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 Cornhill, near the Stock-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 'tis 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 Author's Name, whose Memory is Venerable and Precious with those that knew Him; Being a Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of singular Modesty Greg. Naz. 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 bathe approved Himself a Workman that need not be ashamed, whose unbiased Judgement, 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 & Demons, No Temptation could warp or divert Him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the last Gasp. Cl. Al. 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 Non colligi necessario esse ecclesiam ubi est successio. 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 Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccl. c. 8. in the judgement of Bellarmine, who will not admit succession to be a proof of the true Church. The Major is to be denied 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 Controversy. 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 flourished 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, Co●●olls, Nations Converted, and Public 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 shattered. 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 L●nus and Cletus were not distinct Successors Linus & Clerus suerunt quidem ante Clementem Episcopl in urbe Roma; Sed superstite Petro: videlicet ut illi Episcopatus curam gererent, ipse vero Apostolatus officium imp'eret. Rusinus Praefat. ad libros recognitionum. 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 Epiphanius, Haeres. 27. See of Rome. Peter and Paul. Linus. Cletus. Tertullian lays the Foundation A gloriosissimis Apostolis Petro & Paulo Romae f●ndatur & conslituitur Ecclesia. Tertul. adv. Mani. l. 4. of the See of Rome in both the Apostles recited. Irenaeus testifies, that both invested Fundantes & instruentes Ecclesiam, Lino Episcopatum tradiderunt. Iraen. l. 3. c. 8. Linus in the Bishopric of Rome. St. Clemens makes himself the immediate Successor of St. Peter. Clem. in Epist. 1. ad Jacobum. * Tertull. in l. de. prescript. cip. 32. Tertullian ratifies this Order of Succession. Irenaeus and † Eusebius recite Iren. l. 3. c. 3. † Euseb. 〈◊〉. Eccl. l. 3. c. 13. Anacletus for the immediate Successor of Linus. St. Ignatius and * Iren. l. 3. c. 3. St. Irenaeus recount Anacletus as Predecessor to Ign. in Epist. ad Mar. Castobol. Clemens. Baronius † Bar. ad Ann. inslit. 69. Sect. 39 vindicates this to be the true Suecession. I shall not hence conclude your forementioned, no● consistent with this to be false, being countenanced by the Authority of St. Optatus ‖ Opt. l. 3. contra Parmen. 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 * Clem. in l. 10. recognitionum. Euseb. Chron. p. 566. 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 Tullius l. 1. de Inuentione. be used by both Parties in Controversies. It is yet more liable to 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 died 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 passed. 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 spoke not first authoritatively, to lead, nor last juridically, to ratify. Not first, untruly alleged by Bellarmine, there had Cum multa, disceptatio fuisset inter Judices Gl. Ord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theoph. been much disputing before, (v. 7.) much arguing among the Judges, according to the ordinary gloss. Not last, this privilege, this pre-eminence appertained to St. James, as Bishop of Jerusalem. Therefore he speaks last. It is the Reason offered by St. chrysostom 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 Abuleus in c. 7. Matth. qu. 13. Dionys. Carth. in Act. 19 Lorin. in Act. 15. 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 (Peter) 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. Peter's preparatory Sentence or Beatus Jacobus cum caeteris Apostolis tale decretum constituit observandum. Gaudent. in Serm. de Macchab. Opinion; but St. James ultimate Decree, final Determination assisted with the rest of the Apostles: So Gaudentius hath exactly expressed 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 Judgement 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 pre-eminence 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 Princeps rogationis Fabritius. Cicero in Orat. pro Sextio. 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 Veil for a Fallacy. As for the first Chair in a General Council, (the point of Primacy specified) no Ancient, General, or National, or Provincial Council hath assigned it to the Pope. I confess, the Lateran Council, under Leo the 10th, hath so established it; but that was in the year 1516. Constan. Conc. Sess. 4. & 5. Basil. Sess. 2. & 16. 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 Papa non debit esse judex in propria causa. 