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
a General Council nor obtrude a Canon to bind any out of the Western Limits My second exception is against the Canon its self produced which hath a suspitious taint of imposture being not received not after the utmost scrutiny to be found by the African Fathers as not extant in the Nicene Council so not in any other St. Austin was utterly ignorant of any such Canon who was not unverst in a point of Jurisdiction and Preheminence so much discuss'd in his time St. Austin acknowledged no Sardian Council but what was Heretical The Cardinal Cusanus had so muâ—h ingenuity as to acknowledge a sufficient ground of doubt whether there be extant a Constitution of the Sardian Council The Sardian Canon quoted is the more obnoxious to the impeachment of fraud because it is repugnant to the fifth Canon of the Nicene Council for which the Orthodox Fathers of that Age had a most solemn veneration The first who inserted this Canon to give it lustre into the famous Universal Code together with the rest of the Sardian Council was Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525. who acted the Advocate and Sophister to advance the Papal Interest being an Abbot of Rome who in his Translation of the Code out of Greek into Latin notoriously shuffled as by addition of the Sardian pretended Canons and those called the Canons of the Apostles so also by substraction of the eight Canons of the Council of Ephesus the three last Canons of the first Constantinopolitan Council the two last of Chalcedon and of a Canon of the Council of Laodicea My third exception is That the Canon recited being indulged to pass as genuine and authentique Dato non concesso yet will it not support the weight of a due durable staple appeal to the Bishop of Rome It is softly and warily propounded by Hosius If it please you let us in charity honour the memory of St. Peter It is the tenour of a novel singular favour bound up with several restrictions it put the Pope in a capacity upon deliberation for a review refer'd to him to nominate Commissioners not out of Rome out of the Neighbouring Province This might be an extraordinary esteem and reverence to Julius then Bishop of Rome not decreed as a constant Prerogative for succeeding Ages If any such vigour of it be pretended it is abrogated annulled in the Councils of Constantinople and Antioch H.T. The Council of Chalcedon Anno Domini 451. Fathers 600. We thoroughly consider truly that all Primacy and chief Honour according to the Canons is to be kept for the Arch-Bishop of Old Rome Action 16. W.T. I readily grant all Primacy and chief Honour to the Arch-Bishop of Rome according to the genuine unforged Canons in the Primitive Church which assert only a priority of Order before other Patriarchs not a superiority of Power over them much less a supremacy over Councils and Princes vindicated by Modern Canonists by the Jesuits the neat Sophisters of the Church the smooth Parasites of the Court of Rome If H. T. be an Advocate for the former primary I oppose him not if for the latter either his advertency or ingenuity is defective in urging the Council of Chalcedon the trausactions whereof are abundantly repugnant to this pretended preheminence It directly clashes with the ninth Canon of that Council The fallacy in citing of the Testimony of the Council of Chalcedon is unmasked in the immediate subsequent words which ascribes the same Primacy and Honour to the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople This equality of Dignity of New Rome with the Old was passionately resented vigorously opposed but ineffectually unsuccessfully by the Legates of the Pope Upon whose dissatisfaction there was a Recognition a new deliberate discussion of the Canon After which it was more solemnly ratified with an universal reiterated declared consent Leo then Bishop of Rome attested the reality of this Degree even whilst in several Epistles he exprest his disgust of it The Histories of Socrates and Sozomen punctually record it This Council of Chalcedon communicates equal priviledges to the most Holy Throne of New Rome with the Elder being honoured both with Empire and Senate no less than she to be extolled and magnified as her second or next to her Though this be perfidiously omitted in her Roman Edition yet it is inserted in all Greek Copies and retained in the antient Latin Copies extant in Libraries The substance of this constitution is establisht in the Ephesine and Trullan Councils H.T. In the relation of the said Council to Pope Leo. We have confirmed say they the rule of the One Hundred and Fifty Fathers in the first Constantinopolitan Council Anno 381. which hath commanded that after the most Holy and Apostolick See of Rome the Constantinopolitan should have Honour W.T. That relation hath been taxed for a collusion A late figment out of the Colonian Library But supposing it were no fiction what advantage can hence accrew to the Roman See more than is already