ΕΞΕΜΥΘΙΑ Roman Oracles Silenced OR THE Prime Testimonies OF ANTIQUITY Produced by HENRY TURBERVIL IN HIS Manual of Controversies Examined and Refuted By the Right Reverend Dr. WILLIAM THOMAS late Lord Bishop of WORCESTER Imprimatur Jan. 20. 1691. Z. Isham R. P. D. Henrico Episc. Lond. a Sacris LONDON Printed by J. R. and are to be Sold at the Crown in Cornhil near the Stocks-Market MDC XCI To the Reader THE Publishing of this small Tract opus posthumum imperfectum may need an Apology as wanting the last Hand of the Accurate Author and Answering but to the Six first Leaves of the Manual it attacks But since 't is a Genuine Copy compared as near as could be with the obscurely written Original And it sufficiently unravels the Testimonies of the First Six Hundred Years of which the Romanists mainly Vaunt and to which the Reformed confidently Appeal It may pass for a just Treatise without Disappointment to the Reader or Derogation to the Authors Name whose Memory is Venerable and Pretious with those that knew Him Being a Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of singular Modesty and Humility to conquer Passion and win Affection yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Conspicuous Learning and Life to convince Gainsayers and confound Adversaries An Instance both of his Candour and Dexterity Herein we have in his former Apology for our Church against the Cavils of Separatists and in this Present Answer to the Challenge of Romanists In both which he bath approved Himself a Workman that need not be ashamed whose unbyassed Judgment and steady Hand carry an Equal Poise without Prejudioe and Partiality Who had not learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fit his Faith to the Times But as a faithful Soldier and Martyr stood fast in the Truth of the Church of England kept his standing contra Homines Dâ—mones No Temptation could warp or divert Him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the last Gasp. May His Sincerity and Constancy be to us a lasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Encourage and Establish us in the Present Truth A MANUAL OF CONTROVERSIES ARTICLE 1. The TENET THAT the Church now in Communion with the See of Rome is the only True Church The ARGUMENT That is the only True Church of God which hath had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time But the Church now in Communion with the See of Rome and no other hath had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time Therefore the Church now in Communion with the See of Rome and no other is the True Church of God W. T. The Major is not true unless there be an addition of a word only to wit which only hath had a continued succession from Christ. The Major being thus propounded is not of validity in the judgment of Bellarmine who will not admit succession to be a proof of the true Church The Major is to be denyed if understood of a Local Personal without a Doctrinal Succession H. T. The Major proved Isa. 59. 21. Isa. 60. 1 3 11. Isa. 62. 6. Ezek. 37. 16. Dan. 7. 13 14. St. Matth. 28. 20. St. John 14. 16. Eph. 4. 11 12 13 14. W. T. These Texts of Scripture import the Conversion of the Gentiles the propagation of the Gospel the Divine assistance to be continued to the Church in the most diffusive Capacity without a particular restriction to any distinct place or People A discussion whereof were a digression not pertinent to the main of our Controversie The Minor Proposition exacts a closer Examination This Proposition hath two Members the one positive The Church now in Communion with the See of Rome hath had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles The other Member is negative No other Church hath had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles The minor Proposition is impotent in both the parts like Mephiboseth lame in both feet There is no Confirmation offered as to the later branch that excludes other Churches from the plea of Succession Whereas the Local Personal Succession of the Churches of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch Jerusalem and others is flourisht out in specious Catalogues loss liable to exception than that of Rome which is yet more transcended in a Doctrinal succession if reduced to the Sacred Test of Canonical Scripture H. T. The minor Proposition is proved by this ensuing Catalogue of the Roman Churches chief Pastors Coâ—â—olls Nations Converted and Publick Professors of her Faith From the Year of Christ Thirty Chief Pastors General Councils 30 Our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ.  34 St. Peter the Apostle The Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem St. Peter presiding Acts 15. 