presence of His majesty.' And: 'He departed as He was man, and He remained as He was God. He departed by that by which He was in one place; He remained by that by which He was everywhere.'

Fifth: when the Creed says we believe 'the holy catholic church,' it follows that the catholic church is in some sense invisible — because things seen are not believed. The common reply — that we believe only the holiness of the church — will not serve. The words are clear: in the Creed we confess that we believe not only the holiness of the church but the church itself.

Sixth and finally, the articles — 'the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting' — contain a confession of personal and particular faith. Their meaning is: I believe the forgiveness of my own sins and the resurrection of my own body to everlasting life. This is the judgment of learned antiquity. Augustine says: 'If you also believe that you will rise again and ascend into heaven — since you are assured of so great a Patron — you are certain of so great a gift.' And: 'Do not diminish Christ, who brings you to the kingdom of heaven for the remission of sins; without this faith, anyone who comes to baptism shuts the gate of mercy against himself.' And: 'Whoever faithfully believes and holds this profession of faith — in which all his sins are forgiven — let him make his will conform to the will of God and not fear his passage through death.' And: 'The entire sacrament of baptism rests on this: that we believe the resurrection of the body and the remission of sins to be given us by God.' And: 'He gave these keys to the church, so that whoever within His church does not believe his sins to be forgiven, they will not be forgiven; and whoever believed and turned from them, remaining in the bosom of the church, will at last be healed by faith and amendment of life.' And: 'What you have heard fulfilled in the glorious resurrection of Christ, believe that the very same will be fulfilled in you — in the last judgment, the resurrection of your flesh will restore you for all eternity. For unless you believe you are to be repaired through death, you cannot come to the reward of eternal life.' In ancient times, the article of the resurrection was recited in this form: 'the resurrection of this flesh' — and to it was joined: 'to everlasting life.' Two major teachings of the Roman Church are thus completely overturned: first, the claim that we cannot by personal faith be certain of the forgiveness of our sins and the salvation of our souls; and second, the claim that a person truly justified may fall away and be damned. Neither of these can stand if the practice of the ancient church is valid — which has taught us to believe everlasting life in direct connection with the forgiveness of sins.

Turning now to the Decalogue: a standard rule for explaining the individual commandments is this — where a vice is forbidden, the opposite virtue is commanded, along with all virtues of the same kind, including their causes, occasions, and means of support. This rule is universally acknowledged. From this it follows that the so-called counsels of perfection — if they contribute in any way to virtue — are already required by the law. They therefore describe no state of perfection beyond the scope of the law.

Second, the commandment 'You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness' has two distinct parts. The first forbids the making of carved or graven images; the second forbids their adoration. The first part is ably explained by Moses in Deuteronomy 4:16: 'So that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female.' Note the reason given for this prohibition in the same passage: 'since you saw no form on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire' (verse 15). Since this reason concerns the image of God Himself, the prohibition must be understood in the same way. Furthermore, God is clearly directing His commandment not against a theoretical sin but against the common and wicked practice of the Israelites — representing God Himself in likenesses and physical forms (Isaiah 40:18). This was also the practice of the Gentiles, who were even more extreme in this than the Jews (Romans 1:23). To any fair-minded person it is plain: the first part of the commandment forbids making graven images or likenesses of the true God — and the Roman Catechism itself understands the words this way. The second part must be understood in light of the first, and therefore forbids bowing down to any image of God. It follows that to worship God or the saints in or before images, and to worship images with religious worship, is abominable idolatry. Common reason alone should teach us this: those who adore and worship the true God in images bind God's presence, His grace, His working, and His hearing of prayer to certain objects, places, and signs to which He has not bound Himself by any commandment or promise. That is to worship God and seek His blessings in a way other than He has commanded Himself to be worshipped or promised to hear us. This plainly overturns the excuse they make — that they worship not images but God and the saints in images. For neither God nor the saints acknowledge this kind of honor; they abhor it. It necessarily follows that what they are actually worshipping is nothing more than the image itself, or a fabrication of their own imagination — a god of their own devising who is pleased to be worshipped and to receive prayers at images. It may be said that the Roman Catholics tie the worship and invocation of God to images in the same way God tied Himself to the sanctuary and the temple of Solomon. My answer is: it was God's own will to show His presence and be worshipped at the sanctuary, and the Jews had God's explicit word as their warrant. But we have no similar warrant — neither by promise nor commandment — to tie God's presence to any image or crucifix. Reason can expose their idolatry yet further. Those who worship what they do not know are worshipping an idol. But the Roman Catholics worship what they do not know — and I prove it thus: for the consecration of the host, the priest's intention is required, at least in a general sense, as they themselves say. If this is true, then no Roman Catholic can come to Mass or pray with genuine faith — they must always doubt what is being raised up by the priest's hands: is it bread, or the body and blood of Christ? No one can have any certainty about the priest's intention in consecrating, and they have good reason for doubt given the widespread ignorance and moral looseness among such persons.