granted If there be any colour for an Argument it must be from the Epithets most Holy and Apostolick or inserting the See of Constantinople in a seeming inferiour rank to that of Rome Epithets are no Charters for Prerogatives The complemental Rhetorick of a Title is no firm Topick to prove a real preheminence These Epithets are frequently applyed to other Patriarchs and sometimes to inferiour Prelates in the Primitive Church The Records of Antiquity abound in instances which if required shall be plentifully produced All those Churches that have been planted by the Apostles or wherein they have exercised their Function have been stiled Apostolical Seats as the Churches of Rome Antioch Jerusalem Corinth Galatia Ephesus In a secondary Consideration Bishops have been antiently termed Apostles and Episcopacy Apostleship The second hint of an Argument is presumed to be from the ranking of the Constantinopolitan See after that of Rome This doth not advance the power of the Jurisdiction of Rome as not in the Council of Chalcedon which hath been already demonstrated so not in the Rule of the first Constantinopolitan recited The express Decree is in the Latin Translation pari honore frui to enjoy a like honour but it is more pregnant in the Greek to be equally priviledged or dignified as to apreheminence of power in Ecclesiastical matters alike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be exalted or magnified but for precedence of place that is distinctly allotted in the same Canon to the Roman See before the Constantinopolitan to the Constantinopolitan before the Alexandrian and to that of Alexandria before Jerusalem If Leo the Roman Patriark had not been convinced That an equality of Authority and Jurisdiction had been setlâ—d by that Council upon the several recited Patriarks in their several Sees and Provinces he would not have been so much offended with that Canon of the Chalcedon Council before-mentioned and bustled against it but he was sufficiently
apprehensive that it was a check to the Transcendent Honour his Ambition aspired to Both Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon checking his desire of superlative Grandeur H.T. Pope Antherus Anno 238 being asked by the Bishop of Bettica and Toletum Whether it were lawful for a Bishop to be changed from one City to another Answered affirmatively As Peter Prince of the Apostles was changed from Antioch to Rome Decret 7. q. 1. W.T. There is little certainly touching the exact time and continuance of the Papacy of Antherus Whether One year according to Eusebius or Three according to Volateran or Twelve according to Damasus There is less certainty touching the sincerity of the Decret Epistle produced which many have excepted against as spurious upon several accounts among others for the barbarism of the stile the impertinence incoherence of the conclusion Historical Narratives touching Eusebius and Felix long after his time However were the Epistle genuine the Title Prince of the Apostles is no proof of the preheminence alledged as hath been already manifested St. Austin applyed the same Phrase to St. Paul who was acknowledged by St. Chrysostome to be equal in Dignity with St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HT St. Gregory sayes he knows no Bishop but is subject to the See of Rome Ep. 6. 2. W.T. St. Gregory though his memory be pretious being 600 years after Christ when the Church of Rome declined in piety though improved in power hath the less Authentick veneration This great Prelate being a Party is no competent Witness to assert and vindicate the Papal prerogative As the Witness produced so the Evidence it self is justly liable to exception That he knew none but subject to the See of Rome It must probably be limited to the bounds of his personal Acquaintance or his Patriarchical Jurisdiction That it cannot be more diffusively generally understood appears by his solemn waveing any Paternal or Magisterial power to prescribe to other Patriarks assuming only a fraternal Candour to advise That St. Gregory was not ignorant of a Grandee who was not subject to the See of Rome but challenged a higher station Ecclesiastical than himself is abundantly manifest by his zealous resentment of the Patriark of Constantinople his contemporary in espousing the transcendent Title of Universal Bishop not in excluding all others as the Romish Champions would sophistically evade it but in subjecting them It is his paraphrase of this Title To be Inferiour to no other to be Superior to all St. Gregory amply declared his abhorrence of this Title branding it to be novel prophane superstitious proud presumptuous an effect of Infidelity a tincture of Lucifer's Apostacy a badge of Antichrist H.T. Catholick Professors to the year 100 the Blessed Virgin St. John Baptist St. John Evangelist c. Martha Magdalen St. Paul St. Stephen Timothy Barnabas Terla Dennis Martial Ignatius Clemens W.T. They who are of sober discerning Intellectuals cannot but disgust