The Protestant's companion, or, An impartial survey and comparison of the Protestant religion as by law established, with the main doctrines of popery wherein is shewn that popery is contrary to scripture, primitive fathers and councils ... / by a true son of the Protestant Church of England as established by law.

The Protestant's companion, or, An impartial survey and comparison of the Protestant religion as by law established, with the main doctrines of popery wherein is shewn that popery is contrary to scripture, primitive fathers and councils ... / by a true son of the Protestant Church of England as established by law.

Table of contents

Title page

§

THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reader.

THE INTRODUCTION.

Confessions of the Popish Doctors in this Case.

THE CONTENTS Of the following TREATISE.

THE Protestant's Companion.

SECTION I.

SECT. II.

SECT. III.

SECT. IV.

SECT. V.

SECT. VI.

SECT. VII.

SECT. VIII.

SECT. IX.

SECT. X.

Protestant's Loyalty and Popish Rebellion.

Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE Protestant's Companion: OR, AN IMPARTIAL SURVEY AND COMPARISON OF THE Protestant Religion,

As by LAW Established; With the main Doctrines of Popery:

Wherein is shewn, That Popery is contrary to Scripture, Primitive Fathers and Councils; and that proved from Holy Writ, the Writings of the Ancient Fathers for several Hundred Years, and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves.

Whereby the Papists vain pretence to Antiquity, and their reproaching the Protestant Doctrines with Novelty, is wholly overthrown.

By a True Son of the Protestant Church of England, as established by Law.

LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard. M DC LXXXV

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

‘ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,’ 2 Tim. 3. 16.

‘In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,’ Matth. 15. 9.

‘—But from the beginning it was not so,’ Matth. 19. 8.

‘Non audiatur haec dico, haec dicis, sed haec dicit dominus.’ Augustin. de unit. Eccles. contr. Petil. c. 3.

‘Id verius quod prius, id prius quod & ab initio, ab initio quod ab Apostolis.’ Tertullian. advers. Marcion. l. 4. c. 5.

‘Id esse verum quodcunque primum, id esse adulterinum quodcunque posterius.’ Idem advers. Praxeam, c. 2.

THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reader.

[Page]

[Page]

AS we have immortal Souls of infinite more value than all transient glories and sublunary advantages; so ought we both in obedience to the tender and compassionate advice of our blessed Redeemer (who purchased them with his own dear Blood,) and out of a true concern for our Eternal Welfare, to live such lives here as we may be happy hereafter. Pursuant to this excellent design, We [Page] ought carefully attend to that Holy Religion we have so long professed, which teaches no Doctrines that are not agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and to the practice of the best and purest Ages of Christianity. A Religion, which neither robs God of his Honour, nor the King of his due; a Religion, whose venerable Rites keep a just medium betwixt vain Popish Pomp, and Fanatical Indecency; a Religion that not only teaches us how to be good, but obliges us so to be, that is, a Religion truly Christian, and a Copy of that perfect Original which our Lord and Saviour hath left us for our direction. And therefore as nothing ought to be dearer to us; so we cannot be sufficiently thankful to his Sacred Majesty (whom God preserve) for the Gracious assurance he [Page] has given, that he will support it, and defend us in the profession of it. A King whose Royal Progenitors of Immortal Memory for above 100 years, have not only been the Ornaments but the Supports too of the Protestant Religion; His fam'd Grandfather King Iames Learnedly defending it by his Pen, and thereby justly meriting the glorious Title of its Defender; His Excellent For so doth Mons. Militere, in his Epistle to His late Majesty, confess. Father dying a Glorious Martyr, and his late dearly beloved Brother being a long time Exile for our Reformed Religion. Let us then strive to shew that we are not unworthy of so Illustrious and Valiant a Protector, by our Loyalty to him; not unworthy of such a Religion, by our conformity to its Principles, in Holiness, Sobriety and Charity, and a stedfast adherence to it, in opposition [Page] to any other that will destroy that which our Church hath built upon so sure a Foundation. And that we may rightly understand what this Religion is, and the difference betwixt that which is established in our Church, and what is owned in the Church of Rome, I have made the following Collection; wherein is demonstrated how contrary the Popish Religion is to our Church, and how inconsistent with Scripture, the practice of the Primitive and best Ages of Christianity, and that prov'd, not only from the Writings of the Apostles, and choice Records of Antiquity, but even granted to be so by the most Vives de Instrumentis probab▪ learned and no less impartial Papists themselves; which as it is the testimony of one Friend against another, is lookt upon as an undenyable Evidence.

[Page]Before I conclude, I must admonish the Reader, that I have not rendered the Authors at large, but so quoted them, that the Learned may examine them, nor have I drawn Arguments (as usually) from them, because that would have made this Book (design'd for a Pocketcompanion) to have swell'd into a great Volume; yet to make requital for that just omission, I have, at the conclusion of each Section, directed the Reader to other Writers of our Religion, which treat of that particular Controversie at large.

May then the All-wise God, by whose Divine permission thus much hath been perform'd, so bless this poor labour of his unworthy Servant, that [Page] it may be instrumental to the good of his Church, and the confirming of all our weak Brethren in our most Holy Faith; which was the principal design of its publication.

THE INTRODUCTION.

[Page]

THE Church of Rome, though she talk aloud of the Antiquity of, and an universal consent in her Doctrines, is so far from either, That therein she will be tied to no Rule, nor observe any Law, as if she would verifie that Remarque of Crantzius Metropol. 7. 45. Crantzius upon her in another Case, Nunc ad se omnium Ecclesiarum jura traxit Romana Ecclesia, That she hath engrossed to her self all the priviledges or rights of other Churches. Her greatest Bellarmin de verbo dei, l. 4. c. 4.—Pighius Eccles. Hierarch. l. 3. c. 3. Pool de primatu Romanae Ecclesiae, fol. 92. defendants reject the Scripture, though given forth by 2 Tim. 3. 16. Divine Inspiration, and do say it is no more to be believed, in saying it is from God, than Mahomet's Alcoran, &c. And good reason why, Concil. de stabilienda Rom. sede, p. 6. because her Doctrines are repugnant to the Holy Scriptures. What then will she trust to? Tradition: that she equals with Concil. Trident. Sess. 4. decret. 1. the Scriptures themselves. And yet her great Annalist, Cardinal Baronius, who was once, as it were, a living Library, while he kept the Vatican Dr Iames his Corruption of the Fathers, Part 4. p. 26. Anno 44. Sect. 42. confesseth, That he despaired to find out the truth even in those matters which true Writers have recorded: because there was nothing which remained sincere and incorrupted. This blow [Page] given by so skilful an Artist, dashes all the Characters wherein the defence of Oral Tradition should be legible. And, if Tradition in true Writers be so difficult to preserve, how can it be expected to be safe from spurious ones, or without any Writers at all?

However, though the Papists do not grant, that this ruins their Tradition, I am sure, it cuts off that definition of it, by Bellar. de Tradit. cap. 9. Cardinal Bellarmin, who affirms, that to be a true Tradition which all former Doctors (mind that! or then will the Fathers come in for a share) have successively in their Ages acknowledged to come from the Apostles, and by their Doctrine or Practices have approved, and which the Universal Church owns as such.

Moreover Bellarmin's Definition of Tradition gives us this encouragement and liberty to try Antiquity by Fathers, Councils and Papal Decrees.

