The Proof of the Fourth Argument

The proposition is most true, because it is a privilege of God's word, and so of the true religion gathered forth of it, to be consonant to itself in all points: which properly no doctrines nor writings beside can have. The assumption may be made manifest by an induction of particular examples.

1. The Church of Rome says that men are saved by grace, and again it says that men are saved by works — a flat contradiction. For Paul says, if election be of grace, it is no more of works, or else were grace no more grace; but if it be of works, it is no more grace, for else were work no more work (Romans 11:6). Answer is made: It is said that in this place Paul speaks of works of nature, which indeed are contrary to grace, but not of works of regeneration, which are not contrary to grace. This answer is false, for Paul in a like place to this opposes grace and works of regeneration (Ephesians 2:8-9). "You are saved by grace," says he, "through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God — not of works, lest any should boast himself. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, that we should walk in them." Now let the Church of Rome speak: what are the works of which a man may most of all boast, and what are the works for the doing of which we must be fashioned anew in Christ Jesus? Assuredly these must be the works of regeneration, dipped and dyed in the blood of Christ, as they speak. Therefore it is evident that Paul's meaning is to conclude that if we be saved by grace, we cannot be saved by works of regeneration.

2. The Church of Rome confutes and condemns in councils, and derides this doctrine that we teach — that men are to be justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which righteousness is not in us but in Christ. And the Rhemists call it fantastical justice, a new, no justice. But herein that church is contrary to itself, for it defends works of supererogation and works of satisfaction of one man for another (Colossians 2:24). Their ground is because the faithful are all members of one body, and have fellowship one with another, and therefore one may satisfy for another. Hereby it is plain that the Church of Rome most of all defends that imputation of righteousness which most of all it has opposed. For when one man satisfies for another, the work of one man is imputed to another. But what — shall one man satisfy for another, and shall not Christ by his righteousness satisfy for us? Shall God accept the work of one man for another, and not accept the righteousness of Christ for us? Truly there is greater fellowship and conjunction between the head and the members than of the members among themselves, because they are joined together by means of the head.

3. It holds that the guilt and fault of sin may be remitted by Christ, and yet the temporal punishment of sin be unremitted — but these are quite contrary. Paul says there is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Yet if a man were punished for his sin after he were in Christ and had the fault of sin remitted, some condemnation should now remain with him. And David says, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no sin" (Psalm 32) — therefore he to whom the Lord imputes no sin has not only the guilt of sin but also the punishment of his sin remitted, otherwise he could not be blessed but miserable. And this agrees not with God's justice, when the fault is quite pardoned and a man is guilty of no sin, that then any punishment should be laid on him. And Saint Augustine says that Christ, by taking upon him the punishment of sin and not taking upon him the fault, took away both the punishment and the fault. Therefore this opinion — that Christ has taken away the guilt of sin — overthrows all satisfactions and Purgatory, because the fault and guilt being taken away, all punishment for sin is also taken away.

Transubstantiation is a monster standing on manifold contradictions. First, it makes Christ's body to be in many places: an evident contradiction. For it is of the nature and essence of a body to be in one place only: which I prove thus. A body is a magnitude, a magnitude is a continued quantity, a continued quantity cannot be but in one place: therefore a body cannot be but in one place. In this argument the doubt is only of the last part: which undoubtedly is most true. For it is called a continued quantity, because its parts are continued and knit together the one with another by a common term or bond, as a line by a point, a plane and its parts by a line, a solid by a surface or plane. Now, these points can in no way be continued, unless every one of them keeps one only special place. For example's sake: suppose the plane a, b, c, d, to be divided into 3 parts, l, k, l, by two lines, e, g, f, h, which both divide the three parts and continue them the one with the other. Now I say, that for every one of the parts to be continued with its next fellow, it is necessary, that every one of them should have one special and distinct place. That the first place of the plane, I, may be continued with, k, it must be situated only there where it is, and nowhere else: for if it shall be situated elsewhere, as in the place m, then it cannot be continued with k. Now then, if the parts must of necessity have their own particular place only, then the whole figure a, b, c, d, must also be only in one place. And this is that which the prince of Philosophers teaches, that every magnitude has its parts situated in some one place, one by another, so that a man may say of them, here it is, and there it is not. To conclude, therefore this must needs agree to a body and to the parts of it to be in one only place alone. So that the Church of Rome when it says that Christ's body is in many places: in effect they say, that Christ's body is no body: for if it be a body, it is only in one place: and if it be in many places, it is no body. They object that God is omnipotent. True indeed: but there are some things, the doing of which does not agree with God's power, as to make contradictory things to be both true: of which sort these are. For, that Christ's body is a true body, and that it is in many places at once, are flatly contrary: because (as has been shown) it is essential to all magnitudes to be in one place, and therefore to a body. And God cannot take away that which is essential to a thing, the essence remaining whole. Again, transubstantiation makes the accidents of bread and wine to remain without the substance. Here also is another contradiction as impossible as the former: for it is a common saying in schools, Accidentis esse, est inesse. It is of the essence of an accident to be in the substance. Now therefore, if the accidents be, there is also the bread and wine: and if there be no substance of bread or wine, neither can there be any accidents. It holds, that bread is turned into the body of Christ, and therefore it must needs hold, that Christ's body is made of baker's bread, and yet it holds and teaches that Christ's body is only made of the seed of Mary, completely overturning the former transubstantiation.

