uncontrouled uncontradicted Apostolical Scriptures as the 17th Canon with the 1 Tim. 5. 1 Cor. 7. the 27th Canon with the 1 Tim. 4. 1 Cor. 9. 1 Tim. 4. Canon 68 with 1 Tim. 4. 2. A repugnancy with â—â—h other jarring strings not tuned to a harmony as the 6 17 27 40 50 65 68. 3. The inconsistency of some Canons as the 8 20 36 38 with the Historical Transactions of the Age of the Apostles 4. They are not testified by any Authority of any Credit neither in the Age of the Apostles not in the first the second very scantily in the third that succeed not in Justin Martyr St. Irenaeus St. Clemens of Alexandria Origen or St. Jerome I insist upon this Subject the longer that I may once for all discover the paint and varnish of this adulterate beauty of the Sanctuary trickt up in the title the dress of the Canons of the Apostles I confess they have the face of Antiquity though not entirely unblemisht but they have not the immediate not the true stamp of the Authority of the Apostles as their Authors As for the Ninth Canon alledged if it be of any validity why doth the Trentine Council the Oracle of the present Church of Rome run counter with it whilst it allows private Masses If it be of no validity why do you object what you abrogate The approbation of the Sixth General Council produced is obnoxious to the same exception If any stress may be laid upon it why is the lustre of it so studiously zealously eclipsed Why are the Doctrines decreed so severely impeacht confidently doomed for erroneous by the Grandees of your Church by Popes Cardinals because that Council hath allowed the Marriage of Priests hath prescribed Laws to the Church of Rome If no stress may be laid on it the objection is a confutation of it self It is a fallacy without any grain of ingenuity to offer that for a figure to be much reckoned to us which to your selves passeth for a Cypher of no value To inspect the strength of your Argument for the Second Century A single pretended Canâ—â— of the Apostles not adhered to in the present Church of Rome approved by a single Canon in the Sixth General Synod not acknowledged to be Oecumenical or Orthodox by the greatest Champions of the present Church of Rome hath defined that any Bishop or Priest the Oblation being made not communicating shall be Excommunicated Therefore the Church now in Communion with the See of Rome and no other had a Succession from Christ and the Apostles for the Second Century A very loose extravagant Inference Doway or Rome may invent such Logick neither Athens nor Alexandria would H. T. From the Year of Christ 200. Chief Pastors 205 Zepherinus 221 Calixtus I. 223 Pontianus 238 Antherus 239 Fabianus 255 Cornelius 255 Lucius 257 Stephanus I. 260 Sixtus II. 261 Dionysius I. 273 Felix I. 275 Eutychianus 284 Caius 291 Marcellinus The Second and Third Ages whether by reason of the Churches great Persecutions or the not stirring of any famous Hereticks produced no Councils yet the Succession of Popes Martyrs and Confessors we have which is sufficient for our purpose W.T. We assert a more genuine Interest in these Martyrs Confessors recited than your selves To ratifie or rather to varnish a false claim you produce counterfeit Decrees of Popes H.T. The Decrees of Popes in these Ages Anacletus decreed That Priests when they sacrifice to our Lord must not do it alone but have Witnesses that they may be proved to have sacrificed perfectly to God in Sacred places and so the Apostles have appointed and the Roman Church holds 1. Epist. de Consecr d. 1. c. Episcopus And in the end of the same Epistle If more difficult questions shall arise let them be referred to the Apostolick See of Rome For so the Apostles have ordained by the Command of our Lord Anno Dom. 101. Alexander decreed That Bread only and Wine mingled with Water should be offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Epist. Orthod de Consecr ch 2. in Sacram. Sixtus decreed That the Sacred Mysteries the B. Eucharist and Sacred Vessels should not be touched but by Sacred Ministers and that the Priests beginning Mass the People should sing Holy Holy Holy c. In his Epistle to all the faithful of Christ. Anno Dom. 129. Telesphorus Commanded the Seven Weeks of Lent to be fasted Ep. Decr. Anno Dom. 139. Pius in his Epistles to the Italians enjoyned Penance for him by whose negligence any of the Blood of our Lord should be spilt 9. 1. c. qui compulsus An. Dom. 147. Anicetus tells us That James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter James and John in his Decr. Ep. to the Bishop of France and cites Anacletus for it Ep. 2. dist 25. c. prohibe fratres Soter decreed That no Man should say Mass after he had eaten or drunk De Consecr dist 1. c. ut illud Zepherinus decreed That the greater causes of the Church are to be determined by the Apostolick See because the Apostles and their Successors had ordained Ep. to the Bishop of Sicily 217. These were all Popes of Rome but no true Protestants I hope W.T. We reject all these specious Evidences as disingenuous Forgeries Una litura sat est The Grounds of our Rejection are these 1. Because the Style is not varied whereas commonly Mens Expressions are as different as their Complexions their Styles as their Features As the Style is not varied so it is not adorned not only void of the Elegancy of Rhetorick but of the congruity of the Grammar directly repugnant to the terseness the politeness of the Phrase of those times both for Ecclesiastical and prophane Authors Minuius Felix St. Cyprian Pliny Suetonius the uniform barbarism of Expression manifests these decretals to be the products of the same rude Pen in a later corrupter Age than is pretended 2. Because the Matter of these Decretals doth not correspond with the Piety and Exigency of those times of bloody Persecution They conduce to promote Ambition not Martyrdom to gratifie Carnal not Spiritual Interests calculated for the splendour of the Church not its Umbrage its Adversity not to excite Devotion but support Preheminence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The Scripture Citations are according to St. Jerom's Translation whereas the youngest Pope in the present Catalogue in dispute were deceased many years before St. Jerom's Birth in the year 341. I might add to this falseh◠〈◊〉 point of Chronology the inadvertency of a fallacy 〈◊〉 dating several Decretal Epistles by the account of such Consuls who never were joyned together according to the Test. of Baronius Annals and some in other Ages separated 4. These Decrees are not mentioned by Eusebius the Favourite of Constantine the Great in the East nor by St. Jerome who converst with Pope Damasus in the West not by Damasus himself though such had fair occasions of relating them had there been any such
exception when that proof which is falsely produced is truly retorted We willingly submit to the Test of these recited Bishops of Rome who lived Saints and most of them dyed Martyrs whose Doctrine we own and embrace as true and orthodox whose practice Humane Infirmities excepted we estimate as meet patterns to be imitated whereas both have been notoriously scandalously receded from by pretended Successors in the See of Rome for at least eleven Centuries last past H.T. In this first Age or Century after Jesus Christ we find the Primacy in St. Peter as is manifest by the said Council in the Acts where after a serious debate whether the Jewish Ceremonies ought to be imposed on the Gentiles St. Peter defined in the negative Acts 15. 