For the Fathers, I hope, the Romanists, who boast so much of their being on their party, will not refuse to be try'd by them, when Coster Enchirid. Controvers. cap. 2. Constat manifeste, &c. Campian rat. 3 Seculis omnino quindecim, &c. & rat. 10. Testes resomnes. 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 ad [...] 34. 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 de Concil. autorit. l. 2 c. 12. Sect. Respondeo. 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 How the Papists contemn and condemn the Fathers, See Dr. Iames's Corruption of the Fathers, part 4. home thrust: and yet Salmeron in Ep. ad Rom. cap. 5. disp. 51. p. 468. Salmeron [Page] 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 Corn. Muss. Episc. Bitont. in Rom. 14. p. 468. 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 Apolog. adv. Rufin. l. 2. p. 219. tom. 2. 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, Vid. Bin. not. ad 2. Concil. Constant. tom. 1. part. 1. p. 541. Item not. ad Concil. Chalced. tom. 2. par. 1. p. 410. accordingly as they agree or disagree with their Opinions and Interest at Rome. Which verifies that Lud. Vives in Aug. de civit. Dei, l. 20. c. 36. smart censure of Ludovicus Vives, That those are accounted Decrees and Councils, [Page] 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. See Dr. Iumes's Corruption of the Scriptures, Fathers and Councils, Printed 1611. Part 4. 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 Joh. 5. 31. 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 Capitul. Carol. Mag. c. 88. 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 Anaclet. Epist. ap. Bin. Tom. 1. Part. 1. p. 43. Anacletus: That all, who are present at [Page] Mass, shall communicate; That of Gelas. decr. de Confec. dist. 2. cap. 12. Pope Gelasius of not taking the Bread alone, which (honest-man) he called Sacrilege; and Binius in notis Tom. 1. part 1. p. 64. 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 P. Gelas. Ep. 4. 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.

[Page]And herein the Advite of S. Austin is to be followed, to wit, to follow Neminem velim sic [...] mea omnia, ut me sequatur, nisi in eis, quibus me non ertare perspexerit: August. de persever. Sanct. cap. 21. tom. 27. Solis eis Scripturarum libris qui jam Canonic appellantur didici hunc timorem honorem (que) de erre. ut nullum eorum autorem Scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam, August. Epist. 19. 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 fivefold 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?

[Page]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 Cusan. de Concil. Cath. 2. 3. 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 Aen. Sylvius de gestis Concil. Basil. 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, De Rom. Pont. l. 4 c. 4.

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 himIdem de Pontif. l. 2. c. 29. further, That as long as the Emperors were Heathen, the Pope was subject to them in all civil Causes,

[Page] And

That for above One thousand years, his Id. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. Sect. Secunda Opinio. Judgment was not esteemed Infallible, nor Idem de Concil. l. 2. cap. 13. 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, Barns's Catholico-Romanus Pacificus MS. Sect. 31. 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 & abs (que) 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.

[Page]

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.

[Page]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.

[Page]

SECTION I.

THE Protestant Church of England, our Holy Mother, admits of no other Rule for Faith and practice than the Articles of the Church of England published Ann. Dom. 1562. for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion, Article 6, & 20. 2d Book of Homilies, Hom. 2. Holy Scriptures, which according to 2. Tim. 3. 15. the Apostles are able to make us wise unto Salvation.

The Church of Rome doth equal unwritten Concil. Trident. Sess. 4. Decret. 1. Traditions with the Holy Scriptures: whom Pighius Eccles. Hierarch. l. 3. c. 3. some of that Church do call a nose of Wax: Bellarmine de verbo Dei, l. 4. c. 4. 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 Pool de Primatu Romanae Ecclesiae, sol. 92. Cardinal saith, That the Scriptures have no authority but for the Decree of the Church; (they mean the Roman Church) by whom [Page] itCaranza Controvers. 1. And no marvel, when another affirmeth that the Scripture hath no more authority than Aesop's Fables: V. Bailly Tract. 1. 9. 17. ought to be regulated, and not the Church be regulated by it: and the reason is, because (as it isPeter Sutor Translat. Bibl. c. 22. confess'd) that the people would easily be drawn away from observing the Church's (i. e. Romish) InstitutionsConsul. de Stabilienda Rom. sede, p. 6. And though the Papists do cashier the publick use of the Holy Scriptures, and fly to (as they pretend) an Infallible Judge▪ yet are they not agreed among themselves, who that should be. These Learned Romanists following contend, that the priviledge of Infallibility belongs only to the whole Church militant, and neither to the Pope, nor General Council, nor to the Body of the Clergy: Occam Dial. p. 1. l. 5. c. 25, 29, 3., 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 ChurchCusanus Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 3. Antoninus Sum. Summarum, p. 3. Tit. 23. c. 2. §. 6. Panormitan Decret. p. 1. l. 1. Tit. de Elect. Cap. significasti. Mirandula de fide & ordine credend. Theor. 4. 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 theIn fine Concil. Trident. Reg. 4. first Ages of Christianity was a crimeHence comes it to pass that not only the Popish Laity, but even the Priests themselves are very ignorant in the Holy Scriptures, so that once a Schoolman in the last Age, being to preach at Paris, where the famous Melancthon was his Auditor, took a Text (for want, I suppose, of a better Book) out of Aristotle's Ethicks, Sixtinus Amama Orat. de Barbarie ex Melancth. 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.

[Page]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, [Page] 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.

[Page]

SECT. II.

WE receive no other Books of Scripture forArtic. 6. Canonical (in the Church of England) thanConcil. Trident. S [...]ss 4. 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 theWitness the two Learned Iews, Philo Iudaeus (apud Euseb. de Praeparat. Evangel. l. 8.) and Iosephus; (apud Euseb. Histor. Eccles. l. 3. c. 9. alias 10.) and this is fully confessed by Bellarmine de Verbo Dei, l. 1. c. 10. Iews, (toRom. 3. 2. whom were committed the Oracles of God) nor the Primitive Church, norAs for the third pretended Council of Carthage; alledged by some Papists. S. Austin, who was one of the chief therein, votes in this point for the Doctrine of our Church, de Civitate Dei, l. 17. c. ult. & alibi. And though they pretend that the Book of Baruch (held by us as Apocryphal) was declared Canonical in the Council of Florence; yet did Driedo afterwards deny it to be so, De Dogm. Eccles. l. 1. c. 4. which neither would have done if the Church Catholick had declared the Apocrypha Canonical. any General Council, nor any Doctor in the Ages succeeding, till about 120 years ago, in the Council of Trent, nor theRycaut's Present State of the Greek Church, pag. 372. 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. [Page] 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 quàm Doctorum.

Confessed by Catharin. Op [...]sc. de Script. Canonicis. Quod autem Apostoli, &c. Catharine (who was in the Council of Trent) and by Stapleton de autoritat. S. Script. l. 2. c. 4. § 14.—Sapientiam Ecclesiasticum, &c. 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 de Verbo Dei, c. 10. Itaque fatemur Ecclesiam nullo modo posse [...] non Canonico, nec contra. Bellarmin confessing, That the Church hath [Page] 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 Article 1.-2. Book of Homilies, Hom. 2. God, as we are taught to believe in him, and Artic. 22. none other.

The Church of Rome Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. & Bulla Pii 4. enjoyns those that live in its Communion to pray to their fellow Creatures (who 1 Cor. 2. 11. compared with Isai. 63. 16. S. Augustin saith, That the Souls of the dead are there, where they see not all things, which are done or happen to people. in this life, Augustin de cura pro mortuis, c. 13. know not our thoughts and necessities) to Hero's and Saints (of whom they feign so many ridiculous Stories) and to the Blessed Brev. Rom. Antw. 1663. p. 984. Virgin, to whom they use such abominable expressions. Yea Bellarmin de Indulgentiis c. 4. sub finem. 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. To win them by the expressions of his kindness, and to hold them fast bound to his Service by the testimonies and declarations of his goodness, saith Peter Chrysol. Serm. 147. 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.

[Page]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 Bellarmin alledgeth in particular this Comment upon the Romans to be S. Ambrose's, see Crocus in Censura Scriptorum vet. p. 133. 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 Dominic. Bannes in secunda secundae, Qu. 1. Art. 10. Orationes ad Sanctos esse faciendas, venerandasque esse imagines, ne (que) etiam expresse nec involute Scripture docent. Learned Papists, That it is a Doctrine, neither expresly nor covertly contained in the Scripture.

