to be try'd by them when Coster and others make such a fine flourish in their pretensions to Antiquity No the Fathers shall not be Iudges of the Papists the Romanists will not be controlled by the Fathers For Cardinal Baronius saith The Catholick Church and this they would have you to believe is their own Church but against all Reason and Sense doth not in all things follow the interpretation of the Fathers This is a fair but modest Confession But Cardinal Bellarmin goes further The Writings of the Fathers saith he are not rules to us nor have the Authority to bind us This is an home thrust and yet Salmeron is more incivil with those Ancient Doctors when he saith That the latter Doctors are sharper-sighted than they and therefore pronounces of many of them at once That we must not follow a multitude to deviate from the Truth I am afraid he gave his own Church a rude blow there for we may turn that Argument of his against the Church of Rome which ever and anon is pleading her great number of Professors To which let us add what another Romanist saith in this point And he tells you That he believes the Pope in matters of Faith before a thousand Augustines Jeroms or Gregories This indeed is plain dealing and no mincing of the matter But then again it is wholly opposite to their vain Pleas for Antiquity and wholly different from the modest procedure of S. Jerome who thinks it great rashness and irreverence presently to charge the Antients with heresie for a few obnoxious terms since when they erred they erred perhaps with a simple and honest mind or wrote things in another sense than they were afterwards taken But if this be all the esteem the Papists have for the Ancient Doctors then adieu to the Authority of the Fathers in the Church of Rome Moreover even the Councils fare no better in the Papists hands For it is usual in their Editions of the Councils to have some printed with this Title Reprobatum or disallowed others Ex parte Approbatum accordingly as they agree or disagree with their Opinions and Interest at Rome Which verifies that smart censure of Ludovicus Vives That those are accounted Decrees and Councils which make for their purpose and all others are no more valued by them than the meetings of some tatling Women in a Weaving Shop or at the Baths But although they reject both Fathers and Councils when they are pressed by the Protestants with their Authorities yet to take away all testimonies of the Fathers from us the politick Council of Trent set up their Indices Expurgatorii which they referred to Pope Pius IV. whose Bull for that end bore date March 24. 1564. And in these Tables they set down what Books were by them forbidden and in which to be purged and what places ought to be left out Thus design'd they that both Fathers and Councils should lisp their Language But though it be contrary to that Rule by which Christ himself was willing to be tried If I bear witness of my self my witnes is not true and contrary to all equity and the old Laws viz. That they which are brought out of our own House ought not to be witnesses for us yet since they have disowned when pressed with strength of Reason and oppressed with Truth the Scriptures the Fathers and Councils We will pursue them to their last fort to wit to the Decrees of their Popes which they so much adore If they gain-say these then Conclamatum est their Case is desperate Well then it must be so for they have rejected the Traditions of old Popes for those of new ones One would have thought that old Friends and old Divines had been the surest and soundest but it is not so at Rome For they have slighted and contradicted that Decree of Anacletus That all who are present at Mass shall communicate That of Pope Gelasius of not taking the Bread alone which honest-man he called Sacrilege and That of Alexander 11. of celebrating but one Mass in one day Which abominable practice of the Roman Church make good that saying of their own Pope Gelasius Quaero ab his judicium quod praetendunt ubinam possint agitari an apud ipsos ut iidem sint inimici testes Judices Which signifies in short that they would be both Enemies Witnesses and Iudges in their own Cause as being Conscious to themselves of such Errors as will not bear the test nor can be defended without such foul play Who then can safely trust the conduct of his