16, q. 6. consuetudo. 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 Patriarches. 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, Turre ●remat. sum. de Errb. l. 3. c. 13. 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. Peter's 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 impairing 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 allege 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 Falsehood in the citation of this Authority. (Omnis fabuld fundatur in Historia.) An Ecumenical 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 Socra●●s. l. 2. c. 16. 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 Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. 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 suspicious taint of imposture, being not received, not after the utmost scrutiny to be Nec in aliqua Patrum Synod. Con. Afric. c. 105. found, by the African Fathers, as not extant in the Nicene Council, so not in any other. St. Austin was utterly ignorant of any Ut aliqui tanquam à tuae sanctitatis latere mitta●tur nullâ invenim●s Patrum Synodo constitutum. Aug. in ep. ad Coeles●in. such Canon, who was not unverst in a point of Jurisdiction and Pre-eminence, so much discussed in his time. St. Austin acknowledged no Sardian Aug. contra Creseen. l. 3. c. 34. Council but what was Heretical. The Cardinal Cusanus had so mu●h ingenuity, Satis posse dubitari an Sardiensis Concilii constitutio existat. Cusan. de Conc. Catho. l. 2. c. 25. 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 authentic, (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 tenor of a novel singular favour, bound up with several restrictions; it put the Pope in a capacity, upon deliberation, for a review referred to him to nominate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Commissioners (not out of Rome) out of the Neighbouring Province. This might be an extraordinary esteem and reverence to Julius, than 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 Archbishop of Old Rome. Action. 16. W.T. I readily grant all Primacy and chief Honour to the Archbishop of Rome, according to the genuine unforged Canons in the Primitive Church, which assert only a priority of Order before other Patriarches, 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 Si cum ipsius Provinciae Metropolitan● Episcopus vel Clericus controversiam habtat, Diaecesis exarchum ad●at v●l Imperatoriae Urbis Constantinopolis Thronum, et opud eum litiget. Conc. Chal. c. 9 latter, either his advertency or ingenuity is defective, in urging the Council of Chalcedon, the trausactions whereof are abundantly repugnant to this pretended pre-eminence. 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 Archbishop 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, than Bishop of Rome, attested the reality of this Leo in Ep. ad Anaccl. & in Ep. ad Pulcher. Degree, even whilst in several Epistles he expressed his disgust of it. The Histories of Socrates and Sozomen punctually Socr. l. 5. c. 7. Soz. l. 7. c. 9 record it. This Council of Chalcedon communicates equal privileges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Conc. Chaic. Can. 28. 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 ancient Latin Copies, extant in Libraries. The substance of this constitution is established in the Ephes. Conc. can. 9 Trull. Conc. can. 36. 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 Apostolic See of Rome, the Constantinopolitan should have Honour. W.T. That relation hath been taxed for a collusion. E Bibliotheca Coloniensium Praedi atorum non ita pridem Edita, per Do●. Pr. in praep. A late figment out of the Colonian Library. But supposing it were no fiction, what advantage can hence accrue 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 Apostolic, or inserting the See of Constantinople in a seeming inferior rank to that of Rome. Epithets are no Charters for Prerogatives: The complimental Rhetoric of a Title is no firm Topick to prove a real pre-eminence. These Epithets are frequently applied to other Patriarches, and sometimes to inferior 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, Ter●ull. in l. de Praeser. Aug. in Ep. 162. have been styled Apostolical Seats; as the Churches of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus. In a secondary Consideration, Bishops have been anciently 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; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil. Constant. 1. Can. 36. to be equally privileged 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 Patriarch had not been convinced, That an equality of Authority and Jurisdiction had been setl●d by that Council upon the several recited Patriarches in their several Sees and Provinces, he would not have been so much offended with that Canon of the Chalcedon Council beforementioned, 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 Pot●s●atem habent Ordinare, mutare, inthronizare. Praetaxato modo 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 pre-eminence alleged, Tanti Apostolatus Principatum meruit. Aug. Chrys. in 1. Gal. as hath been already manifested. St. Austin applied the same Phrase to St. Paul, who was acknowledged by St. chrysostom to be equal in Dignity with St. Peter (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) HT. St. Gregory says he knows no Bishop but is subject to the See of Rome, Ep. 6. 