67 Linus  80 Cletus  93 Clement  W. T. What is asserted of Concoction of Meats is appliable to this point of succession in the See of Rome An Error in the first degree is not to be corrected in the rest If the first link be loose all will be shatter'd There is no certainty because there is no harmony in the Testimonies of Antiquity touching the first second third and fourth Bishops of Rome Rusinus relates that Lâ—nus and Cletus were not distinct Successors after the dissolution of St. Peter but joint Bishops during his Life that they discharged the Episcopal Office whilst he did the Apostolical Epiphanius gives this account of the Succession in the See of Rome Peter and Paul Linus Cletus Tertullian lays the Foundation of the See of Rome in both the Apostles recited Irenaeus testifies that both invested Linus in the Bishoprick of Rome St. Clemens makes himself the immediate Successor of St. Peter Tertullian ratifies this Order of Succession Irenaeus and †Eusebius recite Anacletus for the immediate Successor of Linus St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus recount Anacletus as Predecessor to Clemens Baronius vindicates this to be the true Suecession I shall not hence conclude your forementioned noâ— consistent with this to be false being countenanced by the Authority of St. Optatus and others But I may hence infer how little Weight and Stress there is in your first Evidence produced for Succession in the See of Rome In opposition to all these Records Clemens in pretended Recognitions in his name avouches St. Barnabas to be the first Planter of the Church Your next Argument is the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem St. Peter presiding Acts 15. The discussion of this Objection may properly be referred to the next Section because it is there more dilated and improved by the Opponent H. T. From the Year 100. 103 Anacletus 112 Evaristus 121 Alexander 132 Sixtus 1. 142 Telesphorus 154 Higinus 158 Pius 1. 163 Anicetus 175 Soter 179 Eleutherius 194 Victor W.T. The great Roman Orator justly set a brand of Infamy on a Common Argument that may reciprocally be used by both Parties in Controversies It is yet more lyable to
trained up in the Corrupt Modern Romish Divinity stating it lawful to resist Princes in case of Infidelity Heresie or Tyranny which Bellarmine did not blush to aver to be the common sentiment of Divines H.T. Catholick Professors to the year 400. Domnus with 2000 Martyrs Lucianus Theodorus Paulus the first Eremite Jacobus Nissibitanus Spiridion Macharius Nicolaus Helena the Mother of Constantine the Great Constantine the first Christian Emperour Marcus Arethusius Nicetus Theodorus Antonius Hilarion Athanasius Paulus Constantinopolitanus Hilarius Martianus Basilius Hieronimus Epiphanius Patianus Ambrose Cyril of Jerusalem c. Nations converted Dacians Gebes Bessites Scythians Morines Armenians Hunnes Indians Aethiopians c. W.T. This is to bandy with and to rout your own shadow We most willingly refer our differences next to the Sacred Scripture to the Test of these and the precedent Primitive Worthies of the Church H.T. From the year of Christ 300. Chief Pastors General Councils 304 Marcellus The first Nicene Council Fathers 328 approved by Pope Sylvester An. Dom. 325. against Arrius 309 Eusebius  312 Melchiades  314 Sylvester Authors Cedrenus Photius Socrates Eusebius 336 Malchus  339 Julius The First Constantinopolitane Council Fathers 150 Pope Damasus presiding An. Dom. 381. against Macedonius 352 Liberius  358 Foelix 2.  367 Damasus  385 Siricius Authors Socrates Photius Baronius 398 Anastasius  W.T. These Authorities are Impertinencies as to the present dispute We reject not any Testimonies of the venerable Popes nominated that are not spurious If any of those be not ours 't is because they are not their own They may be espoused by such by whom they are corrupted Male dum recitas incipit esse tuus We adhere to the first Nicene Council and the first Constantinopolitan cited we explode the Heresie of Arrius condemned in the one and of Macedonius in the other That the Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester was not singular it was allowed subscribed by all the other Bishops It was Sylvesters Suffrage his Consent not his Edict his Bull to ratifie it if Sylvester were then Living That it was in the time of his Successor Pope Julius Dr. Whitaker proves by the Testimonies of Sozomen l. 1. c. 17. Athanas. Apol. 2. Nicephor l. 7. c. 14. Beda in Chron. However that Council was convened governed confirmed it was by the Authority of Constantine the Great It is alledged by H. T. That