Spalatensis often. err. Spalatensis confesseth, That Religious Invocation of Saints is Heathenism, and meer civil Invocation of them (tho' not so bad, yet) dangerous. Beatit. Sanctorum. l. 1. c 8. Sect. ult. 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 afterOther Papists say, That there is neither precept nor example for it in Scripture: and they give reasons for it; for the Old Testament, because the Fathers were not yet admitted to the heatifical Vision; and for the New Testament, because that the Apostles were Men of such piety and humility, that they would not admit of it themselves, and therefore mentioned it not in their Writings; and withal, because in the beginning of Christianity there would have been a suspicion, that they had only changed the names of the Heathen Deities, and retain'd the same kind of Worship. Eckius in Enchirid. c. 5. Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp. 8. Peres. de Tradit. p. 3. our Saviour's Incarnation. Bellarmin Sancti. l. 1. c. 18. confesseth, [Page] That Invocation of Saints was not so much begun by any Law as by Custom. This is to the purpose! But yet further, Wicelius Via Regia de Invocat. Sanct. 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 Reason and Argument than these Papists have done?

Truth will Conquer.

The Romish Church Concil. Trident. Sess. 25. Bulla Pii 4. super forma Iuramenti ad calcem Concil. Trid. Bellarmin de Imag. l. 2. likewise obliges all those in its Communion, to Worship Images, (the Idolatrous practice of the Heathen World) and that with the same Azori. us, l. 9. Instit. mor. c. 6. Art. 3. Cajetan. in Thom. Part. 3. Qu. 25. Art. 3. Gregory de Valentia Tom. 3. disp. 6. Qu. 11. punct. 6. Coster Enchirid. p. 438. worship which is given to him whose Image it is (and that, I think, is far enough); so that the Worship may be terminated in the Image Bellarmin de Imag. l. 2. c. 21. prop. 1.. If this be not Idolatry, I know not what can be such! And yet, that nothing might be wanting in their Worship, to make up the measure of iniquity, They deny Index Expurgatorius Madri. 1612. in indice librorum expurgatorum, p. 39. dele—Solus Deus adorandus. That God alone is to be worshipped. I suppose, they mean, he must have sharers with him in that Honour; for otherwise it cannot be sence: I am sure, however, it is Blasphemy.

[Page] Image Worship is Contrary to Scripture,

Exod 20. 4, 5. Hence do the Papists often leave the Second Commandment out of their Catechisms, as in Vaux's Catechism, Ledesma's Catechism, & Officium B. Mariae, Pii 5. Pont. jussu editum Antwerp. A. D. 1590.

That the Second Commandment was meant of, and desigued against Images and Idols, the following Fathers and Doctors do attest:

Iustin Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. p. 321. Tertullian de Idol. c. 3, 4. & Id. c. Marcion l. 2. c. 22. despect. c. 23. Clemens Alexand. stro. l. 3. p. 441. Origen c. Celsum l. 4. p. 182. & l. 7. p. 375. Id. in Exod. Hom. 8. Athanasius in Synops. Nazianzen in vers. de decal. Ambrose & Ierome in Ephes. c. 6. Augustin Ep. 119. c. 11. Procopius & Rupertus in Exod. c. 20.

Contrary to Scripture,

Lev. 26. 1. Deut. 4. 15, 16. & 5. 7, 8, 9. Isa. 40. 18, 19, 20. Micah 5. 13. Matt. 4. 10. Ioh. 5. 21. Rev. 19. 10.

Contrary to the Fathers,

Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. p. 65, 66. Theophilus Antiochenus ad Autolycum l. 1. p. 77, & 110. Clemens Alexandrinus strom. l. 6. & in paraenetico. Tertullian adv. Hermogen. init. Minutius Felix p. 33. who saith, Cruces nec colimus nec optamus. Origen c. Celsum l. 7, & 8. The Council of Eliberis in Spain, at An. D. 310. Can. 36. Lactantius lib. 2. cap. de Orig. error. dubium non est, &c.

[Page] Optatus l. 3. Epiphanius Epist. ad Ioh. Hieros. Augustin de morib. Ecclesiae Cath. l. 1. c. 34. & de side & symbolo c. 7. & Id. contr. Adimant. c. 13. & Id. Tom. 3. de consens. Evangel. l. 1. c. 10. Id. de civit. Dei l. 9. c. 15. Fulgentius ad Donatum. Gregorius Mag. l. 9. Epist. 9. Imagines adorare omnibus modis devita.

Moreover the Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. Church of Rome would oblige us to adore the Consecrated Host, (or Bread in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper) and with the same Worship which is due to the true God. Which by the Coster Enchirid. Con trov. c. 8. de Euch. p. 308. & Fisher c. O [...]colampadium l. 1. c. 2. Confession of some of their Learned Men is an Idolatry (if That the Apparitions, which as the Papists pretend, have appear'd upon the Altar, instead of the Sacrament, may, and have been the Illusions of the Devil; is Confessed by two Learned Schoolmen; viz. Alexander de Hales, sent. 4. Qu. 11. & Biel 51. Lect. upon the Canon of the Mass. Transubstantiation cannot be made out, which if it can, we ought no more to believe our own Eyes) more stupid than the sottish Heathens were guilty of. Though this practice is so far from being Ancient, That elevation of the Host, accompanied with the ringing of a Bell at the consecration thereof (that all who heard it, might kneel and joyn their hands in adoring the Host) was instituted but about An. Dom. 1240.Naueler. ad Ad. 1240. Krantz. sex. l. 8. c. 10.

The Fathers were so far from worshipping the Host, that some of them are sharp in reproving those, who reserved the Reliques of it; as appears by

Clement's Epistle to S. Iames, Origen in Levit. Hom. 5. and by the 11th. Council at Toledo, c. 14. And in Ierusalem they us'd to burn the remainders thereof, Hesychius in Levit. l. 2. c. 8.

[Page]Concerning Invocation of Saints, Angels, &c. see Archbishop Laud's excellent Book against Jesuit Fisher, so much commended by King Charles I. Dr. Stillingfleet's Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion, &c. Part 3. Ch. 3. Dr. Stillingfl. Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Ch. of Rome, c. 2. Bishop Taylor's Disswasive from Popery, Part. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. F. White against Jesuit Fisher, pag. 289. Dr. Brevent's Saul and Samuel at Endor. Bishop of Lincoln's Letter to Mr. Evelyn.

Concerning Image-worship and the Adoration of the Host, see Bishop Iewel's Article 14 against Harding. Archbishop Laud against Jesuit Fisher. Dr. Stillingfleet's Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome, and his Defence of it. His Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part. 3. Chap. 3. Bishop Taylor's Disswasive from Popery, Ed. 3. C. 1. Sect. 8, 9. Ch. 2. Sect. 12. Monsieur de Rodon's Funeral of the Mass, c. 5.

Confessed By these Learned Popish Doctors hereafter mentioned, That the making of Images was prohibited in the old Law, and not to be found in Scripture.

Aquinas 3. Sent. Dist. 9. Q. 2. ad. 1. Prohibitum est. Alexander Hales, p. 3. Q. 30. m. 3. ar. 3. Albertus 3. d. 9. ar. 4. Bonaventure 3. d. 9. Marsilius 3. q. 8. ar. 2. Rich. media villa 3. d. 9. Q. 2. Gerson compend. tr. 2. d. 10. Praecept. Abulensis Exod. 20. Q. 39. Et Dominic. Bannes in 2a. 2ae. Qu. 1. art. 10.

[Page]That the Fathers condemn'd Image-worship is Confess'd by Polydore Virgil de Invent. l. 6. c. 13. where he saith, Sed teste Hieronymo omnes ferè veteres sancti Patres (speaking of Images) damnabant ob metum Idololatriae. For fear of Idolatry. And by Cassander, Consult. d. Imag. Quantum veteris initio Ecclesiae ab omni imaginum adoratione abhorruêrunt, declarat unus Origenes.

And That for the first four Ages after Christ, there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Oratories of the Christians is

Confess'd By Petavius, Dogmat. Theol. To. 5. l. 15. c. 13. S. 3. c. 14. S. 8.

SECT. IV.