2. W.T. St. Gregory (though his memory be precious) being 600 years after Christ (when the Church of Rome declined in piety, though improved in power) hath the less Authentic 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 itself 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 Verbum jussionis volo à meo a●ditu removere. Scio quis sum, qui estis, loco ●nim fratris esti mor●bus Patres. Non ergo jussi sed quae utilia visa sunt indicare vol●i, Greg. l. 7. Ep. 30. power to prescribe to other Patriarches, 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 Patriarch 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 Nulli subesse, omnibus praeesse. Ep. 38 l. 7. be Inferior to no other, to be Superior to all. St. Gregory amply declared his abhorrence of this Title, branding it to be novel, profane, superstitious, Greg. l. 4. Ep. 32, 36, 38, 39 proud, presumptuous, an effect of Infidelity, a tincture of Lucifer's Apostasy, a badge of Antichrist. H.T. Catholic Professors to the year 100, the Blessed Virgin, St. John Baptist, St. John Evangelist, etc. 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 Ciphers without any Figures are for account in Arithmetic; 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 Countries, to which St. Paul wrote his Epistles; as also France, Spain, England, etc. See Baronius. W.T. This is out of the Track of our Controversy; That Church which was spread in this Age, asserted no other Doctrines but what are owned by the Church of England. H.T. Catholic 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, etc. 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 suspicion 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 Baron. in Appar. verbo Cle●en●. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 27. 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 Vix ●●x aut octo Latina Ecclesia nunc observat. Medina de sacra hominum Contin. l. 5. c. 105. observed by themselves: Mich. Medina acknowledgeth that the present practice doth not retain a tenth part of them in the Church of Rome itself. 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 Catholic Church, not in the Primitive Roman, as composed by Heretics in the judgement of Gelasius, Gratianus dist. 15. Can. Sancta Romana distinct. 16. 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 alleged) in the Edition in his Library; since Baron. Tom. 2. Anno Christi 102. Sect. 11. in the Decretal purged and refined by the Order of Pope Gregory XIII. It is acknowledged to be transmitted from the Toledan Library to Rome; which being a public Record, having so signal, a Papal Approbation, aught to be more Venerable, Authentic for credit and estimate, than that private Copy Quod quia Authoritate careant ab Apostolis isse omnino sancitos Apocryphi dici ●●eruerunt. Bar. 16. Notitia libr. Apocr. qui non recipiuntur. of a Cardinal, who himself confessed, 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 Gel. Decr. in 2. Vol. Concil. Edit. Nicol. Phorius in Biblioch. c●p. 113. Books that are not received. Photius the Learned Patriarch 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 Epiph. Haeres. 30. Rivet. Cri●. Sacr. l. 1. c. 1. Rob. Cocus cens. quorundam Script. vet. p. 3, 4, 5, 6. Eccles. Histor. Magdeb. Cent. 1. l. 2. cap. 7. end of the Fourth Century. Many Reform Divines have by weighty Arguments unmasked 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 uncontrolled, 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 ●●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, tricked up in the title, the dress of the Canons of the Apostles. I confess they have the face of Antiquity (though not entirely unblemished) but they have not the immediate, not the true stamp of the Authority of the Apostles, as their Authors. As for the Ninth Canon alleged, if it be of any validity, why doth the Trentine Council, the Oracle of the present Concil. Trident. Sect. 22. Can. 6. 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 impeached, confidently doomed for erroneous, by the Grandees of your Church, by Popes, Cardinals, because that Council hath allowed the Marriage of Priests, Concil. Constan. sieve Trul●. Can. 13. & Can. 55. hath prescribed Laws to the Church of Rome. If no stress may be laid on it, the objection is a confutation of itself. It is a fallacy without any grain of ingenuity to offer that for a figure to be much reckoned to us, which to yourselves passeth for a cipher of no value. To inspect the strength of your Argument for the Second Century. A single pretended Can●● 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 Ecumenical 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. Douai or Rome may invent such Logic, 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 Heretics) 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 yourselves. To ratify, 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 Apostolic 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, etc. 