Pope Damasus presided in the First Constantinopolitane Council Whereas Damasus was so far from being President of that he was not present in that Council not personally nor representatively by a Proxy by any Legate but Nectarius Arch-Bishop of Constantinople of Noble Extraction presided Bellarmines plea is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a subterfuge to evade not a proof to demonstrate That if Damasus had not been absent he had presided An Inference of no validity Vigilius Bishop of Rome sat in the Fifth Oecumenical but did not preside in it This Dignity was not fixt entail'd to the Papacy of Rome The Popes were Presidents in some Ancient Councils but not in all Not in the first Nicene not in the first or second Constantinopolitane not in the first or second Ephesine not in the Sardique not in the Carthaginian Council Had Damasus been President in the First Constantinopolitane Council Yet they would not have vindicated the transcendent Papal Prerogative in and over Councils challenged in later times not attempted aspired to in the Primitive Church Since Soveraigns began to be Christians Ecclesiastical Affairs depended upon them The greatest Synods have been and are convened by them This is solemnly attested by Socrates about the midst of the Fifth Century The Instanced first Constantinopolitane Council was summon'd establisht dismist by Theodosius the Emperour the Senior H.T. From the Year 400. 402 Innocentius I. The First Ephesine Council Fathers 200 Pope Celestine presiding Anno Dom. 431. against Nestor 417 Sozimus  419 Bonifacius I.  424 Calixtus I.  432 Sixtus III. Authors Nicephorus Baronius 440 Leo Magnus  461 Hilarius The Chalcedon Council Fathers 600 Pope Leo presiding Anno Dom. 451. against Eutyches 468 Simplicius  483 Felix  492 Gelasius I.  497 Anastasius Authors Leo Ep. 50. Baronius c. 499 Symmachus  W.T. I shall not contend touching the formal Musters of your Popes in point of Divinity or Chronology Pope Celestines presiding in the first Ephesine Council is easier asserted than proved Celestine was at that time personally engaged in an Italian Council which was not esteemed Oecumenical but its Contemporary the Ephesine consisting of the Eastern Bishops The Romish Champions plead that Pope Celestine did constitute St. Cyril of Alexandria to be his Proxy If I grant he did delegate his suffrage there being a singular Correspondence betwixt these two Orthodox Prelates yet not a Prerogative of presiding in the Council which though arbitrarily sometimes indulged to the Pope in person yet was not so necessarily annext to the Papal Dignity as to be challenged by his Legates as not in the Fifth Carthag Conc. It is testified by Sozomen that Vitus and Vincentius the Popes Legates in the Council of Nice â—ate in the Fourth place St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria had been active in confuting Nestorius in exciting the Emperour to summon the Council He was the most Eminent Prelate present the Patriarch of Constantinople being in umbrage under the Eclipse of a charge of Heresie so that it is most probable that he did preside not as substitute from Rome but as Patriarch of Alexandria even before any Declaration Pope Leo recites him as President of the first Ephesine Council without the least mention of any derivation or lustre from his Predecessor Pope Celestine This is expresly solemnly attested in the Code who ever was in the Nature of Moderator he was inferior to the Emperour in the transactions of that Council to Theodâ—sius who not only summoned establisht authothorised it but had a singular over ruling influence in regulating it in composing differences in it The Fathers convened in that Synod solemnly implored the Emperors Ratification True it is the first Ephesine Council in an Epistle to Pope Celestine gave him an account of their Proceedings against Nestorius but it was out of Amity not Duty a Conformity in point of Faith not a Submission in point of Power The Epistle is directed in a style of parity As touching the Council of Chalcedon If I grant the Popes Legates had a precedence by the favour of the Prince or the respect of the Fathers convened to the personal Eminence or Patriarchal Lustre of Leo the First Yet the Emperour Martianus did seem to preside as the grand Moderator in that Council at first personally immediately afterwards mediately by his Commissioners who are solemnly recited before the Fathers assembled However the Authoritative influence for the Convention Ratification of that Oecumenical Synod is clearly ascribed to the Emperour How solemn is the
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