and nauseate this unsavoury fallacy in obtruding shells without kernels Names without any Allegations These are as insignificant for proof in Divinity as Cyphers without any Figures are for account in Arithmetick unless you design to confute as Magicians to conjure by Names to produce Spells instead of Arguments for Enchantment not Conviction Your Confidence in those venerable Saints and your Interest also seems to be the same with that distracted person at Athens whose deluded Imaginations prompted to him That all the Ships and Commodities in the Haven were his own H.T. The Church was spread in this Age over all those Countreys to which St. Paul wrote his Epistles as also France Spain England c. See Baronius W.T. This is out of the Track of our Controversie That Church which was spread in this Age asserted no other Doctrines but what are owned by the Church of England H.T. Catholick Professors to the year 200 Eustachius Hermes Getulius Policarp Concordius Justin Martyr Eusebius Irenaeus Vincentius Potentianus Sophia Fides Spes Charitas St. Felicity with her Seven Children Lucius King of England c. W.T. The Church of England doth not recede from the Religion of these Saints If you have any Instances to charge us with why do you not produce their Testimonies If you have none why do you recite their Names It is an empty pageantry of Sophistry Ad populum phaleras H.T. The Apostles Canons define That if any Bishop or Priest the Oblation Mass being made shall not communicate he should be excommunicated as giving suspition of him who hath sacrificed That he hath not rightly offered Can. 9. approved in the Sixth General Synod W.T. Some of the Canons set out in a specious disguise the name of the Apostles have been boggled at by eminent Romanists among others by the Two Learned Cardinals the accurate Sticklers for the Papal Interest the one in an Historical Sphere the other in a Controversal Baronius and Bellarmine Though they are solemnly cited peremptorily obtruded upon others by the Modern Romanists yet they are not exactly observed by themselves Mich. Medina acknowledgeth that the present practice doth not retain a tenth part of them in the Church of Rome it self The alteration and corruptions of time are the smooth Apologies for the familiar recesses from these pretended Apostolical Rules They are branded for Apocryphal in the worst Nations as not received in the Catholick Church not in the Primitive Roman as composed by Hereticks in the judgment of Gelasius Bishop of Rome in the latter part of the Fifth Century who excelled most of his Successors in Piety and Literature as also by the famous Isidor Bishop of Hispalis towards the close of the Sixth Century Baronius vainly essayed to evade this latter Testimony being not extant as he alledged in the Edition in his Library since in the Decretal purged and refined by the Order of Pope Gregory XIII It is acknowledged to be transmitted from the Toletan Library to Rome which being a publick Record having so signal a Papal Approbation ought to be more Venerable Authentick for credit and estimate than that private Copy of a Cardinal who himself confest They may be so far deservedly termed Apocryphal as being destitute of Authority to have been entirely established by the Apostles Whereas Gelasius inserted them among Apocryphal Books that are not received Photius the Learned Patriark of Constantinople about the middle of the Ninth Century takes the rise of these Canons to be an extraction out of a tumultuous heap 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his phrase of Synodical Canons The first recital of any such Canons called Apostolical in Genuine Antiquity the Testimony of Zepherine being notoriously spurious was St. Epiphanius towards the end of the Fourth Century Many Reformed Divines have by weighty Arguments unmaskt these Canons which have passed abroad with a false Passport not to be truly Apostolical Among others the Centurists of Magdeburg have offered these proofs 1. They clash with the
Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France the Scholar of St. Polycarp though he owned the Tenour of Pope Victor yet in his own and the concurrent Judgment of the Gallicane Divines he reprehended Victor with a Holy Acrimony When several points were warmly Controverted in the Africane Church within the Compass of the Third Century the present consideration St. Cyprian the Martyr Bishop of Carthage did not wait for a decision from Rome but did refer the Questions to be discust and determined by Africane Councils When St. Cornelius his Contemporary Bishop of Rome did intermeddle in the Ecclesiastical Affairs of his Province of Carthage St. Cyprian did hotly Resent and Expostulate the Encroachment In his Epistle he terms the Bishop of Rome a Colleague a Brother I deny not but the See of Rome was in the purest Antiquity consulted with from other Churches but it was Arbitrary of Choice not necessary of Duty it was prompted by a veneration had not