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 enjoined 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 citys 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 Apostolic 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 men's 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 Rhetoric, but of the congruity of the Grammar, directly repugnant to the terseness, the politeness of the Phrase of those times, both for Ecclesiastical and profane 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 gratify Carnal, not Spiritual Interests, calculated for the splendour of the Church, not its Umbrage, its Adversity, not to excite Devotion, but support Pre-eminence. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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, Alex. Ep. prima, secunda. Sexti Ep. prima, secunda. Telesph. Epist. Pii Ep. prima, secunda. Soteris Ep. secunda. Victoris Ep. prima. Fabiani Epist. Cornel●i Ep. secunda. Lucii Epist. Sixti secundi Epist. Cum multis aliis. the inadvertency of a fallacy 〈◊〉 dating several Decretal Epistles by the account of such Consuls who never were joined 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 conversed 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 Authentic 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 usurped Jurisdiction in that Age wanted such adulterate stamps to pass for currant Coin. 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 Merchandise, 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 Zel●● of the School of Ignatius assayed to vindicate (ineffe●●●y) the integrity of the Decretal Epistles. Others of the same Society, but of a higher Rank, of more piercing judgements, Bellarmine, Baronius, Cusanus, would not adventure to be Advocates for such egregious frauds. As for Bellarmine, I shall not insist upon his acknowledgement 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, Aliquos errores in has Epistolas irrepsisse non negaverim, nec indabitatus esse affirmare audeam. Bell. de Re Pont. l. 2. c. 14. that some Errors are crept into these Epistles; neither dare I assert them to be undoubted. Baronius did less mince, who professed 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 Ex m●ltis suspect as ●as r●ddi Epistolas alibi demonstratum. Baron. An. 86 ●. To. 10. Nu 6 7. S●ipsas produnt. Cus. de. Conc Cath. l. 3. c. 2. 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 alleged 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, testify that Euseb. Hist. l. 2. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. in Antidicomarianitis. Bellarm. de Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 23. Turrecrem. de l. 2. Gum. Eccl. c. 32. 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 Learnedest Sticklers for the Church of Rome not adhere to it? Who derive the Episcopal pre-eminence of St. James at Jerusalem entirely from St. Peter. Were this a true Genuine Epistle of Anicetus, were this an Authentic Evidence, yet this would but sort and rank Peter with James and John, which will not cotton with the P●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, Irenaeus. l 3. c. 3. Tertul. l. 3. comm. adversus Manic. Euseb. l. 3. Hist. Eccl. c. 54. Epiphan. Haeres. 27. Bellarm. l. 4. de Not. Eccles. c. 8. 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 alleged of the same importance, are of the same, (of no) credit, concerning the Decision of grand, of difficult Causes by the Apostolic 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 liable to two Brands in the School Divinity, an Usurped Judgement 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 bias of Leges semper ad aequitatem flectendae sunt. Cicero. Concil. Nicen. Can. 5. Concil. Antioch. Can. 6. & 15. Concil. Milevit. c. 22. Laws to which they are to be bended, saith Cicero.) It had been an unsupportable molestation of Expense 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 tendered. St. John the Evangelist being at Ephesus, did not suspend the doom of the Ni●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 Hieron. in Catal. Script. Ecclesiast. Niceph. l. 4. c. 39 in the Testimony of St. Jerome, contended with Anicetus' Bishop of Rome, touching the observation of Easter, and would not submit to his Judgement. Both resolutely persisted in their different Opinions, without prescription to, or condemnation of each other. Such was the true Candour of that Anicetus, falsely produced in point of Dominion, or Domination rather of the Roman Prelacy. Which being violently pursued by Pope Victor (in the tract of the same Controversy) his Sanction was rejected though abetted by a Roman Synod, his Excommunication disregarded by Polycrates and other Asiatic Bishops. St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lions in France, the Scholar of St. Polycarp, though he owned the Tenor of Pope Victor, yet in his own and the concurrent Judgement of the Gallicane Divines, he reprehended Victor with a Holy Acrimony. When several points were warmly Controverted in the African 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 discussed and determined by African Councils. When St. Cornelius (his Contemporary) Bishop of Cyp. Ep. 55. 