Salvation to that Church of Rome which refuseth to be tried by the Word of God by the Ancient Fathers by General Councils and even by the Decrees of her pretended Spiritual Heads But because in the following Book I have produced the Testimonies of the Fathers voting against Popish Doctrines it will not I judge be unnecessary to subjoyn That although we highly esteem and respect the Fathers and especially those of the first Three hundred years after Christ and make use of their Writings as explaining the sense of the Scriptures and handing to us the Opinions of the Ages they liv'd in yet we never receive any of them with the same respect and esteem that we do the Word of God And that with good reason For though they were learned and pious men yet they were but men and consequently were lyable to error as well as other men And herein the Advite of S. Austin is to be followed to wit to follow him and such as himself no further than they follow Truth and Holy Scripture which ought still to be preferred before them And yet S. Augustin was neither the worst nor the meanest of those Christian Hero's Thus do we reverence but do not idolize them and only prefer the Scriptures before them whereas the Papists value their late Papal Decrees before the Primitive Doctors These things being premised I shall renew that five-fold Challenge about the Popes Supremacy formerly propounded by a Reverend and Learned Bishop of our Church which the Papists ought first to answer before they can justly obtain what they in vain pretend to as Consequences of that Supremacy For they failing to prove this which I think they will never be able to do their Attempts in the points depending thereon must needs be fruitless and ineffectual The Challenge is this 1. Whether our Saviour before his Ascension did constitute S. Peter his Vicar and gave him a monarchical Supremacy over the Apostles and the whole Church 2. Whether the Papists can prove that S. Peter while he lived exercised such Power and Supreme Iurisdiction even over the Apostles In such Cases as these Idem est non esse non apparere 3. Whether if S. Peter exercised any such Authority it was not temporary and ceased with his Person as the Apostleship did 4. Whether if all these
were true as they are wholly the contrary they can make it appear That the Bishop of Rome was the Successor of S. Peter and not the Bishop of Antioch and whether ever he was at Rome or no 5. Whether they can make it appear That our Blessed Saviour when on Earth exercised such a temporal Monarchy as the Pope now challengeth Confessions of the Popish Doctors in this Case To the first and second Queries it is Confessed by Cardinal Cusanus That S. Peter received no more Authority and then he could not exercise any Authority over his Fellows than the rest of the Apostles To the third and fourth Queries it is Confessed by Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pope by then ame of Pius II. That the Pope's Succession is not revealed in Scripture and then it cannot be proved jure divino positivo And by Bellarmin That neither Scripture nor Tradition habet allows then farewell Papal Supremacy That the Apostoliok Seat or Chair was so fixed at Rome which I really believe as well as he that it could not be taken from thence And then why might it not be at Antioch or Jerusalom as well as Rome Confessed by him further That as long as the Emperors were Heathen the Pope was subject to them in all civil Causes And That for above One thousand years his Judgment was not esteemed Infallible nor his Authority above that of a General Council Where was then the exercise or acknowledgment of this Supremacy and Infallibility of the Popes Was all the World a-sleep or ignorant so long of this Power which they now challenge to themselves Jure Divino No but the Pope I warrant you had not yet the opportunity to usurp and challenge it as he hath done since To four of these you see they have plainly yielded and the last they can never make good either from Scripture or Ecclesiastical History Add to these the Confession of that Learned Papist Father Barns That allowing the Bishop of Rome to have Supremacy elsewhere yet the Pope hath no Supremacy in Britain Insula autem Britanniae gavisa est olim privilegio Cyprio ut nullius Patriarchae Legibus subderetur And afterwards Videtur pacis