to the power the Authority of the Roman See but to the Piety and Literature of the Roman Prelates for the first Three Centuries most of them died Martyrs Upon this account the Patriarlts and Bishops of other Churches were frequently consulted with out of the verge of their own Jurisdictions From the See of Rome the Judgment of St. Ambrose was implored from Millaine Sometimes Convicted Condemned Delinquents in other Churches repaired to the See of Rome as Fugitives to skulk as Sophisters to delude Such were Fortunatus and Felicissimus doomed in Africa Thus when Basilides was justly Excommunicated Deposed in Spain he fled to Rome and fraudulently wrought upon the facility of Pope Stephen not reputed Infallible this being not the Divinity of that Age to bustle in the behalf of himself and Martialis alike Criminal and alike Sentenced for their re-admission This precipitate unjustifiable attempt gave great offence to the Spanish Bishops who passionately complained of it to St. Cyprian and the other Bishops of Carthage requesting their Advice who unanimously animated them to persist in their Sentence of Excommunication not to submit to Stephanus not to re-admit such Malefactors Sabinus being rightly the Successor of Basilides ejected St. Cyprian confidently determin That it could not be rescinded by Pope Stephen Sometimes Innocent persecuted Persons in other Churches made their applications to the See of Româ— But it was as to a Sanctuary for refuge not as to a Tribunal for Judicature an address to the Pope not an Appeal This was the case of St. Athanasius his Successor St. Peter of St. Chrysostome St. Flavianus and others it was a resort as to an Orthodox Prelate because of the Communion of the same Faith not as to a Supreme Judge upon a Prerogative of Power it was for advice for solace not in expectation of a final Sentence of an irrevocable Decree Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pope Pius the Second had so much Ingenuity as to acknowledge that before the Nicene Council every Bishop lived to himself and that there was small regard had to the Church of Rome Even after the Nicene Council the Primitive Bishops of Rome for a time would not assume to themselves Would not usurp that Power of deciding important difficulties beyond the limits of their own Patriarchal Jurisdiction I shall cull out two Instances in the Causes of two Learned Renowned but Persecuted Patriarks the one of Alexandria the other of Constantinople of St. Athanasius and St. Chrysostome In the former Constantius the Arrian Emperour being exasperated against St. Athanasius Liberius Bishop of Rome cajoled him supplicated him that a Council might be assembled at Alexandria he offered in effect the same reason for appointing Alexandria in the Cause of St. Athanasius that St Cyprian did in excepting against Rome in the African concerns Where the Party impeacht the Accusers Advocates and others interested may most fitly be convened This is recited in the admirable Colloquy as the Centurist of Magdeburg stile it betwixt Constantius and Liberius Liberius alledged no decisive Jurisdiction in himself in the See of Rome The later instance is the cause of St. Chrysostome wherein Pope Innocentius the first declared a necessity of a Synodal Convention to asswage the Tempest in the Church He asserted no Papal Oecumenical Power to determine Controversies He approved the Milevitan Council which prohibited Appeals in the African Churches unless to African Councils or Primates Excommunicates Appellants to transmarine Jurisdictions About Sixteen years after the Sixth Carthaginian Council which lasted six years having regularly chalked out the gradations of Appeals in the African Church absolutely debarred any to the See of Rome I have dilated this point because the Roman Champions lay so much stress upon it and that I may not need to ventilate to sift it any more in this Tract I have not yet examined the Proofs in the supposititious Decretal Epistles of Anacletus and Zepherinus The latter derives the Power of the Apostolick See from the Apostles and their Successors The former from the Apostles by the Commandment of our Lord. Fallacies are enwrapped shrowded in generalities No injunction of Christ or any of his Apostles is recited for the Papal final deciding of difficult Controversies De non existentibus de non apparentibus eadem est ratio What is not apparent may rationally be rejected as not existent After these false varnishes of Antiquity H. T. having marshalled the specious Pictures of a Gallery rather than the vigorous Forces of a Camp or the Arguments of the School he insults before he vanquishes or indeed encounters marches in Triumph like the Roman Emperour with his Army having collected Cockleshels not conquered any Enemies He quits the Field in this quarrel with a flaunting Trophee of Victory These were all Popes of Rome but no true Protestants I hope This Sarcasme is more imbitter'd with Gall than seasoned with Salt The Name of