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, Cypr. Ep. 1, 2-67. 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 Episcopi quoque Romanae Ecclesiae meam adhuc expectant sontentiam quid existimem scrib●re de die Paschae Amb. Ep. 73. other Churches were frequently consulted with, out of the verge of their own Jurisdictions. From the See of Rome, the Judgement of St. Ambrose was implored from Milan. 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 Cyprian. Ep. 55. 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 readmission. 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 Cyprian. Ep. 68 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, Nec rescindere ordinationem jure perfectam potest. Cypr. Epist. eadem. St. Cyprian confidently determine, That it could not be rescinded by Pope Stephen. Sometimes Innocent persecuted Persons in other Churches, made their applications to the See of Rom● 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. chrysostom, St. Flavianus, and others; it was Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. Sozom. l. 6. c. 19 Nazianz. in Orat. de laude Her. 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 Silvius, afterwards Pope Pius the Second Ante Nicenam Synodum quisq, sibi vixit, at parvus respectus ad Romanam Ecclesiam habebatur. Aen. Sylu. Ep. 288. 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 Patriarches (the one of Alexandria, the other of Constantinople) of St. Athanasius and St. chrysostom. In the former, Constantius the Arrian Emperor 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 Cypr. Ep. 55. Theodor. Hist. l. 2. c. 16. Rome in the African concerns. (Where the Party impeached, the Accusers, Advocates, and others interested, may most fitly be convened.) This is recited in the admirable Colloquy (as the Centurist of Magdeburg style it) Magdeb. in Cent. 4. cap. 3. betwixt Constantius and Liberius. Liberius alleged no decisive Jurisdiction in himself, in the See of Rome. The later instance is the cause of St. chrysostom, Sozom. l. 8. cap. 25. wherein Pope Innocentius the first declared a necessity of a Synodal Convention to assuage the Tempest in the Church. He asserted no Papal Ecumenical Power to determine Controversies. He approved the Milevitan Council, which prohibited Innocent. in Ep. ad Milevit. Concil. Non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, utl ad Primates provinciarum suarum: Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum, à nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiantur. Concil. Milevit. 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 Apostolic See from the Apostles and their Successors. The former from the Apostles by the Commandment of our Lord. Fallacies are enwrapped, shrouded 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 marshaled 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 Emperor with his Army, having collected Cockleshells, not conquered any Enemies. He quits the Field in this quarrel with a flaunting Trophy of Victory. These were all Popes of Rome, but no true Protestants I hope. This Sarcasme is more imbittered 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 ●ist of the Counc. of Trent, by Piet. Soave Polano. p. 48. l. 1. 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. Catholic 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, etc. W.T. This Muster of Names is no Hostile Battalia, unless against yourselves. 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 trained up in the Corrupt, Modern Romish Divinity, stating it lawful to resist Princes in case of Infidelity, Heresy, or Tyranny, which Bellarmine did not blush to aver to be the common sentiment of Divines. H.T. Catholic 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 Emperor) Marcus, Arethusius, Nicetus, Theodorus, Antonius, Hilarion, Athanasius, Paulus Constantinopolitanus, Hilarius, Martianus, Basilius, Hieronimus, Epiphanius, Patianus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem etc. Nations converted. Dacians, Gebes, Bessites, Scythians, Morines, Armenians, Huns, Indians, Aethiopians, etc. 