It teaches, that a man must always doubt of his salvation: and likewise it teaches, that in praying we are to call God Father, which are things quite contrary. For who can truly call God Father, unless he has the spirit of adoption, and be assured that he is the child of God. For if a man shall call God Father, and yet in his heart doubt whether he be his Father or not, he plays the dissembling hypocrite: therefore, to doubt of salvation, and to say Our Father, etc. in truth are contrary.

The Church of Rome makes prayer to be one of the chief means to satisfy for sins. But prayer indeed is an asking of pardon for sin: now asking of pardon and satisfaction for sin are contrary: therefore by the judgment of the Papists, prayer which is a satisfaction is no satisfaction. And indeed, let us consider what madness is contained in this popish divinity: the poor beggar comes very hungry to the rich man's door to crave his alms: and straightway by his begging he will merit and deserve it. The same does the Papist, he prays very poorly for the thing which he lacks, yet he looks very proudly to merit no less than the kingdom of heaven by it.

Doubting of salvation and hope cannot agree together, for hope makes a man not to be ashamed, that is, it never disappoints him of the thing which he looks for. And therefore it is called the anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, which enters into that which is within the veil. So that true hope and the certain assurance of salvation go together.

True prayer and justification by works cannot stand together. For he which prays truly must be touched inwardly with a lively feeling of his own misery, and of the want of that grace, of which he stands in need. Now this cannot be in the heart of [reconstructed: that] man that looks to merit the kingdom of heaven by his works: for he that can do this, may justly conceive somewhat of his own excellency.

Papists teach, that it is great boldness to come immediately to God without the intercession of saints: and therefore they use to pray to Mary, that she would pray to Christ to help them: yet on the contrary, when they have so done, they pray to God immediately, that he would receive the intercession of Mary for them. And thus they are become intercessors between Mary and God. Indeed when they offer up Christ, praying God to accept their gifts and sacrifices, the humble priest that will not pray to God, but by the mediation of saints, is then a mediator between Christ Jesus and God his Father.

It holds, that in the Mass, the Priest offers up Christ to his Father an unbloody sacrifice. This is a thing impossible: for if Christ in the Mass be sacrificed for sin, then he must die and his blood must be shed (Hebrews 9). And in the Scriptures these two sayings — Christ is dead, Christ is offered up in sacrifice — are all one. So then, the Papist when he supposes that there may be an unbloody sacrifice, in effect he says this much, there is a sacrifice, which is no sacrifice.

In the Canon of the Mass, the church of Rome prays on this wise: We humbly beseech you, most merciful Father, by Jesus Christ, your Son and our Lord, that you would accept these gifts and oblations and these holy sacrifices, which we your church offer to you, etc. Here first they offer up Christ to God the Father in the name of Christ, and so they make Christ to be his own mediator. Again, they desire God to bless and to accept his own Son — for they offer up Christ. If they say he needs now the blessing of his Father, they make Christ a weak and imperfect Christ; if he does not need the blessing of his Father, their prayer is needless. Also they desire God to accept not one gift or one sacrifice, but in the plural number, these gifts and sacrifices — whereas they hold that Christ's body is one only body, and therefore but one sacrifice. And thus they are at variance with themselves.

Papists, in word, say that they believe and put their trust in God; yet whereas they look to be saved by their works, they set the confidence of their hearts in truth upon their own doings.

They put such holiness in Matrimony, that they make it one of their 7 Sacraments, which confer grace to the partakers of them; yet they forbid their Clergy to marry, because to live in marriage is to live according to the flesh, and the Council of Trent opposes marriage and chastity.

It teaches, that souls kept in Purgatory may be redeemed by sacrifices and suffrages. Against this, is a Canon of their law taken out of Saint Jerome's: We know that in this life we may help one another, either by prayers, or by good counsel; but when we shall come before the judgment seat of Christ, neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah, may intercede for any; but every man to bear his own burden. And according to another Canon going under the name of Gelasius Bishop of Rome, Either there is no Purgatory, or the souls which go there, shall never return.

And to conclude, the most points of their religion are contrary to their Canons, as by searching, may appear in these examples.

- 1. The dead cannot hear the prayers of them which call upon them. - 2. Peter and Paul were two of the chief Apostles, and it is hard to say, which was above the other. - 3. Leo the fourth, living in the year 846, acknowledged Lotharius the Emperor as his Prince. - 4. No Bishop may be called universal. - 5. The Church of Rome has no more authority over other Churches, than other Churches over it. - 6. A Priest and a Bishop were in times past all one. - 7. The Pope has no power to give or sell Pardons. - 8. There can be no merit by fasting, or abstinence from flesh. - 9. The Mass is nothing but the form of divine sacrifice.

By this which has been said, it does in part appear, that the religion of the Church of Rome is repugnant to itself, and it could not be so, if it were from the word of God.