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 INTRODUCTION.

THE Church of Rome, though she talk aloud of the Antiquity of, and an uni∣versal 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 1 1.1 Crantzius upon her in another Case, Nunc ad se omnium Ecclesiarum jura traxit Romana Eccle∣sia, That she hath engrossed to her self all the privi∣ledges or rights of other Churches. Her greatest 2 1.2 defendants reject the Scripture, though given forth by * 1.3 Divine Inspiration, and do say it is no more to be believed, in saying it is from God, than Ma∣homet's Alcoran, &c. And good reason why, 3 1.4 because her Doctrines are repugnant to the Holy Scri∣ptures. What then will she trust to? Tradition: that she equals with 4 1.5 the Scriptures themselves. And yet her great Annalist, Cardinal Baronius, who was once, as it were, a living Library, while he kept the Vatican 5 1.6 6 1.7 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

given by so skilful an Artist, dashes all the Characters wherein the defence of Oral Tradition should be legi∣ble. And, if Tradition in true Writers be so diffi∣cult 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 † 1.8 Cardinal Bellarmin, who af∣firms, 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 Anti∣quity 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 7 1.9 Coster and o∣thers 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 8 1.10 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 9 1.11 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 10 1.12 home thrust: and yet 11 1.13 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 12 1.14 he tells you, That he believes the Pope in matters of Faith, before a thousand Augu∣stines, 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 13 1.15 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 Ap∣probatum, 14 1.16 accordingly as they agree or disagree with their Opinions and Interest at Rome. Which verifies that 15 1.17 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. 16 1.18 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 17 1.19 Christ himself was willing to be tried, If I bear witness of my self, my witnes is not true; and contra∣ry to all equity and the old 18 1.20 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 Coun∣cils, 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 Di∣vines had been the surest and soundest; but it is not so at Rome.

For they have slighted and contradicted that De∣cree of 19 1.21 Anacletus: That all, who are present at

Mass, shall communicate; That of 20 1.22 Pope Gelasi∣us of not taking the Bread alone, which (honest-man) he called Sacrilege; and 21 1.23 That of Alexander 11. of celebrating but one. Mass in one day. Which abo∣minable practice of the Roman Church make good that saying of their own Pope 22 1.24 Gelasius, Quaero ab his judicium quod praetendunt ubinam possint agitari, an apud ipsos, ut iidem sint inimici, testes & Ju∣dices? Which signifies in short, that they would be both Enemies, Witnesses and Iudges in their own Cause; as being Conscious to themselves of such Er∣rors 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) Spiritu∣al 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 Wri∣tings, 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 fol∣lowed, to wit, to follow 23 1.25 him (and such as him∣self) no further than they follow Truth and Holy Scri∣pture, 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 re∣verence 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, be∣fore 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 monarchi∣cal 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 Iu∣risdiction, even over the Apostles? In such Cases as these, Idem est non esse & non apparere.
• 3. Whether, if S. Peter exercised any such Autho∣rity, it was not temporary, and ceased with his Per∣son, 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 Bles∣sed 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 25 1.26 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 A∣postles.

To the third and fourth Queries it is Confessed by 26 1.27 Aeneas Sylvius (afterwards Pope, by then ame of Pius II.) That the Pope's Succession is not revea∣led in Scripture; and then it cannot be proved jure divino positivo.

And by Bellarmin,27 1.28

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 him28 1.29 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 29 1.30 Judg∣ment was not esteemed Infallible, nor 30 1.31 his Au∣thority 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, 31 1.32 Father Barns, That allowing the Bishop of Rome to have Supre∣macy 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 design∣ing 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 Do∣ctrine of Rome, but shall advise the Reader to con∣sult 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.

Notes

• 1 1.1

  Crantzius Metropol. 7. 45.
• 2 1.2

  Bellarmin de verbo dei, l. 4. c. 4.—Pighi∣us Eccles. Hie∣rarch. l. 3. c. 3. Pool de prima∣tu Romanae Ec∣clesiae, fol. 92.
• * 1.3

  2 Tim. 3. 16.
• 3 1.4

  Concil. de stabilienda Rom. sede, p. 6.
• 4 1.5

  Concil. Trident. Sess. 4. decret. 1.
• 5 1.6

  Dr Iames his Corrupti∣on of the Fa∣thers, Part 4. p. 26.
• 6 1.7

  Anno 44. Sect. 42.
• † 1.8

  Bellar. de Tradit. cap. 9.
• 7 1.9

  Coster En∣chirid. Con∣trovers. cap. 2. Constat mani∣feste, &c. Cam∣pian rat. 3 Se∣culis omnino quindecim, &c. & rat. 10. Te∣stes resomnes.
• 8 1.10

  Baronius ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉 34.
• 9 1.11

  Bellarmin de Concil. au∣torit. l. 2 c. 12. Sect. Re∣spondeo.
• 10 1.12

  How the Papists con∣temn and condemn the Fathers, See Dr. Iames's Corruption of the Fathers, part 4.
• 11 1.13

  Salmeron in Ep. ad Rom. cap. 5. disp. 51. p. 468.
• 12 1.14

  Corn. Muss. Episc. Bitont. in Rom. 14. p. 468.
• 13 1.15

  Apolog. adv. Rufin. l. 2. p. 219. tom. 2.
• 14 1.16

  Vid. Bin. not. ad 2. Con∣cil. Constant. tom. 1. part. 1. p. 541. Item not. ad Concil. Chalced. tom. 2. par. 1. p. 410.
• 15 1.17

  Lud. Vives in Aug. de civit. Dei, l. 20. c. 36.
• 16 1.18

  See Dr. Iumes's Cor∣ruption of the Scriptures, Fathers and Councils, Printed 1611. Part 4.
• 17 1.19

  Joh. 5. 31.
• 18 1.20

  Capitul. Carol. Mag. c. 88.
• 19 1.21

  Anaclet. Epist. ap. Bin. Tom. 1. Part. 1. p. 43.
• 20 1.22

  Gelas. decr. de Con∣fec. dist. 2. cap. 12.
• 21 1.23

  Binius in notis Tom. 1. part 1. p. 64.
• 22 1.24

  P. Gelas. Ep. 4.
• 23 1.25

  Nemi∣nem velim sic 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mea omnia, ut me sequatur, nisi in eis, quibus me non erta∣re perspexe∣rit: 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.
• 25 1.26

  Cusan. de Concil. Cath. 2. 3.
• 26 1.27

  Aen. Syl∣vius de gestis Concil. Basil.
• 27 1.28

  De Rom. Pont. l. 4 c. 4.
• 28 1.29

  Idem de Pontif. l. 2. c. 29.
• 29 1.30

  Id. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. Sect. Secunda Opi∣nio.
• 30 1.31

  Idem de Concil. l. 2. cap. 13.
• 31 1.32

  Barns's Catholico-Ro∣manus Pacifi∣cus MS. Sect. 31.