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
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
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.
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
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
Eutyches and Dioscorus who denyed Two Natures in Christ Affirming That the Humane Nature was changed into the Divine W.T. This Arrow is shot at random it wounds not Lights not near the Protestants who disclaim detest the Eutychian Heresie H.T. In the third Action in this Council Pope Leo is called Universal Arch-Bishop and Patriarch of old Rome W.T. This was the soothing Address to Leo of particular Persons such as moved in the lowest Spheres of the Church of Athanasius a Presbyter of Diodorus and Ischyrion two Deacons severally No such Determination no such Expression of the Synod it self If this Style of Universal Arch-Bishop were of any importance it might be more vigorously pleaded in behalf of the Patriarch of Constantinople To whom it is applyed by more Numerous Illustrious Persons not only by the Monks of Antioch but also by the Syrian Bishops in the fifth General Council nay by the Synod it self This Title paramount was no Novelty no Rarity in the second Council of Nice as to the Application of it to the Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Adrian was not shy to ascribe it to Tharasius Pope Gregory the First asserts that all his Predecessors have rejected this Title H.T. Sentence is pronounced against Dioscorus in the Name of Leo and St. Peter to acknowledge Leo to be St. Peters Successor W.T. This is not Extant not in the proposition of the Edict not in the Sentence of the Condemuation the censure of Dioscorus not in the Synodical Publication to the Clergy of Alexandria not in the relation the account of it to the Empress Pulcheria It was only the arrogant Tumor of the Popes Legates when they pronounced their Suffrages None of the Fathers then assembled utter'd any such Ranting Preface of Preheminence but they sorted ranked together the Arch-Bishop of Old and New Rome as appears by their Votes distinctly Recounted H.T. The Elibertine Council in Spain subscribed by Hosius and others who were present at the first Nicene Council defined That Bishops Priests and Deacons should abstain from their Wives or else be degraded c. 33. Age the Fourth W.T. The Romanists themselves have little veneration for the Dictates of this Council Some disgust it as imbittered with the Novatian Leaven In the Edition of the Councils at Venice by Dominicus Nicolinus there is this Remark upon it It was never received by the Church for the Thirty Sixth Canon perhaps also for the Thirty Fourth Bellarmine taxeth it to be invalid being not confirmed to be Erroneous in some cases denying Absolution to Cenitents in the Extremities of Death The most Learned Romish Champions do either absolutely reject this Council or at least derogate from the Vigour and Lustre of it This being a Provincial Council of Nineteen Bishops its Decrees are no Decisions of Controversies The Inference of H. T. is not convincing in Logick being deduced from an Insinuated Errour in Chronology That this Council was subscribed by Hosius and others who were present at the first Nicene Council The most exact Chronologers date the Elibertine Council a considerable time before the Nicene Council Twelve years before the Computation of Onuphrius Twenty years more Ancient in the Calculation of Baronius Though Bellarmine would not nominate the precise years yet he confidently asserts the Elibertine to have been celebrated before the first Nicene This being granted the Elibertin had the precedency of Age it is evident That what Hosius did less considerately solemnly ascribe to in a Provincial Council he did more maturely Authoritatively correct in a General Council Were the Elibertine Council subsequent in time to the first Nicene yet what is establisht in an Oecumenical Council cannot be repealed in a Provincial especially in the instance recited the General Council being both Ample and Authentique the Provincial scanted for Number not unquestioned not unblemisht for Repute H.T. The Second Council of Arles defined That no Man who was married could be made a Priest unless a Conversion be promised Can. 2. W.T. The Decrees of this Council have been frequently and not unwarrantably taxed to be adulterated This Council mentions the Bonasiaques c. 17. not then Extant not before the time of Pope Innocent the First the Eighth in Succession after Sylvester in whose Papacy you acknowledge this Council to be held This Second Council of Arles recites the Vasense Council Convened not till above an entire Century of years afterwards in the time of Pope Leo the First Were this Council of Arles as managed in the Transactions and as conveighed to us in the Records of it uncorrupted yet it was but a Provincial Council in France as the Elibertine cited was in Spain which must vail to an Oecumenical to the first Nicene wherein when there was an active assay of establishing a Sanction for separating the Clergy from their Wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to sleep together Paphnutius that famous Confessor vigorously opposed prevailed for the rejecting of that Novel Imposition This is attested by Socrates Sozomen Ecclesiastical Historians whose Testimonies have in former Ages been venerable though cavilled at by Baronius Bellarmine and other Romanists of the same strain whose Artifice it is to evade to shift off those pregnant proofs they cannot satisfie and will not acknowledge These Authorities are sufficiently vindicated by Espencaeus In this Illustrious Instance of Paphnutius to deal candidly as a Son of the Church of England and not as a Sophister in the School of Athens An Adversary may object That the same Paphnutius did propound That they who were Ordained being unmarried should so persevere I Answer Paphnutius did divide that Stream that Torrent which he could not entirely divert He declared his Judgment punctually That Conjugal Society is not inconsistent with Sacred Orders without any restriction to precedent or subsequent He avouched not only the difficulty but in some the impossibility of the observance of so rigid an interdict of the Clergies Marriage and therein undermined the foundation of the Romish restraint he also pressed the impurity of the consequences of such a prohibition The Prophecy of Paphnutius became St. Bernards History The result was that the Manacle was cast off every Man left to the liberty of his own Judgment It may further be urged by an Opponent That Paphnutius mentioned the Ancient Tradition of the Church For the Clergy that were unmarryed to abstain from Wedlock I Answer That Paphnutius did herein most probably reflect upon the Church of Egypt wherein himself was dignified or on Thessaly It might be the particular custom of one Province not Universal of all There was no such Tradition in Armenia if the Sixth Constantinopolitane Council may be credited No such Tradition in Ephesus the Metropolis of the lesser Asia Before the end of the 2d Century Policrates Bishop of Ephesus in his contest touching the Observation of Easter with Victor Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to him asserts Seven
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