7 8 9 10. W.T. St. Peter declared v. 14. but defined not He spake not first authoritatively to lead nor last juridically to ratifie Not first untruly alledged by Bellarmine there had been much disputing before v. 7. much arguing among the Judges according to the ordinary gloss Not last this priviledge this preheminence appertained to St. James as Bishop of Jerusalem Therefore he speaks last It is the Reason offered by St. Chrysostome and St. Theophilact St. Peter had a special occasion of an Historical Narrative touching the Gentile Conversion as also St. Paul and St. Barnabas had but neither did pronounce Juridical Sentence No mean Romanists had so much ingenuity as to acknowledge that all the rest of Apostles even St. Peter not excepted did vail to the Jurisdiction of St. James whilst he presided at Jerusalem H. T. St. James who was Bishop of the place seconding by his Sentence what Peter had decreed all the Multitude saith Jerome held their Peace and into his Peters Sentence James the Apostle and all the Priests did pass together Ep. 89. to August c. 2. Peter saith he in the same place was Prince and Author of the Decree W.T. It was St. Peters preparatory Sentence or Opinion but St. James ultimate Decree final Determination assisted with the rest of the Apostles So Gaudentius hath exactly exprest it The Testimony of St. Jerome recited consists in two phrases The one is St. James and the rest passing into the Sentence of Peter Which imports no more but that what was asserted by St. Peter was approved by St. James and the rest The Nicene Council did assent to the Opinion acquiesce in the Judgment of the Famous Paphnutius yet did he not preside in that Council The second quoted expression of St. Jerome is that St. Peter was Prince and Author of the Decree This denotes a precedence of time in uttering his Opinion before those recounted afterwards not a preheminence of place of office above them in establishing that Opinion This is not inconsistent with the significancy of Prince in Cicero's stile That it cannot be understood in a notion of dignity of Principality is evident in the Constitution or Decree its self pronounced by St. James which contained some Subjects not mentioned by St. Peter To abstain from pollutions of Idols and from Fornication and from things Strangled and from Blood H.T. That St. Peter translated his Chair from Antioch to Rome is proved First Because he remained not always at Antioch as all that Church acknowledgeth nor did she challenge the first Chair in any General Council as appears in the Councils Secondly By the Decrees of Councils Popes and other Fathers giving the Primacy to the Roman Church W.T. It is a loose Illogical Inference St. Peter remained not always at Antioch therefore he translated his Chair to Rome He might exercise his Apostolical Function in both Churches and yet possibly discharge a distinct Episcopal Office in neither During his absence from Antioch he was at Jerusalem at Alexandria at Babylon He spent some years at Pontus Galatia Cappadocia but it cannot be thence concluded nor is it asserted that he fixed a Pontifical Chair in either As to the succession of St. Peter Antioch had at least as much right to challenge the first Chair in a General Council as Rome St. Paul was at Rome at Corinth at Athens at Ephesus at Philippi He was an Apostle in each place properly a Bishop in neither As to your second allegation of the Decrees of Councils Popes Fathers giving Primacy to the Roman Church This is specious pompous in appearance but is not solid vigorous in force Latet dolus in generalibus A Generality is the fittest Dress and Vail for a Fallacy As for the first Chair in a General Council the point of Primacy specified no Antient General or National or Provincial Council hath assigned it to the Pope I confess the Laterane Council under Leo the 10th hath so establisht it but that was in the year 1516. The Councils of Constance and Basil allow it not As for the pretended Decrees of Popes in their own concern of Power and Grandeur they are of little validity By the Canon Law the Pope cannot be Judge in his own Cause It were irrational and presumptuous to exact it The first Chair in General Councils hath been sometimes arbitrarily granted to the Pope in the Primitive Church and sometimes to other Patriarchs That there hath been no ancient concession no constant uninterrupted Prescription for it appears in the Records of the first Council of Nice the Sardian Council the first and second Constantinopolitan the first and second Ephesine Whenever the Pope had the prime Chair in any General Council anciently it was only Honorary for Session for Distinction not Authoritative for Jurisdiction H.T. The Council of Sardis Anno Dom. 400 Western Fathers 300. East 76. decreed That in cases of Bishops for the honour of St. Peters memory it should be Lawful to appeal from whatsoever other Bishop to the Bishop of Rome Can. 3. W.T. I offer several exceptions for the empairing the validity of this Testimony First I deny this to be a General Council If it were it ought to be sorted the second General Council next to the Nicene before the first Constantinopolitan You alledge the consluence of 300 Western 76 Eastern Fathers If it had been so it had been a great disproportion betwixt the Eastern and Western Prelates and a grand advantage to promote the Papal Dignity There is a mixture of Truth and Falshood in the citation of this Authority Omnis fabuld fundatur in Historia An Oecumenical Council it was in the intention the design of the Emperor but not in the execution the management of the Council In the one respect it hath been anciently called a General in the other a Particular Council Both the Eastern and Western Fathers were Summoned by Imperial Edict in Obedience whereto both repaired to Sardis But they consulted nor convened not together upon a difference touching St. Athanasius and Paulus The Eastern receded from Sardis and held a Council apart at Philippi in Thracia The Western Prelates that remained apart at Sardis could not constitute
ΕΞΕΜΥΘΙΑ Roman Oracles Silenced OR THE Prime Testimonies OF ANTIQUITY Produced by HENRY TURBERVIL IN HIS Manual of Controversies Examined and Refuted By the Right Reverend Dr. WILLIAM THOMAS late Lord Bishop of WORCESTER Imprimatur Jan. 20. 1691. Z. Isham R. P. D. Henrico Episc. Lond. a Sacris LONDON Printed by J. R. and are to be Sold at the Crown in Cornhil near the Stocks-Market MDC XCI To the Reader THE Publishing of this small Tract opus posthumum imperfectum may need an Apology as wanting the last Hand of the Accurate Author and Answering but to the Six first Leaves of the Manual it attacks But since 't is a Genuine Copy compared as near as could be with the obscurely written Original And it sufficiently unravels the Testimonies of the First Six Hundred Years of which the Romanists mainly Vaunt and to which the Reformed confidently Appeal It may pass for a just Treatise without Disappointment to the Reader or Derogation to the Authors Name whose Memory is Venerable and Pretious with those that knew Him Being a Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of singular Modesty and Humility to conquer Passion and win Affection yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Conspicuous Learning and Life to convince Gainsayers and confound Adversaries An Instance both of his Candour and Dexterity Herein we have in his former Apology for our Church against the Cavils of Separatists and in this Present Answer to the Challenge of Romanists In both which he bath approved Himself a Workman that need not be ashamed whose unbyassed Judgment and steady Hand carry an Equal Poise without Prejudioe and Partiality Who had not learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fit his Faith to the Times But as a faithful Soldier and Martyr stood fast in the Truth of the Church of England kept his standing contra Homines Dâ—mones No Temptation could warp or divert Him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the last Gasp. May His Sincerity and Constancy be to us a lasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Encourage and Establish us in the Present Truth A MANUAL OF CONTROVERSIES ARTICLE 1. The TENET THAT the Church now in Communion with the See of Rome is the only True Church The ARGUMENT That is the only True Church of God which hath had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time But the Church now in Communion with the See of Rome and no other hath had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time Therefore the Church now in Communion with the See of Rome and no other is the True Church of God W. T. The Major is not true unless there be an addition of a word only to wit which only hath had a continued succession from Christ. The Major being thus propounded is not of validity in the judgment of Bellarmine who will not admit succession to be a proof of the true Church The Major is to be denyed if understood of a Local Personal without a Doctrinal Succession H. T. The Major proved Isa. 59. 21. Isa. 60. 1 3 11. Isa. 62. 6. Ezek. 37. 16. Dan. 7. 13 14. St. Matth. 28. 20. St. John 14. 16. Eph. 4. 