OUR Church contends for and embraces that faith, which was Jude 3. once delivered to the Saints, and admits and professes that same, which all true Christians have made the badge of their Holy Profession, which Articles, and Iewel's Apology. is briefly comprehended in the Apostles Creed, and explain'd in those others call'd the Nicene and Athanasian, which may be prov'd by the Scriptures, and have been approved by the Universal Church, by the Decrees of the first General Councils and Writings of the Fathers. The Popish Church, especially that part of it which is called the Court of Rome, obtrudes and imposes new Articles of Faith, [Page] making Bellar. de Eccles. l. 3. the Bishop of Rome the Infallible Judge and Arbitrator of all Doctrines, enjoyning an implicit faith and blind obedience to his Dictates; wherein we must renounce M. Cressie in his Appendix c 7. Sect. 8. saith, That the Wits and Judgments of Catholicks (he means Papists) is to renounce their Judgment and depose their own wit. I will make no Application, let the Reader do it himself. our very Reason: so that Exercitia Spiritualia Ign. Loyolae, Tolosae 1593. p. 173. Reg. 1. if he call that white which we see to be black, we are to say so; since he hath (as Turrecremata summae de Ecclesia l. 2. c. 103. Petrus de Ancorano de Heret. n. 2. Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona, p. 59. a. 1. & art. 2. And this knack of making new Creeds is very agreeable to that fancy of Salmeron, Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus, ut quaelibet aetas suis gaudeat veritatibus, quas prior aetas ignoravit, Dis. 57. in Ep. ad Rom. they say) the power of making new Creeds,

Contrary to Scripture, Gal. 1. 8, 9.

Contrary to S. Augustin de Unit. Eccles. contr. Epist. Petil. c. 3. and all the Fathers who shew an esteem for the Scripture.

Confess'd By Cardinal Bellarmine, That till above a thousand years after Christ, the Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 2. Sect. Secunda opini [...]. Popes Judgment was not esteemed Infallible, nor his Id. de Concil. lib. 2. c. 13. Authority above that of a General Council; much less then is it above that of the Holy Scriptures.

Hence must it necessarily follow, That it is a new Article of the Creed, to believe that the Pope can make new Creeds.

Consult Dr. Stillingfleet's Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome, Chap. 4.

[Page]

SECT. V.

OUR Church useth the same Article 25. Sacraments, which our Saviour Christ left in his Mat. 28. 19. Luk. 22. 19, 20. Church and no other, to wit, Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which both the Article 30. Laity and the Clergy in our Communion receive intire without mutilation, according to our Blessed Saviour's Institution Mat. 26. 27. 1 Cor. 11. 26, 27, 28., the practice of the Apostles, and of the Latin Church for Concil. Constantiense Anno Dom. 1414. Sess. 13. fourteen hundred years after our Saviour's Incarnation, and of the Apud Chytrae. de Statu Eccl. Orient. Primum Patriar. Resp. p. 149, &c. The Greek Patriarch Hieremias's Letter to the Tubing Divines, bearing date May 15. 1576. Greek Church in the last Age; if not until this day.

The Church of Rome doth not only clog its members with the number of Concil. Trident. Sess. 7. seven Sacraments; (which precise number of Sacraments was not held for Catholick, even in the Roman Church, till above a thousand years after Christ, and therefore far from Primitive Christianity) but deprives the Laity Concil. Constant. Sess. 13. of the Cup in the Eucharist, contrary to our Saviour's Institution: which is at once the highest presumption, and withal not one degree remov'd from Sacriledge.

[Page] The number of Seven Sacraments Contrary to the Fathers,

Iustin Martyr, Apol. 2. (whom even Bellarmine himself confesses to have mentioned but two Sacraments, de effect. Sacram. l. 2. c. 27. Sect. venio.) Tertullian advers. Marcion. l. 4. c. 34. & Id. de coronâ militis c. 3. Cyril of Ierusalem in his Catechisms. S. Ambrose in his Books de Sacramentis. Augustin de Doctr. Christi, lib. 3. c. 9. Id. de Symbolo ad Catech. Tom. 9. Id. Epist. 118. ad Ianuar. Tom. 2. Iunilius in Genes.

Confess'd, That Peter Lombard, Master of the Sentences (who liv'd Anno Dom. 1144.) was the first Author that mentioned the precise number of Seven Sacraments, and the Council of Florence held Anno Dom. 1438, was the first Council that determined that number.

By Cardinal Bellarmin, de Sacram. lib. 2. c. 25. and Cassander, Consult. de num. Sacram.

Communion in one kind Contrary to Scripture, Matt. 26. 26, 27, 28. Luk. 22. 19, 20. 1 Cor. 11. 26, 27, 28.

Contrary to the Fathers,

Dionysius Areopagita, Eccl. Although some learned Men in our own Church will have Apollinaris, who liv'd in the fourth Century, to be the Author of that Book. See Dr. Stillingfleet's Answer to Cress. Apolog. c. 2. §. 17. p. 133. and Dr. Cave in the Life of Dionysius Areopagita, p. 73, 74. Hierarch. c. 3. (which Author I quote in the front of the Fathers, because the Papists would have him to live in the [Page] first Age; though it is more probable that he liv'd later; albeit not so late as Monsieur Daill'e would have him.) Ignatius Ep. ad Philadelph. Iustin Martyr, Apol. 2. in fine p. 162. Clemens Alexandrin. Stromat. l. 1. p. 94. & Id. Paedagog. l. 2. c. 2. p. 35. Tertullian de Resurrect. c. 8. & Id. l. 2. ad Uxorem c. 6. Origen, Hom. 16. in Num. Cyprian, Epist. 54. Tom. 1. l. 1. Epist. 2. Gregor. Nazianzen Orat. 11. in laud. Gorgon. & Orat. 40. in Sanctum Baptism. Tom. 1. Athanasius, Apol. 2. contra Arrianos, [...], &c. Ambros. in Orat. ad Theodos. & apud Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 18. Hieronymus Epist. ad Rusticum Tom. 1. Id. sup. S [...]phon. c. 3. Tom. 6. Chrysostom in 2 Cor. Hom. 18. Tom. 3. Edit. Savil. p. 646. Augustin 4. Qu. 57. in Levit. Leo Ser. 4. de Quadrages. Gelasius Decret. 3. part. de Consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Comperimus. Hincmar in the Life of the Archbishop Rhemes (who converted King Clovis of France to the Christian Faith) reports that the Archbishop gave a Chalice (or Cup) for the peoples use, with this Motto,

Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro,

Injecto, aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus,

Remigius domino reddit sua vota sacerdos,

è Cassandri Liturg. c. 31. Pamelii Liturgic. p. 618. Tom. 1. Gregorius Magnus, Dial. l. 1, 4. c. 58. Id. Dial. l. 3. c. 36. Tom. 2. Id. in Sab. Paschae, Homil. 22. Tom. 2.

Confess'd, That Communion in one kind, is against the practice of the Apostles, by Paschasius Radbertus de corp. & sang. domini c. 19.

[Page]Confess'd, That it was a General Custom for the Laity to Communicate in both kinds, by Salmeron, Tract. 35.

Confess'd By Cassander, Consult. Sect. 22. That it was receiv'd in both kinds for above a thousand years after Christ; by In tertiam partem S. Thome, tom. 3. Quest. 80. Disp. 216. Art. 12. cap. 3. nu. 38. Vasquez and Thomas In Ioh. 6. Lect. 7. Aquinas for above 1200 years; by In Manuali de communione sub utraque specie. Becanus for 1400 years; and last of all by the Concil. Constant. Sess. 13. They in that Council likewise contradicted the Judgments of their ancient Popes, Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory the Great, as may be seen in the Quotations of the Fathers. Council of Constance it self,

It was acknowledged, That Communion in both kinds had been instituted by our Blessed Saviour himself, practised by the Primitive Church, and to that very time; and yet they had the confidence to alter it!