Protestants took its Rise in the year 1529 from the protestation of Six Princes and 14 Principal Cities of Germany an appeal from the Decree of the Diet to Caesar and to a future General Council or National of Germany and to all Judges not suspected These Protestants did and those who are so called do still own the Tenets in Religion of the Popes recited in this Third Century H.T. Catholick Professors to the year 300. Simplicius Callepodius Abdon Sennen Pammachius Tyburtius Valerianus Marcellinus Dorotheus Gordianus Pudentiana Triphon Elaesius Maximianus Clemens Barbara Agatha Apollonia Cyprianus Hippolytus Gregorius Thaumauturgus Laurentius Tharsus Cecilia Victorius Nemesius Olympius Adrianus Georgius Pantaleon Agens Barlain Jereon with his Companions Cosmas Damianus Mauritius with the Theban Legion c. W.T. This Muster of Names is no Hostile Battalia unless against your selves We assert a real affinity Doctrinal and Practical with these Saints and Martyrs whereas you degenerate from the Purity the Loyalty of their Principles The Theban Legion that brings up the Rear was not
proved to be fraudulent upon sifting the Phrase and the Subject Calculating the Date but the more Learned Romish Champions Posserine Bellarmine Baronius have confest it The last whereof that famous Analist Records the decease of Pope Marcus before the date of his pretended Letter and brands it together with a counterfeit submission 〈…〉 a succeeding Bishop of Carthage to be fictions of the same Forge I have dilated this detection the rather because the Romanists lay so much stress upon so weak so false a foundation H.T. Thereby a Man is freed from the servitude and corruption of Sin l. 3. Decret 4. That the Lamb of God which takes away the Sins of the World is placed on the Sacred Table the Altar to be sacrificed unbloodily and that we receiving his Body and Blood do believe these things to be signs of our Resurrection l. 3. Decret De Divinâ Mensâ It Decreed That a Bishop dying Notice shall be given of his Death to all Churches and Monasteries in the Parish that Prayer be made for him C. 65. Arab. And that Deacons who have no Power to offer Sacrifice ought not to give the Body and Blood of Christ to Priests who have full power Can. 14. W.T. Neither the Papal Decrees nor the Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council are to be allowed for Orthodox Tests in deciding Controversies I shall not reiterate my Exceptions against the Fallacy of both As for the Restraint of Deacons in reference to Priests recited it is a point of Discipline not Doctrine a Regularity not to be contended for if rightly understood H.T. The First Constantinopolitane Council defined against Macedonius who denyed the Holy Ghost to be God and decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next to the Bishop of Rome W.T. This Allegation consists of two branches The First is Impertinent the Second Frandulent The Church of England explodes the Macedonian Heresie as much as the Church of Rome as is evident in the Fifth Article of the Church of England As to the second branch of the Allegation it is offered with little Fidelity or at least Advertency The Patriarch of Constantinople was not mentioned in the Nicene Council wherein the priviledge of Rome Alexandria Antioch are solemnly recited Constantinople being then in Eclipse in Umbrage in respect of its succeeding Splendor After it was augmented adorned dignified by the Translation of the Imperial Seat it then obtained as signal an Ecclesiastical as Secular Grandeur It was the design of the First Constantinopolitane Synod to match the See of Constantinople with that of Rome this being allowed a Priority of Place not a Superiority of Office of Authority Constantinople is ranked with Rome not subjected under it It levels truckles not The reason of the Equality of Dignity is exprest in the Council it self because that Constantinople is New Rome enjoying the same Ensigns Rights Honours as Sozomen clearly testifies The Epistle of the First Constantinopolitane Council is directed to the Reverend Brethren and Colleagues Damasus Aurelius c. If the Canon debated establish his Parity it 's vainly cited by H. T. If it doth not establish it it is vainly granted to the Romanists H.T. The first Ephesine Council defined against Nestor who denied the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God c. 1 2 3 4. It defined that Peter was the Head and Prince of the Apostles and that the Power of Loosing and binding Sins was given by our Lord to St. Peter who in his Successors Lives and Exercises Judgment to this very Time and Always Act. 3. W.T. Here is produced a double Testimony out of the first Ephesine Council The one a Condemnation of the Nestorian Heresie the other a Certificate of the Supremacy of St. Peter and his pretended Successors The first is not Controverted between the Romanists and the Reformed The second is but a Shadow at the best but a varnish of a Proof as it is destitute of substance and solidity