11 12 13 14. W. T. These Texts of Scripture import the Conversion of the Gentiles the propagation of the Gospel the Divine assistance to be continued to the Church in the most diffusive Capacity without a particular restriction to any distinct place or People A discussion whereof were a digression not pertinent to the main of our Controversie The Minor Proposition exacts a closer Examination This Proposition hath two Members the one positive The Church now in Communion with the See of Rome hath had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles The other Member is negative No other Church hath had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles The minor Proposition is impotent in both the parts like Mephiboseth lame in both feet There is no Confirmation offered as to the later branch that excludes other Churches from the plea of Succession Whereas the Local Personal Succession of the Churches of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch Jerusalem and others is flourisht out in specious Catalogues loss liable to exception than that of Rome which is yet more transcended in a Doctrinal succession if reduced to the Sacred Test of Canonical Scripture H. T. The minor Proposition is proved by this ensuing Catalogue of the Roman Churches chief Pastors Coâ—â—olls Nations Converted and Publick Professors of her Faith From the Year of Christ Thirty Chief Pastors General Councils 30 Our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ.  34 St. Peter the Apostle The Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem St. Peter presiding Acts 15. 67 Linus  80 Cletus  93 Clement  W. T. What is asserted of Concoction of Meats is appliable to this point of succession in the See of Rome An Error in the first degree is not to be corrected in the rest If the first link be loose all will be shatter'd There is no certainty because there is no harmony in the Testimonies of Antiquity touching the first second third and fourth Bishops of Rome Rusinus relates that Lâ—nus and Cletus were not distinct Successors after the dissolution of St. Peter but joint Bishops during his Life that they discharged the Episcopal Office whilst he did the Apostolical Epiphanius gives this account of the Succession in the See of Rome Peter and Paul Linus Cletus Tertullian lays the Foundation of the See of Rome in both the Apostles recited Irenaeus testifies that both invested Linus in the Bishoprick of Rome St. Clemens makes himself the immediate Successor of St. Peter Tertullian ratifies this Order of Succession Irenaeus and †Eusebius recite Anacletus for the immediate Successor of Linus St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus recount Anacletus as Predecessor to Clemens Baronius vindicates this to be the true Suecession I shall not hence conclude your forementioned noâ— consistent with this to be false being countenanced by the Authority of St. Optatus and others But I may hence infer how little Weight and Stress there is in your first Evidence produced for Succession in the See of Rome In opposition to all these Records Clemens in pretended Recognitions in his name avouches St. Barnabas to be the first Planter of the Church Your next Argument is the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem St. Peter presiding Acts 15. The discussion of this Objection may properly be referred to the next Section because it is there more dilated and improved by the Opponent H. T. From the Year 100. 103 Anacletus 112 Evaristus 121 Alexander 132 Sixtus 1. 142 Telesphorus 154 Higinus 158 Pius 1. 163 Anicetus 175 Soter 179 Eleutherius 194 Victor W.T. The great Roman Orator justly set a brand of Infamy on a Common Argument that may reciprocally be used by both Parties in Controversies It is yet more lyable to
a General Council nor obtrude a Canon to bind any out of the Western Limits My second exception is against the Canon its self produced which hath a suspitious taint of imposture being not received not after the utmost scrutiny to be found by the African Fathers as not extant in the Nicene Council so not in any other St. Austin was utterly ignorant of any such Canon who was not unverst in a point of Jurisdiction and Preheminence so much discuss'd in his time St. Austin acknowledged no Sardian Council but what was Heretical The Cardinal Cusanus had so muâ—h ingenuity as to acknowledge a sufficient ground of doubt whether there be extant a Constitution of the Sardian Council The Sardian Canon quoted is the more obnoxious to the impeachment of fraud because it is repugnant to the fifth Canon of the Nicene Council for which the Orthodox Fathers of that Age had a most solemn veneration The first who inserted this Canon to give it lustre into the famous Universal Code together with the rest of the Sardian Council was Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525. who acted the Advocate and Sophister to advance the Papal Interest being an Abbot of Rome who in his Translation of the Code out of Greek into Latin notoriously shuffled as by addition of the Sardian pretended Canons and those called the Canons of the Apostles so also by substraction of the eight Canons of the Council of Ephesus the three last Canons of the first Constantinopolitan Council the two last of Chalcedon and of a Canon of the Council of Laodicea My third exception is That the Canon recited being indulged to pass as genuine and authentique Dato non concesso yet will it not support the weight of a due durable staple appeal to the Bishop of Rome It is softly and warily propounded by Hosius If it please you let us in charity honour the memory of St. Peter It is the tenour of a novel singular favour bound up with several restrictions it put the Pope in a capacity upon deliberation for a review refer'd to him to nominate Commissioners not out of Rome out of the Neighbouring Province This might be an extraordinary esteem and reverence to Julius then Bishop of Rome not decreed as a constant Prerogative for succeeding Ages If any such vigour of it be pretended it is abrogated annulled in the Councils of Constantinople and Antioch H.T. The Council of Chalcedon Anno Domini 451. Fathers 600. We thoroughly consider truly that all Primacy and chief Honour according to the Canons is to be kept for the Arch-Bishop of Old Rome Action 16. W.T. I readily grant all Primacy and chief Honour to the Arch-Bishop of Rome according to the genuine unforged Canons in the Primitive Church which assert only a priority of Order before other Patriarchs not a superiority of Power over them much less a supremacy over Councils and Princes vindicated by Modern Canonists by the Jesuits the neat Sophisters of the Church the smooth Parasites of the Court of Rome If H. T. be an Advocate for the former primary I oppose him not if for the latter either his advertency or ingenuity is defective in urging the Council of Chalcedon the trausactions whereof are abundantly repugnant to this pretended preheminence It directly clashes with the ninth Canon of that Council The fallacy in citing of the Testimony of the Council of Chalcedon is unmasked in the immediate subsequent words which ascribes the same Primacy and Honour to the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople This equality of Dignity of New Rome with the Old was passionately resented vigorously opposed but ineffectually unsuccessfully by the Legates of the Pope Upon whose dissatisfaction there was a Recognition a new deliberate discussion of the Canon After which it was more solemnly ratified with an universal reiterated declared consent Leo then Bishop of Rome attested the reality of this Degree even whilst in several Epistles he exprest his disgust of it The Histories of Socrates and Sozomen punctually record it This Council of Chalcedon communicates equal priviledges to the most Holy Throne of New Rome with the Elder being honoured both with Empire and Senate no less than she to be extolled and magnified as her second or next to her Though this be perfidiously omitted in her Roman Edition yet it is inserted in all Greek Copies and retained in the antient Latin Copies extant in Libraries The substance of this constitution is establisht in the Ephesine and Trullan Councils H.T. In the relation of the said Council to Pope Leo. We have confirmed say they the rule of the One Hundred and Fifty Fathers in the first Constantinopolitan Council Anno 381. which hath commanded that after the most Holy and Apostolick See of Rome the Constantinopolitan should have Honour W.T. That relation hath been taxed for a collusion A late figment out of the Colonian Library But supposing it were no fiction what advantage can hence accrew to the Roman See more than is already granted If there be any colour for an Argument it must be from the Epithets most Holy and Apostolick or inserting the See of Constantinople in a seeming inferiour rank to that of Rome Epithets are no Charters for Prerogatives The complemental Rhetorick of a Title is no firm Topick to prove a real preheminence These Epithets are frequently applyed to other Patriarchs and sometimes to inferiour Prelates in the Primitive Church The Records of Antiquity abound in instances which if required shall be plentifully produced All those Churches that have been planted by the Apostles or wherein they have exercised their Function have been stiled Apostolical Seats as the Churches of Rome