They certainly had confidence enough, but neither too much Reason nor too much Religion, who durst disannul what our Blessed Saviour had enjoyn'd, and what carried his Seal to that very day. Where was then that reverence to Antiquity, which their Followers to this day so much pretend to?

Concerning the number of Seven Sacraments, see Birkbeck's Protestant Evidence Article 4.

Of Communion in both kinds, see Bishop Iewel's Article 2. against Harding. Bishop Taylor's Disswasive, Part 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Dr. Stillingfleet's Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 3. Ch. 3. Archbishop Laud against Fisher, Rodon's Funeral of the Mass, Ch. 6.

[Page]

SECT. VI.

WE do not believe that the Elements of Bread and Wine Article 28, & 29. after Consecration become the very Body and Blood of Christ, though the worthy Receiver partakes of both in a spiritual manner by faith; because we herein have all the testimony we are capable of; viz. that of our Reasons and of our Senses, to believe, That there is not a real Transubstantiation or a change of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Saviour: which is an absurd tenet, and hath occasioned many Superstitions.

The Church of Rome holds, that there Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. c. 4. is a conversion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood by Consecration.

Transubstantiation Contrary to Scripture, Luk. 22. 17, 18, 19, 20.

Contrary to the Fathers,

Iustin Martyr, Apol. 2. Irenaeus l. 4. adv. Haer. c. 34. Tertullian cont. Marcion. l. 4. c. 40. Origen, Comment. in Matth. c. 15. Id. Homil. 3. in Matth. Eusebius de Demonst. Evangel. l. 1. c. 1. &c. ult. Macarius Homil. 27. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 2. in Pasch. Ambros. lib. de Bened. Patriarch. c. 9. Epiphanius in Anchorat. p. 6. Chrysostome Homil. 24. in Epist. ad Cor. Id. Epist. ad Caesar. Monach. Ierome, Comment. S. Matth. c. 26. Id. in Isa. 66. & [Page] in Hos. 8. & in Ierem. 22. Augustin. Serm. 9. de divers. Id. l. 3. de Doctr. Christ. c. 16. Id. l. 20. contr. Faust. Manich. c. 21. & in Psal. 98. Id. de civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. & Tractat. 26. in Ioh. Gelasius in lib. de duab. nat. Christ. Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch, apud Phot. Cod. 229. Primasius Comment. in 1 Epist. ad Cor. Facundus Defens. Conc. Chalced. l. 9. c. 5. Gaudentius Tract. 20.

Add to these, that Hesychius Bishop of Hierusalem, in Leviticum, l. 2. c. 8. saith, It was the custom in the ancient Church to burn the remainders of the Eucharist. Which place when Cheyney, a Protestant in Q. Mary's days, insisted upon against the Papists, and demanded what it was that was burned? one answered, That it was either the Body of Christ, or the substance of Bread put there by miracle; at which he smil'd, and said, a Reply was needless: and I think so too.

Chillingworth hath a pretty joking Dialogue betwixt C. and K. about Transubstantiation and the Infallibility of the Roman Church, in his Protestant Religion a safe way to Salvation, Part 1. Ch. 3. Edit. 2. 1638. p. 158, 159.

Transubstantiation

Confess'd Not to be in the Canon of the Bible, by these Learned Papists hereafter mentioned,

Scotus in 4. lib. sentent. dist. 11. Q. 3. Occam ibid. Q. 6. Biel Lect. 40. in Can. Missae. Fisher Bishop of Rochester, c. 1. cont. captiv. Babyl. Cardinal Cajetan apud Suarez. Tom. 3. Disp. 46. Sect. 3. Melchior Canus, Loc. com. l. 3. c. 3. fund. 2.

[Page]That Transubstantiation was not touch'd by the Fathers, was Confess'd by our English Jesuits, Discurs. Modest. p. 13. and by Alphonsus a Castro de Haeres. l. 8. verbo Indulgentia.

Not own'd as an Article Deny'd to be the faith of the Church by Barns in his Romano. Catholicus Pacificus, MS. Sect. 7. liter. Q. of Faith before the Lateran Council (held Anno Dom. 1215) therefore it is no ancient Article,

Confess'd By Scotus apud Bellarm. l. 3. de Euchar. c. 28.

And yet this was the bloody Test in Queen Mary's days, by which so many Glorious Martyrs changed Earth for Heaven.

SECT. VII.

OUR Church acknowledges no Purgatory Article 22, & 18. or Propitiation for our sins, but that which was made once for all Article 31. Heb. 10. 10. by our Blessed Saviour; and that upon the condition of Faith and Repentance. We Article 22. disown all Pardons and Indulgences as grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God; since we are told that we have nothing 1 Cor. 4. 7. but what we have received. We own that good works Article 12. are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, but that they cannot put away sins, and endure the severity of God's Judgment, much less for the sins of others: nor can Article 14. we perform works over and above God's Commands, call'd by the Papists works of Supererogation: to say which, is the highest arrogance. For when [Page] we have done all we are commanded, Christ enjoyns us to say, We are unprofitable Servants. And we look upon our selves as righteous before God for the Article 11, & 13. merit of our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works and deserts.

The Romish Church owns a Purgatory Concil. Trident. Sess. ult. Hence doth Bellarmine threaten us, saying, that whosoever believes not Purgatory, shall be tormented iu Hell, de Purgat. l. 1. c. ult. And yet this same Cardinal (forgetting what he had before affirm'd (for herein he doth not only contradict himself, but all Popish pretensions for Purgatory, when he) grants that Souls in Purgatory do not merit. In Purgatorio animae nec mereri nec peccare possint, Bellarm. de Purgatorio, l. 2. c. 2. To what end then are they sent to Purgatory? for sins pardoned, so that there still remains a guilt of temporal punishment to be paid, either in this life or hereafter in Purgatory. Which upstart Doctrine of Purgatory (for we shall anon shew it to be so) hath prov'd the Mother of Indulgences and Pardons, and thereby hath mightily enriched Spalatensis de Republ. Eccles. l. 5. c. 8. Sect. 73. the Church of Rome, whereby remission of sins is set upon terms Bellar. de Indulg. l. 1. in the vile market of Indulgences; Murther and Incest being valued at five Grosses; Taxa Cancel. Apost. Perjury at six; Sacriledge and Simony at seven, and so on in the Tax of the Apostolick (as it is pretended) But the poor have not these priviledges (whereby mark the great charity of the Romish Priests, which will suffer by consequence, if their Doctrine were true, the poor to go to Hell for want of money), Diligenter nota quod hujusmodi gratiae non dantur pauperibus, quia non sunt, ideo non possunt consolari, Taxa Cancellariae Apostolicae Tit. de Matrimoniali. Chancery. Hence above Tom. Concil. 28. p. 460. 60000 Marks besides all other payments to the See of Rome were yearly carried out of this Kingdom by the Italians, being a greater Revenue than our King then had; as appears by a fruitless complaint in a Letter from the whole Nation to the Council of Lions, Anno Dom. 1245. A round summ it was in those days before the Indian Gold was discover'd, and yet that was spent in maintaining the lust and ambition of the Popish Clergy.

[Page] Popish Purgatory Contrary to Scripture,

Gal. 3. 13. Heb. 1. 3, &c. 9. 14. &c. 10. 10. Rom. 5. 1, 2, 10, 11, Rev. 14. 13. which last Text is a place so clear against Purgatory, that Picherellus a Papist of the Sorbon College, did ingeniously confess that S. Iohn had in those few words put out the fire of Purgatory, de Missà, pag. 156.