so of Truth and Candour The Ephesine Council decreed no such flaunting Title no Principality of St. Peter nor Entail to his Successors but it was insolently uttered by one of the Three Legates of Celestine the Bishop of Rome by Philip a Candidate for Promotion a Parasite of the Court of Rome Neither Arcadicus nor Projectus the other Legates more circumspect dignifyed offered any such expression Not any of the Fathers in that Council Their Epistle to Celestinus Bishop of Rome is directed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to their fellow Minister Not only the Fathers then assembled in General but in Special Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem a part so recites him The Decree of the Council against Nestorius by the Prelates Convened as it is recorded by Evagrius mentions Celestinus a Colleague The Epistle of Celestinus himself to Nestorius expresses Cyrill his Brother and fellow-Bishop This was not a Courtesie a Complement of his Condescension like the smooth insinuation of the Roman Generals in the Camp Commilitones Fellow-Souldiers many of the Fathers rank them with equal respect in their distinct suffrages recounted in that Council It was their Universal Unanimous Acclamation One Celestine one Cyrill one Faith of the Synod one Faith of the World Nay Theodosius the Emperour who Summoned Authorized Establisht that Council having occasion to mention both these Prelates first nominates Cyrill afterwards Celestinus the former set out with the flourish of an Epithet The Most Holy Bishop of Alexandria the other without it If H. T. hath not consulted with the Records of the first Ephesine Council he is precipitate in his Allegation No Man passeth a right judgment upon that whereof he is ignorant saith Aristotle If he hath consulted with that Council he is disingenuous in misrepresenting it Since H. T. produceth the first Ephesine Council as an Oracle in a Subject that will not consist with its Test. I shall recommend it in an instance that will In the Case of the Cyprian Bishop opprest by the Encroachment of the Patriarch of Antioch The Controversie was Exactly Discuss't Authoritatively Determined in that Council The Decision doth by infallible consequence vindicate the Immunity of the British Bishops doth brand and condemn the Usurpations of the Roman We have the same plea of Exemption the purest Primitive Antiquity before the first Council of Ephesus before the first of Nice As for the claims the pretences of any succeeding Ages the Canon of the first Ephesine Council is not to be evaded That no Bishop occupy another Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors The same Council prescribes Restitution if there be any such injurious attempt enjoynes the preservation of Ancient Rights 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning in every Province for the prevention of the contempt of the Canons of the Fathers and of the Introduction of Arrogance in the Dress the disguise of Secular Power H.T. The Council of Chalcedon defined against
an Historical Evidence wherein there is no credible no rational account given to satisfie a judicious Inquisitor The best Author that Baronius upon the most industrious search could light on was Geoffry of Monmouth more reputably called Galsridus Asaphensis whom all Historians that mention brand for an Impostor Baronius himself in other subjects gives him no better character Even Galfridus the prime Oracle for this Fable could offer no better flourish of a Testimony than the obscure Authority of Anonymus one of no Name of no Esteem consequently of no Credit No Ancient Historian of the Third the Fourth or Fifth Century wherein the Sience is variously laid nor in some subsequent Ages recites the Martyrdom or Saintship of Ursula and her vast Virginal Retinue There is no Harmony among the Asserters of it touching the Age Whether in the Fifth Century where H. T. and others place it in the year 454 or in the Fourth Century where Baronius fixes it in the year 383 or in the Third Century where the Cistertian Breviary disposeth it in the year 237. There is no consent touching Ursula's Extraction her Habitation whether her Native Soil were England being as it is pretended courted to be the Bride of an English Prince or Scotland according to Wicelius's Poetry or Ireland according to the Vindication of Combachius Thus where there is no Truth there is no Stability no Concord Sigebertus in his uncorrupt Edition Petrus de Natalibus Bonifinius with other Historians and Chronologers reject the solemn Narrative touching Ursula as an Elaborate Fiction If the Argument of Baronius be Negatively firm to discard Cyriacus from being Bishop of Rome and an Associate of Ursula because no such Passage Extant in any Ancient Record The Proof is not invalid upon the same Topick for discountenancing expunging the whole Legend of Ursula Una litura sat est Let it be supposed That Ursula and her Eleven Thousand Virgins were not Theatrical but Real Saints