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 Constantinopolitan 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, 'tis 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 Heresy 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 ratify 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, Ruffinus, l. 1. c. 17. Sozom. ● 1. c. 11 Theod. l. 3. c. 7. Socr. l. 1. c. 5. it was by the Authority of Constantine the Great. It is alleged by H. T. That Pope Damasus presided in the First Constantinopolitan Council. Whereas Damasus was so far from being Precedent of, that he was not present in that Council, not personally, nor representatively by a Proxy, by any Legate, but Nectarius, Archbishop of Constantinople, of Noble Extraction presided. Bellarmine's 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 Ecumenical, but did not preside in it. This Dignity was not fixed, entailed to the Papacy of Rome. The Popes were Precedents in some Ancient Councils, but not in all, Not in the first Nicene, not in the first or second Constantinopolitan, not in the first or second Ephesine, not in the Sardique, not in the Carthaginian Council. Had Damasus been Precedent in the First Constantinopolitan 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 Sovereigns began to be Christians, Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socra●. in Pr. 1. 5. Hist. Eccl. 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 Constantinopolitan Council was summoned, established, dismissed by Theodosius the Emperor, 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, etc. 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 Ecumenical, 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 annexed 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 Sozom. l. 1. c. 17. the Pope's Legates in the Council of Nice ●ate in the Fourth place. St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria had been active in Evagtius l. 1. c. 3. confuting Nestorius, in exciting the Emperor 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 Heresy, so that it is most probable that he did preside not as substitute from Rome, but Niceph. l. 14. c. 34. Prioris Ephesinae Synodi cui sanctae memoriae Cyrillus Episcopus praesedit. Leo in Epist. 47. Ephesina Synodus cui beatae memoriae Cyrillus praesuit. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 8. Cap. 8. Rogamus Clementiam tuam ut per literas tuae pietatis ratum esse jubeas, confirms ad Populi documentum. In Epist. Orthodox. Sanctissimo Piissimoque comministro Celestino sancta Synodus quae per D●i gratiam Ephesi convenit d Domino salutem D. Act. Conc. Ephesi. Tom. 4. cap. 17. as Patriarch of Alexandria; even before any Declaration Pope Leo recites him as Precedent of the first Ephesine Council, without the least mention of any derivation or lustre from his Predecessor, Pope Celestine. This is expressly, solemnly attested in the Code, who ever was in the Nature of Moderator, he was inferior to the Emperor in the transactions of that Council to Theod●sius, who not only summoned, established, 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 Emperor's 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 Pope's 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 Emperor Martianus did seem to preside, as the grand Moderator in that Council, at first personally immediately, afterwards mediately by his Commissioners, Evagrius l. 2. c. 4. who are solemnly recited before the Fathers assembled. However the Authoritative influence for the Convention, Act. 1. Synod. Chalc. Ratification of that Ecumenical Synod is clearly ascribed to the Emperor. How solemn is the submission to the Emperor's pleasure. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evag. 16. Act. 1. Synod. Chalc. Act. ult. Synod. Chalc. Act. 1. Synod. Chalc. He prohibited all disputations against the Doctrine of the Council of Nice, by his Authority Dioscorus was Condemned, and Proterius Established in his place. The Legates of the Bishop of Rome in that Synod entreated the Moderators of the Council, that Dioscorus should be required to recede, which themselves had enjoined, not requested had they presided. In the Sixteenth Article of that Synod, the Decree was opposite to the Sentiments of the Pope's Legates. In that Article Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople 27 Canon's editos esse quorum Authores ut maximè Anatholius Episcopus Constantinopol. Dist. 16. c. Sancta Octo. 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 Patriarches, seeing he is the first; as Peter, to whom Power Ecclesiastical is given over all Christian Princes, and all People, etc. and whosoever shall contradict this, is Excommunicated by the Synod. Can. 39 Arab. W.T. We own a great veneration for the Great, Sequor Tractatum Conci●ji Niceni, à quo me nec mors, ne● gladius potest separare Amb. l. ●. de Trinit. Basil. Ep. 28. Athan. in Ep. ad Spir. the first General Council, the first Nicene. From which tract 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 judgement is to be made of Heretics. 