Contrary to the Fathers,

Dionysius Areopagita Eccles. Hier. c. 7. Author of the Questions in Iustin, Quaest. 75. Tertullian de Baptismo. Cyprian's Tract. ad Demetri. Sect. 16. Macarius Homil. 22. Hilarius in Psal. 2. Gregon. Nazianzen. Orat. 5. in Plagam grandinis, & Orat. 42. in Pascha. de Eccles. Dogmat. c. 79. Ambrose de bono mortis, cap. 4. Chrysostom de poenit. Serm. 3. Id. in Genes. Hom. 5. & Hom. 16. in Ep. ad Rom. Epiphanius Haeres. 79. sub finem. Augustin, though he doubts in this point, in Enchirid. c. 67, 69. & De civit. Dei, l. 21. c. 26. & de fide & op. c. 16. is positive elsewhere against Purgatory, (scil. lib. de pec. mer. & rem. cap. 28.) he saith, That there is no middle place. That a Man may be any where but with the Devil, who is not with God. Gregor. Magnus in Iob. lib. 13. c. 20. Bede in Psal. 6. Otho Frisingensis in Chron. l. 8. c. 26. Anselm in 2 Cor. 5. Bernard. Epist. 266. Lumbard sen. 3. dist. 19. lit. A. He liv'd Anno Dom. 1144.

[Page]Contrary to the Doctrine of the Greek Church of the later Ages, as appears from their Apology delivered to the Council of Basil Apolog. Graecorum de igne Purgat. p. 66, & 93. Ed. Salmas. about 253 years ago. Hence doth Alphonsus a Castro place their not holding a Purgatory among the Errors of the Greek Church, l. 12. tit. Purgat.

Purgatory

Confess'd By Petrus Picherellus to have no fewel either to kindle or maintain its fire in Scripture: Picherell. de Missa, c. 2.

Confess'd That neither the Scriptures nor the Ancient Fathers have any thing in them concerning

Purgatory, By Alphonsus à Castro l. 12. tit. Purgat. f. 258.

Confess'd, That few or none of the Greek Fathers ever mention it, and the Latin Fathers did not at all believe it, but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it, and that the Catholick Church knew it lately,

By Roffensis Art. 18. con. Luther & Polydore Virgil. de Invent. rerum, l. 8.

Confess'd By another learned Roman Catholick, Father Barns, That it is a thing which lies meerly in human invention, and cannot be firmly deduced from Scriptures, [Page] Fathers and Councils, and That the opposite opinion seems more agreeable to them, in Catholico-Rom. Pacificus, Sect. 9.

Consult herein Archbishop Laud against Jesuit Fisher. Dr. Stillingfleet's Rational Account, Part 3. Ch. 6. Bishop Taylor's Disswasive, Part 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 4.

The Rise of In dulgences.

At first the Indulgences (that were) were but relaxations or releasements of Canonical satisfaction, i. e. of the Discipline or correction of the Church. In this sense are to be understood the first Council of Nice, c. 11. of Arles, c. 10. and of Ancyra, c. 2. But their new and chief foundation was laid by Unigenitus, de poenitentiis & remissionibus. Pope Clement the sixth in his The Doctrine of Indulgences was oppos'd by two famous Papists not long before the Extravagant of Pope Clement, by Franciscus de Mayronis in 4. l. sen. dist. 19. Q. 2. and by Durandus in 4. l. sen. d. 20. q. 3. So that it was far from being either Catholick or Ancient. Extravagant, Ann. Dom. 1350.

Confess'd That we have nothing in the Scripture nor in the sayings of the Ancient Fathers concerning Indulgences as satisfactions before God for temporal punishments, or holding them as profitable for the dead,

By Antoninus Part. 1. Sum. tit. 10. c. 3. By Biel Lect. 57. de Canon. Missae, and by Hostiensis in Sum. l. 5. tit. de remis. nu. 6.

[Page]Consult herein Bishop Taylor's Disswasive, Part 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 3.

The Church of Rome likewise in the Council Concil. Trid. Sess. 6 Can. 9. & Sess. 6. cap. 16. can. 32. of Trent accurses all such as say, That a Sinner is justified by faith only, or deny that the good works of holy Men do truly merit everlasting Life: not to mention that blasphemous Doctrine of the Roman Church, that Catechis. Rom. de Euchar. num. 55. the Sacrifice of the Mass offered (as they pretend) by the Priest is a meritorious and propitiatory Sacrifice for sin; which wholly takes away the efficacy and merits of Christ's Passion and Resurrection.

That the Missal Sacrifice is a Propitiatory Sacrifice for sin, is

Contrary to Scripture, Heb. 10. 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, &c. 9. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. &c. 7. 25.

Contrary to the Fathers, (Who by those Tropical speeches of Sacrificing and offering, did not admit of any Propitiatory Sacrifice but only the Passion of Christ.)

Iustin Martyr, Apol. 2. Ireneus l. 5. c. 34. Clement in Constitution. l. 6. c. 23. Eusebius lib. 1. cap. 10. de demonst. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacram. c. 6. Chrysostom Hom. 17. in Hebraeos. Augustin Enchiridion ad Laurent. c. 33. & Id. de Trinitate & de civitate Dei, l. 10. c. 6. & l. 3. c. 13. & lib. 3. contra secund. Epist. Pelag. cap. 6. Gregor. Dial. lib. 4. c. 59. Lumbard 4. dist. 12. Thomas Aquinas (who lived A. D. 1253.) 3. p. Q. 83. Art. 1. So far is the Romish Doctrine of the Mass from being Ancient!

[Page]That Men merit Eternal Life by their Good Works is Contrary to Scripture,

Luke 17. 10. 1 Cor. 4. 6, 7. Ephes. 2. 8. 1 Ioh. 18.

Contrary to the Fathers,

Ignatius in Epist. ad Rom. Polycarp apud Euseb. Histor. Eccles. l. 4. c. 15. Origen l. 4. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 4. Basil. in Psal. 114. Macarius Homil. 15. Ambrose in Psal. 118. Serm. 20. & in Exhort. ad Virgines. Chrysostom in Matth. Homil. 53. Id. ad Stelechum de compunct. cord. ed. Savil. Tom. 6. p. 157. Ierom super Ephes. 2. Tom. 9. Id. l. 6. in Isai. c. 13. Id. lib. 17. c. 64. Tom. 5. Leo Serm. 1. de assumpt. & Id. Serm. 12. de pass. dom. Theodoret in Rom. 6. v. ult. & Id. in Rom. 8. Augustin Confess. l. 10. c. 4. Tom. 1. & Id. super Iohan. Tract. 3. Tom. 9. & Id. Tom. 8. in Psal. 109. Fulgentius ad Monim. l. 1. c. 10. Iustus Orgelitanus in Cantic. cap. 2. Cassiodore in Psal. 5. Council of Orange, 2. Can. 20. Caranza in summa Concil. Gregor. Magnus Tom. 2. in Ezech. ad sinem. Id. moral. l. 5. c. 8. l. 9. c. 14. l. 29. c. 9. l. 35. c. ult. Id. Psal. 1. Poenit. Tom. 2.

Merit Not allow'd of in Anselm's time, (who liv'd An. Dom. 1086.) as appears from him in Rom. [Page] 12. nor in S. Bernard's days, as appears from him in Cant. Serm. 73. where he saith, That the Saints had need to pray for their Sins, that they may have Salvation through Mercy, and not trusting in their own Righteousness. So far was S. Bernard (who liv'd An. Dom. 1120.) from owning the Popish Doctrine of Merits.

Confess'd By Bellarmin, That Good Works are rewarded above their deserts,

de Iustif. l. 1. c. 19.

Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, consult Bishop Iewel 1 and 17 Article against Harding, Bishop Morton of the Mass, Dr. Brevint's Depth and Mystery of the Roman Mass. Mons. Rodon's Funeral of the Mass, c. 7. & 8.

Concerning the Popish Doctrine of Merits, see Birkbeck's Protestant Evidence, Article 9.

That Men are not justified by Faith only, and for the Merit of our Saviour, but by their own good Works too, by which (as the Papists hold) they merit eternal happiness, is

Contrary to Scripture,

Rom. 3. 28. &c. 4. 4, 5. &c. 5. 1, 2, 3. &c. 11. 6. Ephes. 2. 8, 9.