ergô retineri debere sine dispendio Catholicismi absque Schismatis ullius notâ What can the Papists say to this so plain an acknowledgment But not designing to treat at large upon the Pope's Supremacy I have not as in the following subjects produced the Testimonies of Fathers and Councils against this Doctrine of Rome but shall advise the Reader to consult herein Bishop Jewel against Harding Article 4. Archbishop Bramhall's Schism Guarded against Will. Serjeant Dr. Barrow of the Pope's Supremacy and the Bishop of Lincoln's Brutum Fulmen who will give him full satisfaction in that point THE CONTENTS Of the following TREATISE SECT I. OF the Scriptures Sufficiency Page 1. SECT II. Of the Scripture-Canon 5. SECT III. Of Invocation of Saints and of the Blessed Virgin 7 Of Image Worship 10. Of Adoration of the Host. 11. SECT IV. Of the Three Creeds and how the Pope imposes new Articles of Faith upon his followers 13. SECT V. Of the number of Sacraments and of Communion in one kind Page 15 SECT VI. Of Transubstantiation 19 SECT VII Of Purgatory 23 Of Indulgences 25 Of the Sacrifice of the Mass. 26 Of Justification by Faith 27 Of Merits Ibid. SECT VIII Of Prayers in an unknown Tongue 30 SECT IX Of the Marriage of Priests 33 Of Auricular Confession 39 SECT X. Of Obedience to Governors 4◠THE Protestant's Companion SECTION I. THE Protestant Church of England our Holy Mother admits of no other Rule for Faith and practice than the Holy Scriptures which according to the Apostles are able to make us wise unto Salvation The Church of Rome doth equal unwritten Traditions with the Holy Scriptures whom some of that Church do call a nose of Wax Another and that no less Man than a Cardinal affirms That the Scripture is no more to be believed in saying that it comes from God than Mahomet's Alcoran because that saith so too Another Cardinal saith That the Scriptures have no authority but for the Decree of the Church they mean the Roman Church by whom it ought to be regulated and not the Church be regulated by it and the reason is because as it is confess'd that the people would easily be drawn away from observing the Church's i. e. Romish Institutions when they should perceive That they are not contained in the Law of Christ and that their i. e. Popish Doctrines are not only different from but repugnant to the Holy Scriptures Hence doth the Church of Rome under severe penalties forbid the Laity the perusal of them and thereby involves every Lay-man in the guilt of being a Traditor which in the first Ages of Christianity was a crime next door to Apostasie Which act doth not only imply That the Popish Church refuseth to be try'd by the Test of God's Word but is diametrically opposite to the practice of the Primitive Christians as appears in the following Quotations The Romish Tenet of slighting the Scriptures is contrary to the Word of God Ioh. 5. 39. 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. Contrary to the Fathers Clemens Romanus Epist. ad Corinth p. 58 61 68. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 47. Idem l. 3. c. 1. c. 2. Tertullian adv Hermogen c. 23. Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat l. 7. Origen in Esai Hom. 2. Idem in Comment in Iosh. p. 27. Id. Homil. in Leviticum 9. Comment in Matthaeum p. 220. Cyprian Epist. 74. Eusebius adv Sabellium l. 2. Constantinus Magnus apud Theodoret. Histor. lib. 1. c. 7. Athanasius in Orat. adv Gentes de Incarn Christi Hilarius ad Constant Optatus l. 5. de Schis Donat. Basil. de Sp. Sancto c. 7. Id. de verà side ac pià fide Tom. 2. Op. Graec. Lat. p. 386. Id. in Ethicis Reg. 16. Tom. 2. Id. Hom. 29. de Trinit Tom. 1. Gregor Nyss. in Dial. de animâ ac Resurrect Hieronymus in Comment in Esa. cap. 19. Id. in Epist. ad Laetam Id. adv Helvid Id. Praefat. Comment in Epist. ad Ephes. Chrysostom 13. Hom. in Gen. Id. Hom. 52. in Ioh. Id. Homil. 4. in Lazar. Id. Hom. 34. in Act. 15. Id. Praefat. in Epist. ad Rom. Id. Hom. 13. in 2 Cor. 7. Id. Hom. 9. in Coloss. 3. Id. Hom. 3. in 1 Thessal Id. Hom. 3. in 2 Thessal 2. Id. Hom. 8. in Epist. ad Hebr. c. 5. Augustin Epist. 3. Id. de Doctrinâ Christi l. 2. c. 6. 9. Id. de Unitat. Eccles. c. 3 4 5 12. Id. Epist. 157. Id. de Bapt. c. Donat. lib. 1. c. 6. l. 2. c. 3. 14. That passage in S. Augustin Ego Evangelio non crederem c. contr Ep. fundam c. 5. is interpreted by these Learned Papists following To be meant of the Primitive Church and those Men