and Martyrs yet British they were not Romish The Brittain Church did neither in the First Second Third Fourth or Fifth Century submit to the Roman nor conform to it not in its Liturgy not in its Rituals its Canons not in point of Ordination of Priests of the Prohibition of their Matrimony not in the Observation of Easter So little a Correspondence there was in matters Ecclesiastical betwixt them That Gregory the First was ignorant and inquisitive in the Testimony of Paulus Diaconus whether the Britains were Christians or Pagans The inserting by H. T. of Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine Martyrs of Africa is as wide an Impertinency of a List of Catholick Professors of the Roman Stamp St. Austin who is distinctly nominated in the Catholick Catalogue for this Age did subscribe to the Decrees of the Council of Carthage which did exclude the Romish Jurisdiction in Africa St. Chrysostome who is expresly cited was a Catholick Professor of the Greek not the Roman Church He was not ignorant of the First Constantinopolitane Oecumenical Council which ranked him being Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome His Epistles First and Second to Pope Innocentius do not derogate from this Equality As the Romanists object They declare a voluntary Respect not a due submission In his Exigencies he made the See of Rome his Sanctuary for Refuge for Assistance not his Tribunal for Sentence His Address to Pope Innocentius was as to an Orthodox Prelate not as to a Supream Judge His Devoir Resort his Appeal was not to a Papal but a Synodical Determination To summ up the British African Greek Catholick Professors produced they are unjustly challenged appropriated by H. T. They were at a great distance from the Ancient City of Rome but at a much greater from the Modern Church of Rome as it is Establisht in the Trentine Council H. T. From the Year of Christ 500. Chief Pastors General Councils 514 Hormisda The Second Constantinopolitane Council Pope Vigilius presiding Fathers 165 An. Dom. 553 against Anthimius and Theodorus 524 Johannes 1. Authors Zonaras Nicephorus and Baronius 526 Foelix 4.  530 Bonifacius 2.  532 Johannes 2.  535 Agapetus  437 Sylverius  540 Vigilius  526 Pelagius 1.  560 Johannes 3.  573 Benedictus 1.  578 Pelagius 2.  590 Gregorius Magnus  W.T. As for the Eleven Popes nominated they were no Asserters of the Tenets wherein the Reformed differ from the present Church of Rome As for Vigilius's Precedency in the Second Constantinopolitane Council H. T. is more positive than Bellarmine would adventure to be who warily makes the point of Right a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Evasion lest the point of Fact should be disproved that he did or might preside in it As for the Papal Interest of Presidency in Councils which Turrecremata exacts for the Form the Essence and Canus for the Weight and Validity of such Assemblies There is no Constitution no Prescription for it in the purest Antiquity Cardinal Cusanus being Convinced with so evident a Truth ingenuously acknowledged That in the Primitive Oecumenical Councils there is but a single Instance and that in the Third Action of the Council of Chalcedon which Exception is not warranted by the Genuine Records of that Council were it allowed yet according to the Rational Maxim of the Civil Law An Exception ratifies the Rule in what is not excepted by this Consequence the alledged Presidency of Vigilius is infallibly discarded for Vindication whereof H. T. produceth Three Witnesses Zonaras Nicephorus Baronius These are defective in point of Antiquity and thereby less credible The Second Constantinopolitane Council was Convened the Year 553 as H. T. professes whereas the Testimonies produced are of a much later Date Zonaras wrote in the Twelfth Century Nicephorus in the Thirteenth Baronius in the last who was no less the Advocate of the Papacy than the Annalist of the Church too frequently Adulterating the Records of Antiquity and prostituting them to the Grandeur of the See of Rome Evagrius a more Ancient Authentick Historian before the end of the Sixth Century testifies the Consent of Vigilius by his Letters an Orthodox Correspondence of Judgment no Authoritative Confirmation of Power he was so far from presiding in that Council that he would not be present at it H. T. Produces three Witnesses not without some grains of a Sophister he cites the First Zonaras as the Tempter did the Psalmist imperfectly Zonaras joyns Eutychius of Constantinople Apollinarius of Alexandria as Princes or Principal Prelates in that Council most probably so Titled in respect of their Patriarchal Dignity without any mention of any distinct peculiar Personal presidency The Second Witness Nicephorus doth not aver Vigilius to be President of that Council but Menas and Eutychius successively the one in the Beginning the other in the Progress and Close of the Council Vigilius repaired to Constantinople but not to the Council though frequently intreated