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 alleged Thirty Ninth Arabic Canon may be unmasked, and then appear a Romish Imposture. That there were but Twenty Genuine Canons of the Nicene Councils, 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 tumour the amplifying of the Canons to the number of Thirty in the Notion and Style of Arabic 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 Patriarch 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 P●pal Pre-eminence (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 Arabic remote Evidence in the Sixteenth Century. How have they been obscured dormant for so many Ages? Turrianus the most confident Stickler for these Arabic Canons acknowledged there is no Record as to any Tota res ad conjecturas & signa quibus veri●as illustrari solet traducenda est. Translation of these out of Greek to Arabic, no proof, no evidence but conjecture. The wily Jesuit pretending to wave infinite other Testimonies (in the smooth Rhetoric, the subtle fallacy of his Mention by way of Omission) insists on the African Fathers as sufficient Witnesses, alleging, 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 sen●●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 cyril 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 professed Society of the Holy Jesus (the Name of a Saint being the Gild, the Impeachment of a Miscreant according to Salvian) so notoriously to juggle and prevaricate. Nomen Sancti reatus impii. Salvian. For the clearer discovery of his Collusion, and the more warrantable rejection of the additional Arabic Canons, I shall offer a true summary Narrative of the transactions of the African Fathers falsely presented by Turrianus. Apiarius being justly deliberately sentenced in Africa Qui judicat inavaitâ alte â parte, lic●t aequum fuerit judicium, ha●d aequus fuerit jadex. Sen. (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 pressed a Canon of the Nicene Council to justify 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 (Archbishop of Carthage) in which they found no such Canon alleged. 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 suspense, 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 Patriarches 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 searched with great diligence, as Baronius confesses. Attious professed in his Rescript that Copy to be unmaimed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. cyril 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 proved to be fraudulent upon sifting the Phrase, and the Subject, Calculating the Date; but the more Learned Romish Champions Posserine, Bellarmine, Baronius have confessed 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 Arabic 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 Constantinopolitan Council defined against Macedonius, who denied 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 Heresy 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 privilege of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch are solemnly recited, Constantinople being then in Eclipse, in Umbrage, in respect of its succeeding Splendour. After it was augmented, adorned, dignified by the Translation of the Imperial Seat, Socrat. Hist. l. 1. c. 12. it then obtained as signal an Ecclesiastical, as Secular Grandeur. It was the design of the First Constantinopolitan 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 expressed in the Council itself, because that Constantinople is New Concil. Constant. 1. ca 5. Rome, enjoying the same Ensigns, Rights, Honours, as Sozomen clearly testifies. Sozom. l. 7. c. 9 Theodoret. l. 5. c. 9 The Epistle of the First Constantinopolitan Council is directed to the Reverend Brethren and Colleagues, Damasus, Aurelius, etc. 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 Losing and binding Sins was given by our Lord to St. Peter, who (in his Successors) Lives and Exercises Judgement 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 Heresy, 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 Evagr. l. 1. c. 4. Celestinus a Colleague. The Epistle of Celestinus himself to Nestorius expresses Conc. Eph. 1. Tom. 1. c. 17. cyril his Brother, and fellow-Bishop. This was not a Courtesy, a Compliment of his Condescension, like the smooth insinuation of the Roman Generals in the Camp, Commilitones, Fellow-soldiers; many of the Father's rank them with equal respect in their distinct suffrages recounted in that Council. It was their Universal, Unanimous Acclamation. One Celestine, one cyril, one Faith of the Synod, one Faith of the World. Nay, Theodosius the Emperor, who Summoned, Authorized, Established 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 Concil. Eph. 1. To. 5. c. 4. 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 judgement upon that whereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ar●●t. Ec●. l. 5. 