who saw and heard our Blessed Saviour and not that the Fathers should be of more authority than the Scriptures Ioh. Gerson de vitâ Sp. Lect. 2. Hic aperitur modus c. Ioh. Driedo de Eccl. Script Dogm l. 4. c. 4. Th. Wald. Doctrinal l. 2. c. 21. Sufficiat universali Ecclesiae pro preconio potestatis suae modernae c. who is very smart upon such as held the contrary Idem Epist. 48. Tom. 2. Epist. 19. Cyril Alex. l. 7. adv Iulian Theodoret Dial. 2. Id. Qu. 45. in Genes Theophilus Alexand. in 2 Pasch. Homil. Cyril Hieros Cat. 4. Vincentius Lirinensis contra Haeres cap. 2. c. 41. Iustus Orgelitanus in c. 4. Cantic Gregorius Magnus in Ezekiel l. 1. Hom. 9. Tom. 2. Id. Moral l. 8. c. 8. Id. in Cant. c. 5. Id. Moral l. 16. c. 17. Tom. 1. Id. l. 4. Ep. 40. ad Theod. Medic. Tom. 2. Id. Epist. ad Leand. c. 4. Praefat. in Iob. Tom. 1. That the Holy Scriptures could not be corrupted but those corruptions would have been discover'd See Augustin de utilit credendi c. 3. Id. c. Faustum l. 11. c. 2. and Confess'd by Bellarmin That the Scriptures could not be corrupted but those Corruptions would be discovered by Catholicks de V. D. l. 2. c. 7. Consult in this point Bishop Iewel 's Treatise of the Holy Scriptures who in his excellent Apology handles all the main points in Controversie betwixt us and the Church of Rome and Article 15. against Harding Dr. Stillingfleet's Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion reprinted in 1681 Part 1. c. 7 8 9. Chillingworth's Religion of the Protestants a safe way to Salvation Part 1. Chap. 2. Lively Oracles by the Author as it 's said of the Whole Duty of Man SECT II. WE receive no other Books of Scripture for Canonical in the Church of England than such as of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church The Church of Rome doth make the Books commonly call'd Apocrypha of equal authority with those of the Old and New Testament which neither the Iews to whom were committed the Oracles of God nor the Primitive Church nor any General Council nor any Doctor in the Ages succeeding till about 120 years ago in the Council of Trent nor the Greek Church to this day did ever receive as Canonical Apocrypha receiv'd as Canonical by the Papists is Contrary to the Fathers Melito apud Euseb. Histor. Eccles. l. 4. c. 25. Graec. 26. Origen in Psal. 1. Athanasius Epist. 39. in 2 Tom. Oper. Synops. Sacr. Scriptur Hilarius in Prol. Explanat in Psalmos Cyril Hierosol in Catech. 4. de Sacrâ Scripturâ Concil Laodic Canon 59. Epiphanius Haeres 8. contr Epicur Haeres 76. contra Anomaeos lib. de mens pond Basil. in Philocal c. 3. Gregor Nazianzen de veris genuinis libris S. Scripturae divinitus inspiratae in libro Carminum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amphilochius in Epist. ad Seleucum inter Canonicas Epistolas à Balsamone not at p. 1082. Gr. Lat. Hieronymus in Prol. Galeato sive Praefat. in lib. Regum Ruffinus in Symbol Apostol Sect. 35 36. Iunilius Africanus de part divinae legis l. 1. c. 3. Tom. 6. Bibl. patr part 2. Colon. 1618. Gregorius Magnus Moral l. 19. c. 17. Occam who liv'd above 700 after Gregory viz. about Anno Dom. 1320 explains Gregory's Judgment that Iudith Tobias the Maccabees Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom are not to be receiv'd for the confirmation of Faith Dial. part 3. Tract 1. l. 3. c. 16. Confessed By Cardinal Cajetan who liv'd but Eleven years before the Council of Trent That the Apocryphal Books are not Canonical in libro Esther sub finem Et in hoc loco terminamus c. And afterwards Nam ad Hieronymi limam scil in Prol. Galeato where he owns no Books for Canonical but such as ws receive in that sense reducenda sunt tam verba Conciliorum quà m Doctorum Confessed by Catharine who was in the Council of Trent and by Stapleton who liv'd after Catharine That the Apostles never received nor confirmed the Apocrypha And this will quite ruine their Cause when we have produced Bellarmin confessing That the Church hath no power to make a Book Canonical which was not so before Consult the Learned Bishop Cosin's Scholastical History of the Scripture-Canon upon this Subject SECT III. WE Worship the only God as we are taught to believe in him and none other The Church of Rome enjoyns those that live in its Communion to pray to their fellow Creatures who know not our thoughts and necessities to Hero's and Saints of whom they feign so many ridiculous Stories and to the Blessed Virgin to whom they use such abominable expressions Yea a great Cardinal doth not blush to say That it is not absurd that holy men be called Redeemers after a sort Invocation of Saints or Angels is Contrary to Scripture Matth. 