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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 Saint Paul saith That 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 of God but it is in vain for the question is of his will and not of his power But it was his
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 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 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 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 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 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 hearken not to Christs warning when he saith Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheepes clothing but inwardly they are ravening â—olfeâ— 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 â—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 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 ordinâ—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 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 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 Paul commandeth 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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