Third, the commandment concerning the Sabbath grants freedom to work six days in the ordinary duties of one's calling — and this freedom cannot be taken away by any creature. The Roman Church therefore errs in prescribing regular and fixed festival days not only to honor God but also to honor the saints — requiring them to be observed with the same strictness and solemnity as the Lord's Sabbath.

Fourth, the third commandment — or as they number it, the fourth — requires children to obey their father and mother in all things, especially in weighty matters such as marriage and the choice of their calling, and to do so even to the point of death. Yet the Roman Church, contrary to the intent of this commandment, allows clandestine marriages and the vow of religious life to be binding even when made without — and contrary to — the consent of wise and concerned parents.

Fifth, the last commandment against coveting forbids the first movements toward sin that arise before any act of the will. I demonstrate it this way: coveting is already forbidden in earlier commandments — coveting joined with consent — as in 'You shall not commit adultery,' where lusting after a neighbor's wife is forbidden, and in the next commandment, lusting after a neighbor's goods, and so on. Now if the final commandment also forbade nothing more than lust that involves consent, it would be redundant with the others — and by this reasoning there would not be ten distinct words or commandments. That conclusion is absurd. It follows that the lust forbidden in the last commandment is the kind that comes before any consent of the will. Furthermore, the philosophers, by the light of nature alone, already knew that lust with consent was evil. But Paul — a learned Pharisee and therefore more knowledgeable than any philosopher — confesses in Romans 7 that he did not know lust to be sin until the commandment revealed it. Therefore the lust forbidden by this commandment is the kind that exists without consent. Wicked, then, is the teaching of the Roman Church — that for any mortal sin, a deliberate act of the will is required. On this basis they conclude that many thoughts against faith and unclean imaginations are not sins.

Sixth and finally: the words of the second commandment — 'showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments' — overthrow all human merits. If the reward is given by mercy to those who keep the law, it is not given on the basis of the merit of the work done.

Turning to the third part of the catechism: the Lord's Prayer is a complete and perfect form of prayer. For this reason Tertullian called it the summary of the Gospel, and Celestine says: 'The law of praying is the law of believing and the law of working.' In this prayer we are taught to direct our prayers to God alone — 'Our Father,' and so on — and to do so only in the name and through the mediation of Christ. God is our Father only through Christ. It is therefore unnecessary to invoke the saints or make them our mediators of intercession to God. It is sufficient to pray to God alone in the name of Christ alone.

Second: in the fourth petition we say: 'Give us this day our daily bread.' In these words we acknowledge that every piece of bread is a pure gift from God. What madness, then, to think that we could merit the kingdom of heaven by works that cannot even merit bread?