11. 27 28. Ioh. 6. 37 14. 13. 16 23 24. Acts 10. 25 26. 14. 13 14 15. Rom. 8. 27. Ephes. 3. 20. Col. 2. 18. 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Ioh. 2. 1 2. And Contrary to the Fathers who tho' they might sometimes use Rhetorical Apostrophe's and Poetical flourishes are far from the Popish Tenet of Invocation Fathers against this Doctrine Ignatius in Epist. ad Philadelph Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. Theophilus Antiochenus ad Autolycum l. 1. Irenaeus l. 2. c. 57. Origen c. Celsum l. 5. p. 233 236. Concil Laodicenum Can. 35. Ambrose de obit Theodos. Id. de interpellat l. 3. c. 12. Id in Rom. 1. Tom. 5. p. 174. Ierome To. 7. in Prov. c. 2. Augustin de civit Dei l. 8. c. 27. l. 9. c. 15. c. 23. l. 10. c. 1. l. 20. c. 10. l. 22. c. 10. Id. l. 2. de visit infirm Id. Confess l. 10. c. 42. Theodoret in 2 3. Coloss. Dracontius Poetic Hexameron Confessed By some of the most Learned Papists That it is a Doctrine neither expresly nor covertly contained in the Scripture Spalatensis confesseth That Religious Invocation of Saints is Heathenism and meer civil Invocation of them tho' not so bad yet dangerous Cardinal Perron confesseth That there are no footsteps of it either in the Scriptures or in the Fathers before the first four General Councils none of which were call'd till 320 years after our Saviour's Incarnation Bellarmin confesseth That Invocation of Saints was not so much begun by any Law as by Custom This is to the purpose But yet further Wicelius saith That the Invocation of Saints is to be cast out of the Church because it ascribes God's Honour and Attributes to his Creatures and derogates from the Office and Glory of Christ by making Saints Mediators and Intercessors What Protestant could have opposed this vain Doctrine with greater strength of
no not to save all the World Here the Reader may see for this is not only the opinion of one or two private Men but runs with the stream of their Writers what may be expected from the Charity of their Popish Priests what an unlucky tool Auricular Confession is in their hands Besides to how great an awe of and respect for their Confessor to whom they are bound as I have already said to discover all their Sins under pain of Eternal Damnation To what Pride and Insolence to what Lust and Revenge to what Avarice and Rapine are not only the meanest Men but even Persons that make the greatest figure exposed unto by Auricular Confession in Popish Churches It is a slavery so great and intollerable that the Israelitish Tasks in Egypt were a pleasure or at least a divertisement in comparison of it Auricular Confession to a Priest under point of Salvation and Damnation and that People cannot be saved without it is Contrary to Scripture Isai. 55. 7. Acts 2. 38. c. 3. 19. c. 16. 30 31. Rom. 10. 3. Contrary to the Fathers who when they did speak of the necessity of Confession generally meant Confession before God only or a publick acknowledgment of some publick crimes incurring the censure of Excommunication and that in an Ecclesiastical Assembly Origen in Psal. 37. Hom. 2. Cyprian de lapsis Serm. 5. Chrysostom Hom. 4. de Lazaro Id. Hom. 2. in Psal. 50. Homil. 31. in Epist. ad Hebraeos Hom. 5. de incomprehensibili nat Dei Hom. 8. de poen Hom. de poenit Confessione Augustin Confession l. 10. c. 3. Auricular Confession acknowledged not to have been Instituted by our Saviour and that it is not of Divine Institution by these Learned Papists Cardinal Cajetan in Ioh. 20. Scotus in sent 4. dist 17. Q. 1. Maldon in summa Qu. 18. Art 4. Bell. de poenit l. 1. c. 4. Acknowledged by others That it is better to say that it was Instituted rather by the Tradition of the Universal Church than by the Authority of the Old and New Testament And yet it is denyed That this Tradition is Universal and that it is not necessary amongst the Greeks because this Custom i. e. of private Confession sprung not up among them de poenit dist 5. in