Antioch Jerusalem Corinth Galatia Ephesus In a secondary Consideration Bishops have been antiently termed Apostles and Episcopacy Apostleship The second hint of an Argument is presumed to be from the ranking of the Constantinopolitan See after that of Rome This doth not advance the power of the Jurisdiction of Rome as not in the Council of Chalcedon which hath been already demonstrated so not in the Rule of the first Constantinopolitan recited The express Decree is in the Latin Translation pari honore frui to enjoy a like honour but it is more pregnant in the Greek to be equally priviledged or dignified as to apreheminence of power in Ecclesiastical matters alike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be exalted or magnified but for precedence of place that is distinctly allotted in the same Canon to the Roman See before the Constantinopolitan to the Constantinopolitan before the Alexandrian and to that of Alexandria before Jerusalem If Leo the Roman Patriark had not been convinced That an equality of Authority and Jurisdiction had been setlâ—d by that Council upon the several recited Patriarks in their several Sees and Provinces he would not have been so much offended with that Canon of the Chalcedon Council before-mentioned and bustled against it but he was sufficiently
apprehensive that it was a check to the Transcendent Honour his Ambition aspired to Both Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon checking his desire of superlative Grandeur H.T. Pope Antherus Anno 238 being asked by the Bishop of Bettica and Toletum Whether it were lawful for a Bishop to be changed from one City to another Answered affirmatively As Peter Prince of the Apostles was changed from Antioch to Rome Decret 7. q. 1. W.T. There is little certainly touching the exact time and continuance of the Papacy of Antherus Whether One year according to Eusebius or Three according to Volateran or Twelve according to Damasus There is less certainty touching the sincerity of the Decret Epistle produced which many have excepted against as spurious upon several accounts among others for the barbarism of the stile the impertinence incoherence of the conclusion Historical Narratives touching Eusebius and Felix long after his time However were the Epistle genuine the Title Prince of the Apostles is no proof of the preheminence alledged as hath been already manifested St. Austin applyed the same Phrase to St. Paul who was acknowledged by St. Chrysostome to be equal in Dignity with St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HT St. Gregory sayes he knows no Bishop but is subject to the See of Rome Ep. 6. 2. W.T. St. Gregory though his memory be pretious being 600 years after Christ when the Church of Rome declined in piety though improved in power hath the less Authentick veneration This great Prelate being a Party is no competent Witness to assert and vindicate the Papal prerogative As the Witness produced so the Evidence it self is justly liable to exception That he knew none but subject to the See of Rome It must probably be limited to the bounds of his personal Acquaintance or his Patriarchical Jurisdiction That it cannot be more diffusively generally understood appears by his solemn waveing any Paternal or Magisterial power to prescribe to other Patriarks assuming only a fraternal Candour to advise That St. Gregory was not ignorant of a Grandee who was not subject to the See of Rome but challenged a higher station Ecclesiastical than himself is abundantly manifest by his zealous resentment of the Patriark of Constantinople his contemporary in espousing the transcendent Title of Universal Bishop not in excluding all others as the Romish Champions would sophistically evade it but in subjecting them It is his paraphrase of this Title To be Inferiour to no other to be Superior to all St. Gregory amply declared his abhorrence of this Title branding it to be novel prophane superstitious proud presumptuous an effect of Infidelity a tincture of Lucifer's Apostacy a badge of Antichrist H.T. Catholick Professors to the year 100 the Blessed Virgin St. John Baptist St. John Evangelist c. Martha Magdalen St. Paul St. Stephen Timothy Barnabas Terla Dennis Martial Ignatius Clemens W.T. They who are of sober discerning Intellectuals cannot but disgust and nauseate this unsavoury fallacy in obtruding shells without kernels Names without any Allegations These are as insignificant for proof in Divinity as Cyphers without any Figures are for account in Arithmetick unless you design to confute as Magicians to conjure by Names to produce Spells instead of Arguments for Enchantment not Conviction Your Confidence in those venerable Saints and your Interest also seems to be the same with that distracted person at Athens whose deluded Imaginations prompted to him That all the Ships and Commodities in the Haven were his own H.T. The Church was spread in this Age over all those Countreys to which St. Paul wrote his Epistles as also France Spain England c. See Baronius W.T. This is out of the Track of our Controversie That Church which was spread in this Age asserted no other Doctrines but what are owned by the Church of England H.T. Catholick Professors to the year 200 Eustachius Hermes Getulius Policarp Concordius Justin Martyr Eusebius Irenaeus Vincentius Potentianus Sophia Fides Spes Charitas St. Felicity with her Seven Children Lucius King of England c. W.T. The Church of England doth not recede from the Religion of these Saints If you have any Instances to charge us with why do you not produce their Testimonies If you have none why do you recite their Names It is an empty pageantry of Sophistry Ad populum phaleras H.T. The Apostles Canons define That if any Bishop or Priest the Oblation Mass being made shall not communicate he should be excommunicated as giving suspition of him who hath sacrificed That he hath not rightly offered Can. 9. approved in the Sixth General Synod W.T. Some of the Canons set out in a specious disguise the name of the Apostles have been boggled at by eminent Romanists among others by the Two Learned Cardinals the accurate Sticklers for the Papal Interest the one in an Historical Sphere the other in a Controversal Baronius and Bellarmine Though they are solemnly cited peremptorily obtruded upon others by the Modern Romanists yet they are not exactly observed by themselves Mich. Medina acknowledgeth that the present practice doth not retain a tenth part of them in the Church of Rome it self The alteration and corruptions of time are the smooth Apologies for the familiar recesses from these pretended Apostolical Rules They are branded for Apocryphal in the worst Nations as not received in the Catholick Church not in the Primitive Roman as composed by Hereticks in the judgment of Gelasius Bishop of Rome in the latter part of the Fifth Century who excelled most of his Successors in Piety and Literature as also by the famous Isidor Bishop of Hispalis towards the close of the Sixth Century Baronius vainly essayed to evade this latter Testimony being not extant as he alledged in the Edition in his Library since in the Decretal purged and refined by the Order of Pope Gregory XIII It is acknowledged to be transmitted from the Toletan Library to Rome which being a publick Record having so signal a Papal Approbation ought to be more Venerable Authentick for credit and estimate than that private Copy of a Cardinal who himself confest They may be so far deservedly termed Apocryphal as being destitute of Authority to have been entirely established by the Apostles Whereas Gelasius inserted them among Apocryphal Books that are not received Photius the Learned Patriark of Constantinople about the middle of the Ninth Century takes the rise of these Canons to be an extraction out of a tumultuous heap 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his phrase of Synodical Canons The first recital of any such Canons called Apostolical in Genuine Antiquity the Testimony of Zepherine being notoriously spurious was St. Epiphanius towards the end of the Fourth Century Many Reformed Divines have by weighty Arguments unmaskt these Canons which have passed abroad with a false Passport not to be truly Apostolical Among others the Centurists of Magdeburg have offered these proofs 1. They clash with the