[Page]Contrary to the Fathers,

Irenaeus l. 4. c. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus Paedagog. l. 1. c. 6. & Stromat. l. 5. Origen l. 3. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 3. Ambrose (or some in the same Age with him, as Bellarmin confesseth, de Iustif. c. 8.) in his Comment. upon Rom. c. 4. and in 1 Cor. c. 1. Theodoret de curandis Graec. affectib. l. 7. Chrysostome in Rom. 1. 17. Homil. 2. & Id. in Tit. 1. 13. Homil. 3. Augustin l. 1. contr. duas Epistol. Pelag. c. 21. & Id. in Psal. 8. concion. 2. Primasius in c. 2. ad Galatas. Fulgentius de incar. & grat. c. 16.

Confessed By Cardinal Bellarmin, That it is most safe and sure to place all our trust upon the only Mercy of God, because of the incertainty of our own Justice and the danger of vain glory,

De Iustif. l. 5. c. 7.

After he had Confessed, That good Works are rewarded above their deserts,

Id. de Iustif. l. 1. c. 19.

Consult herein Birkbeck's Protestant Evidence, Article 8.

[Page]

SECT. VIII.

OUR Church performs all her Prayers and other Divine Offices, and administers the Sacraments with such Rites as are agreeable to the Word of God, being for 1 Cor. 14. 40. Decency and Order in a Language understood Article 24. by all those that are concern'd therein.

The Popish Church Harding against Bp. Iewel Article 3. Missal. Rom. approbat. ex decreto Concil. Trident. & Bulla Pii 5. Chorabini Bullar. Tom. 2. p. 311. hath her Prayers in an unknown Tongue, to which if the people do say, Amen, it is without understanding. Which is not only an unreasonable Service, but an abominable Sin, robbing God of his Honour, and Men of their Devotion.

Prayers in an unknown Tongue are (1.) Contrary to Scripture, 1 Cor. 14.

(2.) Contrary to the Fathers,

Origen contra Cels. l. 8. Basil lib. Qu. ex variis Script. locis Q. 278. Ambrose in 1 Cor. 14. Chrysostom Hom. 18. in 2 Cor. Hierome Tom. 1. Epist. 17. Augustin Epist. 178. Id. in Psal. 18. con. 2. Id. de doctr. Christ. l. 4. c. 10. Bede Hist. Angl. l. 1. c. 1.

[Page](3.) Contrary to Councils and Papal Decrees,

Concilium Moguntinum An. Dom. 812. cap. 45. Concil. Lateran. An. Dom. 1215. c. 9.

Greg. l. 1. titul. 31. cap. Quoniam plerisque Baronius, Tom. 10. A. D. 88. N. 16.

Histor. Boem. c. 13. Written by Aeneas Sylvius, who was afterwards called Pope Pius 11.

(1.) Confessed to be Against Edification in Spiritual matters, by Lyra and Cardinal Cajetan, in 1 Cor. 14. Cassander in Liturgic. c. 28. & Consult. Article 24.

(2.) Confessed to be Contrary to the Practice of the Primitive Church, by Aquinas and Lyra, in 1 Cor. 14.

Consult herein Bishop Iewel against Harding, Article 3. Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive, Part 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 7.

[Page]

SECT. IX.

AS our Church employs such persons in the Ministry of God's Worship and Sacraments, and in feeding and governing the Flock of Christ, as are Article 36. Book of Ordination. Mason of the Consecration of Bishops in the Church of England. Archbishop Bramhall's works Tom. 1. Discourse 5. and Tom. 4. Discourse 6. lawfully called to their Office and Ministry, and are Consecrated and Ordained according to the Scriptures and Canons of the Universal Church, and of whose Bishops we can shew Which the Roman Church, notwithstanding its big pretences to constant succession, cannot justly challenge: and that both from its five vacancies, making up almost Nine years, when Rome had no Bishop at all, and the many Schisms, by some Chronologers reckoned up to be Twenty nine (a fair number indeed!) by Onuphrius to be Thirty, and by Bellarmin himself to be Twenty six: Whereof the Twentieth Schism lasted Twenty years, and the 21st. lasted 36 years; during which time the Church of Rome had two Popes, which excommunicated each other; the 26th continued, saith Genebrard (Chron. l. 4.) An. Dom. 1378. from Urban VI. till the Council of Constance, which was at least Thirty five years. Baronius (ad Annum 1044. Sect. 5. Tom. 11.) calls the three Popes who then contended for the Papal Chair, a Beast with Three heads ascending out of the bottomless Pit. Add to these the Seventy years stay of the Popes at Avignion, which quite joints their boasted Succession. For during these times, where was the true Successor of S. Peter? Or was the Church (in their sense) so long without an Head? a Succession to the Apostles of our Saviour as fully as any other Church at this day can do: so do we leave all Article 32. Ecclesiasticks, whether Bishops, Priests, or Deacons, to Marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness; since Heb. 13. 4. Marriage is honourable in all, and not forbid, but permited, and, in Cases so requiring, enjoyned by God's Law, and practised as well as taught by persons of the same function (i. e. Priests) in the best and purest Ages of the Church, as may be seen in the following Quotations.

[Page]The Church of Rome Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Cleric. c. 20. Sect. Respondeo. Id. de matrim. l. 1. c. 21. denies Marriage to the Clergy, but permits (I suppose, by way of requital to) them Concubines Hence did Aeneas Sylvius (afterwards Pope, by the name of Pius 11.) mention how Ulric bishop of Ausburg reprov'd the Pope concerning Concubines, Aeneas Sylvius de morib. Germaniae.: For so doth Dist. 82. Can. Presbyter in Glossa. Cardinal Campegius observe, and Pighius teach, which doth not only give great cause of scandal to Iews and Infidels, but in 1 Tim. 4. 1. 3. the Holy Apostles judgment is the Doctrine of Devils. And the Reason of Concubinage may be easily inferr'd, when some Coster. Enchiridion de coelibat. prop. 9. Durandus sent. l. 4. dist. 33. Martinus de Magistris lib. de temp. qu. 2. de luxuria. 3. Qu. 7. Lata Extravag. de bigamis Quia circa. Communiter dicitur, Quod Clericus pro simplici fornicatione deponi non debet. dist. 81. Maximianus glossa in Gratian. of their most Learned Men will scarce allow Fornication to be a Sin; however preferring it in Ecclesiasticks before lawful Wedlock.

The forbidding of Marriage is Contrary to Scripture,

Levit. 21. 13. 1 Tim. 3, 2. 12. Hebr. 13. 4. 1 Cor. 7. 2, 9.

That the Apostles were Married, except S. Iohn, is Confessed by these Fathers,

Ignatius ad Philadelph, Clemens Stromat. lib. 7. Euseb. Histor. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 30. who report that S. Paul was Married; and S. Ambrose in 2 Cor. c. 11. who acknowledges, that all the Apostles except S. Iohn were Married.

[Page]Fathers that were Married themselves and yet were either Bishops or Priests, &c.

Tertullian, as appears by his Two Books to his Wife, and yet he was a Priest, as appears from S. Ierome, do Eccles. Script.

Gregory Nazianzen was the Son of a Bishop: see Greg. Nazianz. in carmine de vitâ suâ, & Elias Cretensis in Orat. Greg. Nazianz.

S. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, was Married, as is evident from his Epistle written to his Daughter, Abrae, &c.

Fathers Voting for, or acknowledging Matrimony in the Clergy,

Salvian de providentiâ l. 5. Ambrose Offic. l. 1. c. ult. Chrysostome in Epist. ad Tit. Homil. 2. Id. in Epist. ad Hebraeos Homil. 7. Epiphanius contra Origenian. Theodoret. in 1 Tim. 4. Isidore Reg. de vitâ Cleric. dist. 23. c. His igitur. Theophylact. in 1 Tim. 13. Bernard in Cant. Serm. 66. Aeneas Sylvius Epistol. 308. and he lived Anno Dom. 1458.

[Page]Marriage of the Clergy was not absolutely forbidden by the Greeks in the last Age, as appears by the Patriarch Hieremias's Letter to the Tubing Divines, dated May 15. 1576. Primum Patriar. Resp. apud Chytrae. de statu Eccles. Orient. p. 149.

