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
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
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.
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
importuned yet ineffectually he absented himself upon several pretences of Indisposition of Body really of mind of the small Number of Western Bishops of the invalidity of which reason he was sufficiently convinced Whereas the true concealed Reason confessed by Nicephorus was the Stomach of Vigilius that he could not brook to be Eclipsed by the Bright Lustre of the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople being President Claranza the Abbreviator of the Councils Devoted to the Romish Interest asserts the Presidency of Menas in the front of the Second Constantinopolitane Council This is cleared beyond dispute by the Acts of the Council it self wherein is inserted Menas being President 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will admit no other Construction Baronius himself the Third Witness quoted produced this Record H. T. The Second Constantinopolitane Council defined That our Lord Jesus Christ Crucified in the Flesh is both the True Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity Can. 10. against Peter the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople who held that the whole Trinity was Crucified for us as appears Art 1. It defined One Divine Nature to be in all Three Persons Can. 1. 2. Nativities in Christ c. 2. One only Person to be in Christ though two distinct Natures against Anthimius annd Theodor. Can. 4. 5. It defined against Theodore That Christ was not troubled with Passions in the Mind or Concupiscences of the Flesh Can. 12. W.T. This is a Digression from the Controversie No Heresie condemned in the Second Constantinopolitane Council is Espoused in the Reformed Churches H.T. In this Age the Third Council of Carthage Decreed That the Sacrament of the Altar Mass but by such only as were fasting Can. 29. It approved the whole Catalogue of Canonical Books by name as they are now published in our Bible and approved by the Catholick Church except only Baruch which is not named because an Appendix to Jeremy whose Secretary he was Can. 47. This Council was subscribed by St. Augustine and approved in the Sixth General Synod W.T. The Time of the Sacraments Celebration is no poiâ— Controverted The Romanists dissent touching the Numerical Synod of Carthage wherein the latter Canon produced the Forty Seventh was Established whether in the Third or in the Seventh Council of Carthage Most refer it to the Third yet among them there is a difference touching the Date of it Some fix it in the year 387 others in the year 419 but H. T. degrades it to a lower Station within the Circuit of the Sixth Century and thereby renders its Testimony the less Venerable The Romish Doctors set no grand Estimate on the Dictates of this Council The Twenty Third Canon That Prayer be always directed to God the Father at the Altar consists not with the Judgment or Practice of the Church of Rome The Missal solemnly directs a Devout Address to the Lamb of God The Second Canon That a Bishop of a prime Seat be not called Prince of Priests or Chief Priests c. doth derogate from the Supream Ecclesiastical Preheminence challenged due to the Roman Papacy In the vindicating whereof whilst Gratian Recites this Canon he prevaricates in a Parenthesis The Bishop of Rome excepted This Addition being shuffled in without any Warrant from the Council it self Others upon this occasion depretiate the Council as being Provincial only that could not transmit any Obligation from Africa to Rome As not to Rome so not to Britain neither As it had the force of a Provincial Council only for the Twenty-Third Twenty-Sixth Canons so for the Forty-Seventh also objected by H. T. Not only to poize but to down-weigh the Third Council of Carthage I shall set in the opposite Scale the Synod of Laodicea though not entirely Oecumenical yet not barely diminutively Provincial being a Convention out of divers Provinces of Asia though not more Ancient than the first Council of Nice according to the computation of Baronius yet it is confest of all hands that it preceded in time the Third of Carthage As to the Confirmation of the Third of Carthage by the Sixth General Synod objected the Council of Laodicea sufficiently matches it and abundantly transcends it in the Ratification of the Fourth Oecumenical Council that of Chalcedon and in the Primitive Authentick Code establisht in the same Council that of Carthage being first inserted in the Code by Dionisius Exiguus the Abbot in the year 425. The same Council of Laodicea recounts the same Canonical Books of the Old Testament wherein the sole difference consists which the hurch of England doth That it recites not other Books but that it rejects them not is the light Cavil of Melchior Canus not wanting a Confutation not corresponding with the Phrase or Importance of that Canon St. Cyril of Constantinople lays a main stress upon it believing the Books of Canon-Scripture to be those which the Laodicean Synod hath put down and which the Orthodox Catholick Church of Christ being Illuminated by the Holy Ghost hath confest But because of the presence of St. Austin and the Authority of the Sixth General Synod produced as Abettors to the Third of Carthage I shall not Explode but Interpret the Canon produced by H. T. offering that Genuine Construction of it which best conforms to the Tracts of St. Austin the best Evidence of his Judgment and the best Vindication of the Sixth General Council from an implicit contradiction of it self in the approbation of Two Synods the one of Laodicea the other the Third of Carthage whose Canons seem to clash with each other The Books excepted by the Church of England not listed in the Canonical Catalogues as not in the Church of Laodicea The Church doth read as Jerome saith for Example of Life and Instruction of Manners but yet doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine Cardinal Cajetane the Most Learned Textuary and Schoolman and Casuist in the Church of Rome of his Age gives the same account of the Sentiment of St. Austin and the Decree of the forementioned Council of Carthage to wit That the Books Excluded may be called Canonical not for the Confirmation of Faith but for the Edification of the Faithful Melchior â—â—nus reprehended Cajetane for making St. Jerome his Rule and derogates from St. Jerome because he did track Josephus the Famous Jewish Antiquary in the Enumeration of the Canonical Books of Scripture It is confest by Driedo That St. Jerom did herein retain the Computation of the Jewish Synagogue not of the Christian Church as he pretends Andradius acknowledges that St. Jerome recited the Opinion of the Jews Their Testimony in an Unanimous Consent is no light fallible Topick for the Canonical Scripture of the Old Testament To them were committed the Oracles of God to wit contained in Sacred Scripture So Cardinal Tolet expounds them The Jews the Faithful Depositories for these Jewels without whom they had not been transmitted to the Gentiles is the acknowledgment of Cornelius à Lapide Upon
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
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