they are not recorded not insisted not reflected on by any of the Fathers for 800 years after Christ. They were first brought upon the Stage by Isidore a Collector of Councils and pretended Decretal Epistles in the beginning of the Ninth Century inserted in the Roman Code first countenanced by Pope Leo the Fourth on the midst of that Century prescribed as Authentick to the British Bishops and afterwards within Ten years by his next but one immediately Successor Pope Nicholas the Eighteenth Authoritatively recommended to the Gallicane Bishops The Papal usurpt Jurisdiction in that Age wanted such adulterate stamps to pass for currant Coyne Not one of these Decretal Epistles was received recited in the Universal Code the Primitive Venerable Rule consisting of the Canons of the Councils Four whereof were General as to the Convention the rest were General in point of Estimate and Approbation That Isidore from whom these Decretal Epistles take their Rise their Original for Extraction was not Isidore Pelusiot most illustrious for Piety and Antiquity not Isidore Hispalensis the Noted Famous Bishop of Siville in Spain Scholar to St. Gregory But a later notorious infamous Isidore Mercator who made Religion his Merchandize Antiquity his disguise to act the Gibeonites who vented Novel Impostures for Ancient Decrees This is not the Impeachment only of Protestants Baronius ascribes to him some of the Decretal Epistles Turrianus a hasty Zelâ—â— of the School of Ignatius assay'd to vindicate ineffeâ—â—â—y the integrity of the Decretal Epistles Others of the same Society but of a higher Rank of more piercing judgments Bellarmine Baronius Cusanus would not adventure to be Advocates for such egregious frauds As for Bellarmine I shall not insist upon his acknowledgment of this spurious Off spring though attested by some credible Witnesses because not apparent in the printed Edition of his Lectures at Rome I still find extant in the Edition of Sartorius at Ingolst that some Errors are crept into these Epistles neither dare I assert them to be undoubted Baronius did less mince who profest that he demonstrated that in many respects they are suspected Cusanus is yet more clear and positive in his Confession That they betray themselves Thus have I declared the invalidity of the forgery of the pretended Ancient Decretal Epistles in general As for those distinctly cited by H. T. for the Third Century Besides the exceptions common to others they most of them are of points Ritual not Doctrinal touching the Shadow the Ceremony not the Body the Substance of Religion As they are Subjects of little Importance so of less difference betwixt the Church of England and the Church of Rome and therefore are strangely alledged for the Conviction or Confutation of any intelligent Adversaries There are but three Decrees of Popes produced in this Century of any material controversal moment The one is a determination in point of Fact the other 〈◊〉 point of Right and Prerogative The matter of Fact is the Testimony of Anicetus that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by Peter James and John Whereas more solemn credible Records of Antiquity without Corruption testifie that James among all the Apostles first obtained the Episcopal Throne and that from Christ himself If this be a true Narrative of Anicetus why does Bellarmine Jo. de Turrecremata and others the Learnedst Sticklers for the Church of Rome not adhere to it Who derive the Episcopal preheminence of St. James at Jerusalem entirely from St. Peter Were this a true Genuine Epistle of Anicetus were this an Authentick Evidence yet this would but sort and rank Peter with James and John which will not cotten with the Pâ—pal singular Exaltment To palliate to cloak rather than to vindicate the Testimony of Anicetus Anaclotus is cited Ep. 2. dist 25. dignum patellâ operculum one Imposture brought for Security for another That this Epistle of Anacletus is supposititious among many Arguments I shall select two In point of Chronology Clemens is mentioned in this Epistle as Predecessor to Anacletus whereas if Ireneus Tertullian Eusebius Epiphanius and others of the Primitive Worthies of the Church may be credited Clemens was his Successor I shall not need to insist upon Modern Evidences for this Rank since it is acknowledged by Bellarmine 2. In point of Theology That Epistle relates that the Seventy Disciples were Elected by the Apostles whereas Anacletus was a better Divine a better Textuary than to be ignorant of the Record of St. Luke 10. 1. that the Lord appointed those Disciples They had their Mission their Commission from him The two other Decretal Epistles of material difference of Anacletus and Zepherinus alledged of the same importance are of the same of no credit concerning the Decision of grand of difficult Causes by the Apostolick See Neither is Extant in the entire Universal Code forementioned approved ratified by the Great General Council of Chalcedon even in the first Canon of it in the year 451 nor in the Translation of it out of Greek to Latin by Dionysius Exiguus a Roman Abbot devoted to the Roman Interest in the year 325 nor yet in the Breviaion of Ferrandus as he titles it in the year 530. There could be no such Decree de jure in point of Right there was no such de facto in point of Fact Not of Right because it had been lyable to two Brands in the School Divinity an Usurpt Judgment not warranted by due Authority extended beyond the bounds of the Roman Patriarchal Sphere the utmost pale of its Jurisdiction in the Primitive Church It had been also destitute of Equity the byass of Laws to which they are to be bended saith Cicero It had been an unsupportable molestation of Expence and Travel which the Primitive Church did prudentially prevent in several Councils even in the first General Council of Nice That there was no such Decree in point of Fact is more than probably evinced by the Historical Transactions in the purest Antiquity In the Ancient Contests in point of Appeal betwixt the Roman and African Churches no such Decree was produced pretended which had not been waved had there been any testimony to have been tendred St. John the Evangelist being at Ephesus did not suspend the doom of the Niâ—olaitans or Cerinthians in expectation of the Dictate or Sentence of the See of Rome St. Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna the Disciple of St. John in the Testimony of St. Jerome contended with Anicetus Bishop of Rome touching the observation of Easter and would not submit to his Judgment Both resolutely persisted in their different Opinions without prescription to or condemnation of each other Such was the true Candour of that Anicetus falsly produced in point of Dominion or Domination rather of the Roman Prelacy Which being violently pursued by Pope Victor in the track of the same Controversie his Sanction was rejected though abetted by a Roman Synod his Excommunication disregarded by Polycrates and other Asiatick Bishops St.
trained up in the Corrupt Modern Romish Divinity stating it lawful to resist Princes in case of Infidelity Heresie or Tyranny which Bellarmine did not blush to aver to be the common sentiment of Divines H.T. Catholick Professors to the year 400. Domnus with 2000 Martyrs Lucianus Theodorus Paulus the first Eremite Jacobus Nissibitanus Spiridion Macharius Nicolaus Helena the Mother of Constantine the Great Constantine the first Christian Emperour Marcus Arethusius Nicetus Theodorus Antonius Hilarion Athanasius Paulus Constantinopolitanus Hilarius Martianus Basilius Hieronimus Epiphanius Patianus Ambrose Cyril of Jerusalem c. Nations converted Dacians Gebes Bessites Scythians Morines Armenians Hunnes Indians Aethiopians c. W.T. This is to bandy with and to rout your own shadow We most willingly refer our differences next to the Sacred Scripture to the Test of these and the precedent Primitive Worthies of the Church H.T. From the year of Christ 300. Chief Pastors General Councils 304 Marcellus The first Nicene Council Fathers 328 approved by Pope Sylvester An. Dom. 325. against Arrius 309 Eusebius  312 Melchiades  314 Sylvester Authors Cedrenus Photius Socrates Eusebius 336 Malchus  339 Julius The First Constantinopolitane Council Fathers 150 Pope Damasus presiding An. Dom. 381. against Macedonius 352 Liberius  358 Foelix 2.  