This Heretical Doctrine of forced Celibate in Ecclesiasticks, was first established at Rome by Pope Gregory the 7th. aliàs Hildebrand, termed Antichrist by Aventinus Anual Boiorum, l. 5. who tells us, That Hildebrand confessed, when he was dying, that it was by the instigation of the Devil that he made so great a disturbance in the Christian World. A fit Man then was he (whom the Papists still cry up so much) to introduce unchaste Celibate, and banish Holy Matrimony! See also Cardinal Benno (who knew him) in vita & gesta Hildebrandi. Matth. Westmonast. Anno Dom. 1074. who saith, That Hildebrand expell'd Married Priests (Mark what follows) contra Sanctorum Patrum sententias, against the opinions of the Holy Fathers. See also Sigebert ad Annum 1074. & Matth. Paris ad Annum 1074. Ancient Historians about A. D. 1074. and was first put in practice to purpose by Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury Henry Huntington p. 378. and by Ioranal. Histor. The Constitutions of this Synod may be seen in Archbishop Parker's Antiq. Britan. Ed. 2. p. 118, 119. here in England, about A. D. 1105. Dr. Burnet's Abridgment of the History of the Reformation l. 2. p. 70, &c. though some will have his Predecessor Lanfranc to have imposed it upon the Prebendaries and Clergy that lived in Towns, but not without great reluctancy. For what complaints, what Tragedies, what lascivious pranks this Devillish Doctrine occasioned, the Historians declare at large; particularly that Comical Story of the Italian Cardinal Iohn de Crema, Recorded by Ancient Roger Hovedon, Henry Huntington. Popish Historians, who, after he had entertained the English Clergy with a fine Discourse against Marriage, [Page] was the same night caught in Bed with a Harlot in London; as if he would only commend Virginity to others, and practise the contrary himself.

That the Reader may know, what an Age this was, wherein the Celibate of the Clergy was established, let him hear Cardinal Bellarmin describing and characterizing it in his Chronology. In these times (saith he) wherein the Roman Bishops did degenerate from the Piety of the Ancients (mark that!) the secular Princes flourished in Holiness. You therefore see, that Priests Marriage was forbidden by impious Popes.

And about the beginning of this contention, (viz. about An. Dom. 860.) the Pope got a round check from Udalricus or Ulric. Udalricus (mentioned by Aeneas Sylvius de moribus Germaniae) de Coelibatu Clerici. Nunquid enim merito communi omnium sapientum judicio haec est violentia, &c. a Bishop of that time, who told him, That in the judgment of all wise Men, it was to be accounted violence, when, any Man against Evangelical Institution (mind that!) and the charge of the Holy Ghost, is constrained to the execution of private Decrees. The Lord in the old Law appointed Marriage to his Priest, which he is never read afterwards to have forbidden.

But not to insist upon this clear testimony for the Doctrine and Practice of our Church, nor to mention the many other ill consequences of a Celibate in the Clergy (which occasion in other Countries, where Popish Religion is publickly professed, that Satyrical Proverb to be Fils de Prestre) by some of the most eminent Men in the Roman Church, and those too of a late date.

[Page]It is Confessed, That Priesthood doth not dissolve Marriage; so Cardinal Cajetan, Tom. 1. Tract. 27.

Nor That it is of the essence (or being) of a Priest to keep single; so Dominicus Soto l. 7. de Iure Qu. 4.

Moreover that upstart practice in the Roman Church of Auricular Confession, wherein Concil. Trident. Sess. 14. de poenitenti▪ i. every Christian is bound under pain of Damnation, to confess to a Priest all his mortal Sins, which after a diligent examination he can possibly remember; yea, even his most secret sins, his very thoughts, yea, and all the circumstances of them which are of any moment, is a slavery as great as groundless. Then not to mention its ill aspect upon Government, as being made an engine of State, and a Picklock of the Cabinets of Princes, sealing up all things from the notice of the Magistrate, but in requital of that, making a liberal discovery of what is against him to others. A pregnant instance of which horrid consequence was that damnable Treason designed by Gunpowder against the Person of King Iames the First (of blessed Memory) and the two Houses of Parliament, to which the Pope himself, as we Delrio disq. Magic. l. 6. c. 1. are credibly informed, was not only privy, but its director too. Pursuant thereof, that Pope (Clement VIII.) a little before that time gave order, that no Priest should discover any [Page] thing that came to his Knowledge in Confession, to the benefit of the Secular Government.

I think there needs no better evidence of the Pope's good intentions towards the Secular Government, nor what ill effects the practice of this sort of Confession can and may produce than this. And, that it still may be used as an Instrument in procuring the ruine of Princes, and subversion of Kingdoms, Let us hear their (i. e. the Popish) Doctors opinion of its virtue and use.

One of them (then) tell us, That the Seal of Auricular Confession (which they hold to be of Divine institution) is so Sacred, that it may not be broken open to save Tolet. Instruct. Sacerd. l. 3. c. 16. the Lives of Princes, or of the whole Commonwealth. Another Henriquez. de poenit. l. 2. c. 19. n. 5. goes further, and saith, That the Seal of Confession is not to be broken; 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 See Eudaemon▪ Ioannes in his Apology for Garnet, Binet, Suarez, &c. Writers) what may be expected from the Charity of their Popish Priests; what an unlucky tool Auricular Confession is in And yet they can say, that it is of Divine Right, see Biel l. 4. dist. 17. Q. 1. & Scotus ibid. & Bonaventure ibid. n. 72. which if it had been, the Fathers would never have writ against it, nor would it have been disannull'd: For private Confession of crimes was abrogated about Anno Dom. 396. upon the Discovery of a Whoredom committed betwixt a Deacon and a Noble Woman, Histor. Tripartit. l. 9. c. 35. And, though it was practised several years before, yet was it not enjoyn'd as a necessary act of Salvation before the Council of Lateran, An. Dom. 1215. under Pope Innocent III. and therefore ar from true Antiquity! their hands. Besides, to [Page] 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.

[Page] 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.

[Page]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.

[Page]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

[Page]

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. Yea it was but two days before his death, that he told the Princess Elizabeth, That he should dye for maintaining the true Protestant Religion. 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.

[Page] 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.

[Page] Now, Unto Him who is able to keep us from Jude 24, 25. 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.

[Page]

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 the Church of England; in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome, to prove the Nullity of our Orders. By GILBERT BURNET, D. D. Octavo.

An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England. By GILB. BURNET, D. D. Octavo.

The APOLOGY of the Church of England; and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio, a Venetian Gentleman, concerning the Council of Trent. Written both in Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, IOHN IEWEL, Lord Bishop of Salisbury: Made English by a Person of Quality. To which is added, The Life of the said Bishop: Collected and written by the same Hand. Octavo.

The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL, D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland. Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and Iames Waddesworth (a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil) in Matter of Religion, concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience. Octavo.

The Decree made at ROME the Second of March, 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Iesuits, and other Casuists. Quarto.

A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Quarto.

A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue. Quarto.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

The Protestant's companion, or, An impartial survey and comparison of the Protestant religion as by law established, with the main doctrines of popery wherein is shewn that popery is contrary to scripture, primitive fathers and councils ... / by a true son of the Protestant Church of England as established by law.

Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.

Edition statement

1685

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2004-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A30399

ID [STC]

Wing B5845

ID [STC]

ESTC R29606

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

11179213

ID [OCLC]

ocm 11179213

ID [VID]

46562

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A30399)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 46562)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1437:3)

Source

— The Protestant's companion, or, An impartial survey and comparison of the Protestant religion as by law established, with the main doctrines of popery wherein is shewn that popery is contrary to scripture, primitive fathers and councils ... / by a true son of the Protestant Church of England as established by law., Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715..

Extent

[20], 45 p.

Printed for Richard Chiswell ...,. London :: 1685.. (Attributed by Wing and NUC pre-1956 imprints to Gilbert Burnet.) (Reproduction of the original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.