Third: in the next petition — 'Forgive us our debts' — four Roman Catholic teachings are directly overturned. The first is human satisfaction. Every child of God, even after conversion, is here taught to humble himself day by day and pray for the pardon of his daily sins. But making satisfaction and asking for pardon are contradictory. The second is merit. Here we acknowledge ourselves to be debtors to God — indeed, bankrupts — and that beyond the principal debt of many thousands of talents, we increase our debt day by day. Therefore we cannot possibly merit any of God's blessings. It is pure madness to think that those who cannot pay their debts but only increase them daily could deserve or earn any of the creditor's goods or the pardon of what they owe. Whatever favor is shown to them comes from pure goodwill, without the slightest desert. In short: if everything we can do is not enough to stop us from adding to the sum of our debt, much less will any merit of ours reduce it. All God's servants are therefore right to cast themselves down and pray: 'Forgive us our debts.' The third opinion overturned is that punishment may be retained while the guilt is completely remitted. This cannot stand — for sin is called our debt because by nature we owe God obedience, and for our failure to pay it, we further owe Him the penalty of punishment. Sin is called our debt in respect of the punishment. Therefore when we pray for the pardon of sin, we are asking for pardon not only of the guilt but of the entire punishment. And when a debt is forgiven, it is absurd to think that even the smallest payment remains owing. The fourth opinion overturned is that a person in this life can fulfill the law — since in this very petition every servant of God is taught to ask daily pardon for breaking the law. The reply is made that our daily sins are venial and not against the law but merely alongside it. But this contradicts the petition itself — for a debt arising from a penalty is against the bond or obligation. And every sin is a debt that incurs the forfeiture of punishment, and therefore stands not alongside but directly against the law.

Fourth: in the clause 'as we forgive our debtors,' it is assumed as obvious that we can know with certainty that we are in love and charity with people when we make reconciliation with them. Why then may we not know with certainty that we repent, believe, and are reconciled to God — which is exactly what all Roman Catholics deny?

Fifth: in the final words 'lead us not into temptation,' we do not pray to be freed from all temptation — for it is sometimes good to be tempted (Psalm 26:1). Rather, we pray that we not be abandoned to the power of Satan and held captive by temptation, since 'lead us into temptation' and 'deliver us' are set in opposition. From this I conclude that the one who is truly a child of God — genuinely justified and sanctified — will never fall completely and finally from God's grace. My reasoning: whatever we ask according to God's will shall be granted (1 John 5). Every child of God asks this — that he may never be completely abandoned by his Father and left captive in temptation. Therefore this will be granted.

Sixth: the word 'Amen' signifies a particular faith regarding all the foregoing petitions — that they will be granted. It therefore expresses a particular faith concerning the forgiveness of sins, which the Roman Church denies.

Turning finally to the institution of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23: the real presence is overturned here by several considerations. From the words 'He took and broke,' it is clear that what Christ took was not His own body — for He cannot be said to have taken, held, and broken Himself with His own hands. He took the bread. Second, Christ did not say 'under the form of bread' or 'in bread,' but: 'This — that is, bread — is My body.' Third, bread was not given for us — only the body of Christ was. And at the first institution, Christ's body had not yet actually been given to death. Fourth, the cup is 'the new covenant' by a figure — why may not the bread be the body of Christ by a figure also? Fifth, Christ ate the supper but did not eat Himself. Sixth, we are told to do this 'until He comes' — therefore Christ is not bodily present. Seventh, Christ says the bread is to be eaten in remembrance of Him — but signs of remembrance point to things that are absent. Eighth, if the Roman real presence were granted, the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament would either be separated from each other or joined together. If separated, then Christ is still being crucified. If joined, then the bread would be both the body and blood — whereas the institution says the bread is the body and the wine is the blood.

Furthermore, the practice of administering the sacrament under only one kind is condemned here. Christ's commandment is: 'Drink from it, all of you' (Matthew 26:27). And this commandment is repeated to the church at Corinth in these words: 'Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me' (verse 25). No power can repeal this commandment, for it was established by the sovereign head of the church.

These few pages, along with the main treatise, I offer to the reading of those who favor the Roman religion — asking them to consider patiently just this one thing: if their religion truly were catholic and apostolic, as they claim, it could not be contrary even in a single point to the foundations of all catechisms that have been used in every church confessing the name of Christ since the days of the apostles. And since it contradicts those foundations in several points of doctrine — as I have shown — this is plain evidence that the present Roman religion has fallen away from the truth. I write this not despising or hating the persons who hold this religion, but genuinely desiring their conversion in this world and their salvation in the world to come.

End.