367 Damasus  385 Siricius Authors Socrates Photius Baronius 398 Anastasius  W.T. These Authorities are Impertinencies as to the present dispute We reject not any Testimonies of the venerable Popes nominated that are not spurious If any of those be not ours 't is because they are not their own They may be espoused by such by whom they are corrupted Male dum recitas incipit esse tuus We adhere to the first Nicene Council and the first Constantinopolitan cited we explode the Heresie of Arrius condemned in the one and of Macedonius in the other That the Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester was not singular it was allowed subscribed by all the other Bishops It was Sylvesters Suffrage his Consent not his Edict his Bull to ratifie it if Sylvester were then Living That it was in the time of his Successor Pope Julius Dr. Whitaker proves by the Testimonies of Sozomen l. 1. c. 17. Athanas. Apol. 2. Nicephor l. 7. c. 14. Beda in Chron. However that Council was convened governed confirmed it was by the Authority of Constantine the Great It is alledged by H. T. That Pope Damasus presided in the First Constantinopolitane Council Whereas Damasus was so far from being President of that he was not present in that Council not personally nor representatively by a Proxy by any Legate but Nectarius Arch-Bishop of Constantinople of Noble Extraction presided Bellarmines plea is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a subterfuge to evade not a proof to demonstrate That if Damasus had not been absent he had presided An Inference of no validity Vigilius Bishop of Rome sat in the Fifth Oecumenical but did not preside in it This Dignity was not fixt entail'd to the Papacy of Rome The Popes were Presidents in some Ancient Councils but not in all Not in the first Nicene not in the first or second Constantinopolitane not in the first or second Ephesine not in the Sardique not in the Carthaginian Council Had Damasus been President in the First Constantinopolitane Council Yet they would not have vindicated the transcendent Papal Prerogative in and over Councils challenged in later times not attempted aspired to in the Primitive Church Since Soveraigns began to be Christians Ecclesiastical Affairs depended upon them The greatest Synods have been and are convened by them This is solemnly attested by Socrates about the midst of the Fifth Century The Instanced first Constantinopolitane Council was summon'd establisht dismist by Theodosius the Emperour the Senior H.T. From the Year 400. 402 Innocentius I. The First Ephesine Council Fathers 200 Pope Celestine presiding Anno Dom. 431. against Nestor 417 Sozimus  419 Bonifacius I.  424 Calixtus I.  432 Sixtus III. Authors Nicephorus Baronius 440 Leo Magnus  461 Hilarius The Chalcedon Council Fathers 600 Pope Leo presiding Anno Dom. 451. against Eutyches 468 Simplicius  483 Felix  492 Gelasius I.  497 Anastasius Authors Leo Ep. 50. Baronius c. 499 Symmachus  W.T. I shall not contend touching the formal Musters of your Popes in point of Divinity or Chronology Pope Celestines presiding in the first Ephesine Council is easier asserted than proved Celestine was at that time personally engaged in an Italian Council which was not esteemed Oecumenical but its Contemporary the Ephesine consisting of the Eastern Bishops The Romish Champions plead that Pope Celestine did constitute St. Cyril of Alexandria to be his Proxy If I grant he did delegate his suffrage there being a singular Correspondence betwixt these two Orthodox Prelates yet not a Prerogative of presiding in the Council which though arbitrarily sometimes indulged to the Pope in person yet was not so necessarily annext to the Papal Dignity as to be challenged by his Legates as not in the Fifth Carthag Conc. It is testified by Sozomen that Vitus and Vincentius the Popes Legates in the Council of Nice â—ate in the Fourth place St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria had been active in confuting Nestorius in exciting the Emperour to summon the Council He was the most Eminent Prelate present the Patriarch of Constantinople being in umbrage under the Eclipse of a charge of Heresie so that it is most probable that he did preside not as substitute from Rome but as Patriarch of Alexandria even before any Declaration Pope Leo recites him as President of the first Ephesine Council without the least mention of any derivation or lustre from his Predecessor Pope Celestine This is expresly solemnly attested in the Code who ever was in the Nature of Moderator he was inferior to the Emperour in the transactions of that Council to Theodâ—sius who not only summoned establisht authothorised it but had a singular over ruling influence in regulating it in composing differences in it The Fathers convened in that Synod solemnly implored the Emperors Ratification True it is the first Ephesine Council in an Epistle to Pope Celestine gave him an account of their Proceedings against Nestorius but it was out of Amity not Duty a Conformity in point of Faith not a Submission in point of Power The Epistle is directed in a style of parity As touching the Council of Chalcedon If I grant the Popes Legates had a precedence by the favour of the Prince or the respect of the Fathers convened to the personal Eminence or Patriarchal Lustre of Leo the First Yet the Emperour Martianus did seem to preside as the grand Moderator in that Council at first personally immediately afterwards mediately by his Commissioners who are solemnly recited before the Fathers assembled However the Authoritative influence for the Convention Ratification of that Oecumenical Synod is clearly ascribed to the Emperour How solemn is the
submission to the Emperours pleasure He prohibited all disputations against the Doctrine of the Council of Nice by his Authority Dioscorus was Condemned and Proterius Establisht in his place The Legates of the Bishop of Rome in that Synod intreated the Moderators of the Council that Dioscorus should be required to recede which themselves had enjoyned not requested had they presided In the Sixteenth Article of that Synod the Decree was opposite to the Sentiments of the Popes Legates In that Article Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople first subscribed whom Pope Gelasius recited as the chiefest Author of the Twenty seven Canons set put in that Synod Anno Domini 500. H.T. The first Nicene Council defined against Arrius That the Son of God is consubstantial to his Father and true God W.T. This Testimony is impertinently produced The Church of England doth detest Arrianisme as much as the Church of Rome H. T. 2. That he who holds the See of Rome is the Head and Chief of all the Patriarks seeing he is the first as Peter to whom Power Ecclesiastical is given over all Christian Princes and all People c. and whosoever shall contradict this is Excommunicated by the Synod Can. 39. Arab. W.T. We own a great veneration for the Great the first General Council the first Nicene From which track St. Ambrose would not recede for the peril of Death nor for the terror of the Sword Which St. Basil propounded for the Test whereby judgment is to be made of Hereticks As with St. Athanasius we wonder at their audaciousness who start any question in points that have past the determination of that Nicene Council so we cannot without astonishment resent the disingenuous fraud in counterfeiting so Venerable a Record in obtruding a Fable for an Oracle The more famous the Authority is of the Nicene Council the more infamous is the Impiety in falsifying it The alledged Thirty Ninth Arabick Canon may be unmaskt and then appear a Romish Imposture That there were but Twenty Genuine Canons of the Nicene Câ—uncil is proved by the Authority of Rufinus Isidore Theodoret Testimonies acknowledged by Baronius by Pope Stephen attested by Gratian by Two Hundred and Seventeen Bishops Convened in the Sixth Council of Carthage by unanimous suffrages of uncorrupt Antiquity The Nicene Synod was held the Year 316 the tumor the amplifying of the Canons to the number of Thirty in the Notion and Style of Arabick Canons produced above Twelve Hundred years after When they first appeared to the World they were pretended to be brought by Baptista Romanus from the Patriark of Alexandria set out by Alphonsus Pizanus and Franciscus Turrianus both of the same Society both zealous Advocates not only for asserting but straining the Pâ—pal Preheminence per fasque nefasque First inserted in the Edition of the Councils at Venice by Dominicus Nicolinus in the Year 1585. not above Five years before printed apart the Plantine Impression by Turrianus It appears at the first blush as strange an incongruity in Geography as Chronology at so great a distance of time and place to vindicate the Canons of the Nicene Council in the Fourth Century by an Arabick remote Evidence in the Sixteenth Century How have they been obscured dormant for so many Ages Turrianus the most confident Stickler for these Arabick Canons acknowledged there is no Record as to any Translation of these out of Greek to Arabick no proof no evidence but conjecture The wily Jesuit pretending to wave infinite other Testimonies in the smooth Rhetorick the subtle fallacy of his Mention by way of Omission insists on the Africane Fathers as sufficient Witnesses alledging unless they had certainly and exactly known this they would not so have