principio Gloss. Again it is Confessed That the Fathers scarce speak of it as a thing commanded by Rhenanus in admonitione de Tertullian Dogmat. Lastly It is Confessed That we may obtain Pardon though our Mouths be silent then we do not confess And our Lord doth shew that a Sinner is not cleansed by the Judgment of the Priest but by the Bounty of Divine Grace Gratian dist 1. cap. Convertimini What clashing and enterfering is here Is this the pretended solid Union of the Popish Church in matters of Salvation and which she enjoyns under pain of Damnation Have they no better Grounds for their Articles of Faith than these Can Auricular Confession be of Divine Institution and yet neither be Instituted by our Blessed Saviour nor mentioned by the Fathers as a Divine Precept nor imposed by an Universal Tradition of the Church And lastly can it be necessary to Salvation and yet we can obtain pardon of Sins without the use of it Let any Papist reconcile me these erit mihi magnus Apollo Consult herein Bishop Taylor 's Disswasive Part 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. F. White against Jesuite Fisher p. 189. Concerning the Marriage of the Clergy see Bishop Iewel 's Defence of the Apology of the Church of England Part 2. p. 180. and Part 5. p. 456. Bishop Hall's Honour of the married Clergy SECT X. AS I have all along shewed the vast difference in Doctrines betwixt the Protestant Church of England and the Church of Rome so will I put a Period to this Discourse after I have done the like in that of Obedience Which I shall not as I have hitherto argue from the Articles and Homilies of our Church the Decrees of their Church the Writings of the Fathers and from Ancient Councils because that hath been sufficiently canvassed of late years but only subjoyn the undenyable Testimonies of King Iames I. and King Charles the Martyr of ever-blessed Memories and the Royal Grandfather and Father of our present Gracious Sovereign to determin the Case of Protestant's Loyalty and Popish Rebellion King Charles I. in his Excellent Book entituled ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chap. 27. to our late Gracious King and then Prince of Wales saith The best Profession of Religion I have ever esteemed that of the Church of England in which you have been educated In this I charge you to persevere as coming nearest to God's Word for Doctrine and to the Primitive Example for Government I tell you I have tried it and after much search and many disputes have concluded it to be the best in the World keeping the middle way between the pomp of Superstitious Tyranny and the meanness of Fantastick Anarchy King Iames I. in His Works p. 504. saith As on one part many honest Men seduced with some Errors of Popery may yet remain good and faithful Subjects so on the other part none of those that truly know and believe the whole grounds and School-conclusions of their Doctrines can ever either prove good Christians or good Subjects Ibid. Scarce any one who hath been a beginner or prosecutor of this late War against the Church the Laws and Me was or is a true Lover Embracer or Practiser of the Protestant Religion established in England To which I add Solatii ergô that excellent Expression in His Majesty's first and most Gracious Speech to His Privy Council I know the Principles of the Church of England are for Monarchy and the Members of it have shewed themselves good and faithful Subjects therefore shall I always take care to defend and support it King Charles I. in his Solemn Declaration October 23. 1642. saith That there was a greater number of Papists in the Rebels Army than in His. To which may be added That then they are guilty of this mortal Sin of Obedience to a Protestant Prince when they are not strong enough to manage a Rebellion Watson's Quodlibets p. 255. These words deserve to be written in Letters of Gold however they are written in large Characters in good Protestants Hearts Now Unto Him who is able to keep us from falling and to present us faultless before the presence of his Glory with exceeding Ioy To the only Wise God our Saviour be Glory and Majesty Dominion and Power both now and ever Amen FINIS Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other See's By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. 4o. A Vindication of the Ordinations of