written to Pope Boniface Because they could find Canons in no Greek Books they earnestly desire they might be senâ—â—o them out of the Churches of the East by the endeavours of Pope Boniface They speak of the rest of the Canons for Twenty they had sent by Cyrill of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople and recited in the Sixth Council of Carthage I am amazed that there should be so little integrity in a Person of so much Literature as Turrianus of the profest Society of the Holy Jesus the Name of a Saint being the Guilt the Impeachment of a Miscreant according to Salvian so notoriously to juggle and prevaricate For the clearer discovery of his Collusion and the more warrantable rejection of the additional Arabick Canons I shall offer a true summary Narrative of the transactions of the Africane Fathers falsly presented by Turrianus Apiarius being justly deliberately sentenced in Africa Synodically Excommunicated was unjustly unconsiderately Countenanced Acquitted at Rome one Party only being heard To promote his Restitution in the Sixth Carthage Council Pope Zozymus sent thither Three Legates who prest a Canon of the Nicene Council to justifie Appeals to Rome The African Fathers were startled at a Novel Claim abetted by an unheard of Canon wherein they first examined the Copy brought from Nice by Concilianus Arch-Bishop of Carthage in which they found no such Canon alledged However they were not prone to suspect any fraud in the Bishop of Rome where there is the greatest Truth there being also the greatest Charity but proceeded with an equal mixture of Prudence and Candour They resolved to transmit Mercuries to Constantinople Alexandria Antioch to procure Genuine Transcripts of the Nicene Canons and whilst the matter was in suspence they condescended to admit Appeals to Rome They imparted their design to the Legates implored their joint Assistance made several Addresses in this sincere pursuit of Truth to Three Popes in their Successions Zozymus Bonifacius Celestine After the concurrent Testimonies the Exact Copies sent from the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria after the discussion of 6 Years there being no contrary Evidence produced by either of the Popes recited or their Legates the African Bishops unanimously rejected the obtruded Canons as spurious and prohibited all Appeals from the African Churches to Rome There never was a more calm accurate mature ventilation of any Claim Never clearer Evidence Twenty Canons only found in the Archives of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch being searcht with great diligence as Baronius confesses Attious profest in his Rescript that Copy to be unmaimed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Cyrill as confidently avouches the fidelity of his also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Never a more manifest Conviction of a Notorious Fraud whereto the Roman Legates being most probably too conscious would not close with the African Fathers in an unbyast untainted Scrutiny but reiterated their importunate Motion that the Examination and Decision might be referred entirely to the Bishop of Rome that the Criminal Party might be the sole Judge To palliate the Deformity of this Imposture other Adulterate Testimonies are vaunted of the Letter of Athanasius to Pope Marcus and the Rescript of Marcus which are not only by the Centurists and other Reformed Divines
of his Progenitors to have been his Predecessors in that Episcopal Seat His Parents in Rufinus 's Interpretation No such Tradition in Corinth or in Creet When Pinitus would have introduced it among the Cretians Dionysius Bishop of Corinth reprehended disswaded it as a grievous pressure not to be imposed as a necessary Duty but that the Infirmities of many were to be regarded No such Tradition in the Eastern Churches according to the Authentick Record of the Canon Law the Decretal of Pope Stephen No such custom in Cyprus the Renowned Spiridion being Bishop had Wife and Children not thereby empaired or eclipsed as to the discharging of the Exercises of Divinity the Sacred Offices of his Function No such received Tradition in the Africane Churches wherein Tertullian was a Married Presbyter as also among many others Foelix and Numidicus both themselves and their Consorts reputably recited by St. Cyprian No such custom as not in the Modern not in the Ancient Greek Churches wherein the Father of St. Basil the Great the Father of St. Gregory Nazianzen his Brother St. Gregory Nyssen Apollinaris Synesius were Maâ—ried Prelates and co-habited with their Wives No stamp of any such Tradition in Germany not in England no track of any such custom for 1000 years after Christ. Even in France where the Scene of the Objection is laid from the Council of Arles about the midst of the Fourth Century St. Hilary was Bishop of Poiteirs St. Prosper Bishop of Aquitane both Marryed Justinian the Emperour about the beginning of the 6th Century extolled Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople for his Extraction from Priests This was the Pedigree of several Popes of Boniface the First of Foelix the Third Gelasius the First Agapetus the First Sylverius Deus dedit Theodorus Hadrian the Second Agapetus the Second This is attested by Platina a Witness beyond exception That these were no spurious Progeny is avouched by Gratian. I confess many of the Clergy in the best the purest Ages of the Primitive Church did wave Marriages but it was voluntary out of Choice not necessary upon prescription none were debarred Matrimony in Sacred Orders none were branded for it This is assented to by Learned Romanists I shall instance only in the Testimonies of two Cardinals Hugo and Bonaventure The Matrimonial restraint to the Clergy was first attempted by Siricius the Pope in the declining of the Fourth Century afterwards earnestly endeavoured to be re-established by several of his Successors in multiplyed Decrees but not without Regrets Oppositions Tumults No solemn Universal Sanction obtruded before Gregory the Seventh called Hildebrand in the Eleventh Century He who first assumed to himself a power of Excommunicating and deposing Princes did not stick peremptorily to prohibit the Marriages of all Priests and to brand all their Ministerial Offices notoriously clashing with the Canon of the Ancient Council of Gangre though a Provincial Convention yet of Oecumenical Approbation solemnly approved by Pope Leo the Fourth I shall not quit this Persecutor of the Marryed Clergy without two Remarks of fame The one touching the lasciviousness licentiousness of his Life his scandalous Converse with the grand Countess Maud. The other touching his Stings of Conscience at his Death which then impeacht him for exerting his Tyranny by the Instigation of the Devil Not to digress too far I shall dismiss the Canon of the Council of Arles quoted by H. T. with the Observation or descant of St. Salvian a Pious French Bishop before the period of the Fifth Century in a polite allusion to the Phrase of the Decree A new sort of Conversion They do not things lawful they omit things unlawful They forbear from Wedlock and forbear not Rapine What actest thou O foolish perswasion God hath forbidden Sins not Marriages In like manner it is not a Conversion but an Aversion You that long since as it is famed relinquish the work of honest Matrimony at length desist from Mischief The prodigious Enormities of Lusts which have been occasioned by the debarring the Clergy the Innocent Expedient of Gods Sacred Ordinance hath extorted the Pathetical Complaints of many Conscientious Romanists and excited their ardent desires That this rigid Imposition were Repealed and Primitive Liberty Restored There being as Pope Pius the Second when he was Aeneas Sylvius the Cardinal profest greater reason for the Restitution the Release than the Restraint The cause of the one being of a Secular Stamp to prevent the Penury of the Clergy to be less contemptible in the estimate of Men The Motive of the other is to promote purity not to be vile execrable in the sight of God As there is a Virginal so there is a Matrimonial Chastity Conjugal Society is no repugnancy to Grace no pollution to Holy Orders the Apostle having vindicated the Marriage Bed in all to be undefiled being not depraved in it self it is not sullyed Where there is no guilt there is no stain Both the School-men and Canonists acknowledged that the Clergy are debarred from Wedlock not by any Divine not by any Apostolical but only by a humane positive Ecclesiastical Constitution It is the Law of no Church but the Roman herein not swayed by Sacred Spiritual but by Prophane Temporal Interests To indulge to license what God detests Condemns Fornication to make Stores Revenues to raise Treasures out of Impurities in a more unsavoury than extracting of Gold out of the Dung of Ennius And to prohibit to doom in the Clergy what God allows justifies in all may pass for the Traffick the Policy but not the Virtue the Innocency of the Church of Rome H.T. Catholick Professors to the Year 500. Severinus Tigrius Exuperius Eutropius St. Jo. Chrysostome Paulinus Mauritius St. Augustine Maximus Zozimus Vinceutius Lirinensis Jacobus Persa Alexius St. Cyril of Alexandria Uriula with 11000 Virgins Prosper Honoratus Palladius Bonifacius Euthymius Simon Stelites Chrysologus Patricius Eugenius Fulgentius Boetius Epiphanius Tirinensis Severinus c. The Scots converted by Palladius the French by S. Remigius and Vedastus 4979 Martyrs of Africa and many others W.T. This Catholick band is a specious but probably a false Muster wherein Ursula leads the Van to 11000 Virgins This being strictly inspected will appear an imaginary Romance not a real Transaction There is a double proof offered the one is Fanatical the other fabulous The first consists in Visions in the Revelations of St. Elizabeth in the Romish Style and Kalendar and of Richardus Praemonstratensis This is the grand support of the Coten Divinity the Pageantry of its Sepulchres so much blazed and gloried in Ad populum phaleras The most circumspect ingenuous Romanists blush to own the Originals and the products of the vain Enthusiasms in this Instance The Visions presented being exactly discust are unmaskt to be Dreams the Revelations convicted to be Collusions The second Argument for avouching Ursula and her numerous illustrious Train is the Allegation of
this account St. Austin called the Jews a Scriniary Nation carrying the Law and the Prophets and the Library-keeper for Christians A Trust which they performed with singular fidelity which I shall not need assert by the Authority of Philo cited by Eusebius not of Origen and St. Jerom both confest Compurgators of the Jews Integrity by Learned Romanists I shall not need to add St Austins clear Evidences nor to muster up other Witnesses Ancient or Modern since Bellarmine himself was their solemn Advocate to acquit them from any aspersion of Corruption in the preservation of the Records of Sacred Scripture They would rather die a Hundred times saith Bellarmine a Thousand times saith Philo. To add more Force and Lustre to the solemn Authentick Suffrages of the Jews it is observed That neither Christ nor any of his Apostles in the New Testament did cite any passage out of those Books which are in the Old Testament Exploded from being Canonical Scripture by Reformed Churches called Ecclesiastical Books by St. Cyprian Apocryphal by others The Primitive Church never Exposed them for Canonical in the strictest sense viz. as stampt with Divine Inspiration as embraced with a true not equivocal Catholick Allowance for a Doctrinal Infallible Test. The grand proofs of Antiquity besides the Third distrusted Council of Carthage are the sentiments of two Popes Innocentius the First and Gelasius Both which may rationally be suspected for counterfeit Authorities there being no such extant till Three Hundred years after the dissolution of each As for the former the more clear and Venerable Testimony that of Innocentius the First if there were a reality of his Decree alledged there needed no probationary reference of the Forty-Seventh Canon in the Third Council of Carthage so much insisted on to the Judgment of Bonifacius inferiour to Innocentius the First for Age for Repute and Lustre To manifest the Romish Catalogue of Canonical Books of Scripture to be Novel and Unwarrantable I shall conclude this point with the summary Recapitulation of Dr. Cosin late Bishop of Durham after a copious distinct examination of particulars Thus have we hitherto taken an exact and perfect view of what the Catholick Church of God hath delivered concerning the Canon of Divine Scripture in all times and in all places In Judea by the Ancient Hebrews by Christ himself and by his Holy Apostles In Palestine and Syria by Justin Martyr Eusebius St. Jerome and Damascon In the Apostolical Churches of Asia by Melito Polycrates and Onesims In Phrygia Cappadocia Lycaonia and Cyprus by the Council of Laodicea St. Basil Amphilochius Epiphanius In Egypt by Clemens of Alexandria Origen and Athanasius In the Churches of Africa by Julius Tertulian St. Cyprian and St. Austin the Council of Carthage Junitius and Primasius In all the Five Patriarchates by St. Cyril St. John Chrysostome Anastasius St. Gregory Nicephorus and Balsamon In Greece by Dionisius Antiochus Adrianus Lentius Zonaras Philippus and Callistus In Italy by Philastrius Rusinus Cassiodore Commestor Balbus Antoninus Mirandula Cajetine and Pagnine In Spain by Isidore Hugo Cardinalis Paulus Burgensis Tostatus and Ximenius In France by St. Hilary the Divines of Marseils Victorinus of Poicâ—iers Charle Magnes Bishops Agobard Radulphus Honorius Petrus Cluniac Hugo and Richardus of St. Victors at Paris Beleth Petrus Collegn Hervaeus Natalis Faber and Chlictoveus In Germany and the Low Countreys by Rabanus Strabus Hermanus Contract Ado. Râ—pertus the Ordinary and Interlineary gloss upon the Bible the Gloss upon the Canon-Law Lyranus Dionysius Carthusianus Driedo and Ferus And in the Church of England by Venerable Bede Alcuin Giselbent Joh. Sarisburiensis Brito Ocham Thomas Anglicus and Thomas Waldon besides divers others that are not here numbred Thus far Doctor Cosin abbreviates his ample accurate History which as far as my Intelligence extends hath not been assayed to be answered by any Romanist It may with much more facility be reviled menaced than confuted Invectives Anathema's are the proper frequent Apologies for Convicted Errors With what Truth or Candor with what strength of Religion or Reason with what warrant of Piety or Antiquity the Canon of Scripture being there solemnly asserted universally establisht in all Climates in all Ages may in the Sixteenth Century of Christianity be contradicted controuled condemned by an inconsiderable number of Prelates assembled at Trent some thereof being Titular only all Homagers of the Papacy entirely swayed irresistibly influenced from the Conclave at Rome I refer it to all unbyast Intellectuals to all uncorrupt Judgments to determine H.T. In this Agâ— the Milevitane Council defined That whoever denyed Children newly born to be Baptized or says They contract nothing of Original Sin from Adam which may be cleansed by the lavoer of Regeneration c. Anathema W.T. I shall not insist upon the inadvertency in point of Chronology so precisely expressed in this Age. Whereas it is recorded in the several Editions of the Councils and generally by Annalists and Antiquaries Baronius not excepted that this Milevitan Council was held in the beginning of a former Century in the time of Pope Innocentius the First betwixt whom and the Fathers of that Synod there was a Mutual Correspondence of Letters Were the Date exact for the time yet was not the Citation apposite for the matter the Church of England solemnly declares what the Milevitan Council desines H.T. In this Age the Caesar Augustan Council decreed That Virgins who had vowed themselves to God should not be vailed till after 40 years probation W.T. I acknowledge this to be the last Decree of that Council and that it was approved by the suffrages of all the Bishops present all which being computed were but Twelve The Inscription of it is The Caesar Augustan Council of Twelve Bishops So it is set out in the large Editions of the Councils and in the summary Caranza If this Decree be of any grand Estimate and Validity why is it receded from in effect repealed in the Council of Trent that allows Virgins to be Votaries in Vails after Twelve years of Age Only Abbatisses and Prioresses are limited to the Age of Forty years If this be an uncancelled unvoided Decree alledged why is it not observed by the Romanists If it be cancelled and voided by them why is it objected to the Reformed This is no probate of a Succession but a Collusion H.T. In this Age Pope John the First decreed That Mass ought not to be celebrated but in places consecrated to our Lord unless great necessity should enforce it In his Epistle to the Bishops of divers plaâ—es giving this reason because it is written See thou offer not thy Holocausts in every place but in the place which the Lord thy God hath chosen Deut. 12. Anno 522. For as no other but Priests consecrated to our Lord ought to sing Masse and to offer Sacrifices upon our Lerd to our Lord upon the Altar so in no other but consecrated places