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 oppressed by the Encroachment of the Patriarch of Antioch. The Controversy was Exactly Discussed, 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, enjoins 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 Eutyches and Dioscorus, who denied Two Natures in Christ, Affirming, That the Humane Nature was changed into the Divine. W.T. This Arrow is shot at random, it wounds not, Lights not near the Protestants, who disclaim, detest the Eutychian Heresy. H.T. In the third Action in this Council, Pope Leo is called Universal Archbishop, and Patriarch of old Rome. W.T. This was the soothing Address to Leo of particular Persons, such as moved in the lowest Spheres of the Church; of Athanasius a Presbyter, of Diodorus and Ischyrion two Deacons (severally) No such Determination, no such Expression of the Synod itself. If this Style of Universal Archbishop were of any importance, it might be more vigorously pleaded in behalf of the Patriarch of Constantinople: To whom it is applied by more Numerous, Illustrious Persons, not only by the Monks of Antioch, but also by the Syrian Bishops in the Domino nostr● Sanctissimo & Beatissimo Patri Patrum Archiepiscopo & Oecumenico Patriarchae Johanni Synod. in hâc Imperiall Civitate Congregata. fifth General Council; nay, by the Synod itself. This Title paramount was no Novelty, no Rarity in the second Council of Nice, as to the Application of it, to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Adrian was not shy to ascribe it to Tharasius: Adrianus dilecto fratri Tharasio generali Patriarche. Greg. l. 7. Ep. 32. Pope Gregory the First asserts that all his Predecessors have rejected this Title. H.T. Sentence is pronounced against Dioscorus in the Name of Leo and St. Peter, to acknowledge Leo to be St. Peter's Successor. W.T. This is not Extant, not in the proposition of the Edict, not in the Sentence of the Condemuation, (the censure of Dioscorus) not in the Synodical Publication to the Clergy of Alexandria; not in the relation, the account of it to the Empress Pulcheria. It was only the arrogant Tumour of the Pope's Legates, when they pronounced their Suffrages: None of the Fathers then assembled, uttered any such Ranting Preface of Pre-eminence, but they sorted, ranked together the Archbishop of Old and New Rome, as appears by their Votes distinctly Recounted. H.T. The Elibertine Council in Spain subscribed by Hosius and others, who were present at the first Nicene Council, defined, That Bishops, Priests, and Deacons should abstain from their Wives, or else be degraded. c. 33. Age the Fourth. W.T. The Romanists themselves have little veneration for the Dictates of this Council. Some disgust it as embittered with the Novatian Leaven. In the Edition of the Councils at Venice by Dominicus Concilium Elibertinum nunquam ab Ecclesia receptum. ob Can. 36. sort● etiam ob Can. 34. Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 502. Nicolinus, there is this Remark upon it. It was never received by the Church for the Thirty Sixth Canon, perhaps also for the Thirty Fourth. Bellarmine taxeth it to be invalid, being not confirmed, Minim● confirmatum, & in aliis decretis videtur erroneum esse, praesertim cum in pluribus casibus, ne in articulo quidem mortis velit absolvi penitent. Bellarm. cap. 19 de Imag. Sanct. 1. 2. to be Erroneous, in some cases denying Absolution to Cenitents in the Extremities of Death. The most Learned Romish Champions do either absolutely reject this Council, or at least derogate from the Vigour and Lustre of it. This being a Provincial Council of Nineteen Bishops, its Decrees are no Decisions of Controversies. The Inference of H. T. is not convincing in Logic, being deduced from an Insinuated Error in Chronology. (That this Council was subscribed by Hosius and others, who were present at the first Nicene Council.) The most exact Chronologers date the Elibertine Council a considerable time before the Nicene Council; Twelve years before the Computation of Onuphrius, Twenty years more Ancient in the Calculation of Baronius. Though Bellarmine would not nominate the precise years, yet he confidently asserts the Elibertine to have Reveta Concilium Celebratum fuit ante Nicenum. Bellar. c. 2. de Imag. Sanct. l. 2. been celebrated before the first Nicene. This being granted, the Elibertin had the precedency of Age, it is evident, That what Hosius did less considerately solemnly ascribe to in a Provincial Council, he did more maturely Authoritatively correct in a General Council. Were the Elibertine Council subsequent in time to the first Nicene; yet what is established in an Ecumenical Council, cannot be repealed in a Provincial, especially in the instance recited; the General Council being both Ample and Authentic; the Provincial scanted for Number, not unquestioned, not unblemished for Repute. H.T. The Second Council of Arles defined. That no Man who was married could be made a Priest, unless a Conversion be promised. Can. 2. W.T. The Decrees of this Council have been frequently, and not unwarrantably taxed to be adulterated. This Council mentions the Bonasiaques (c. 17.) not then Extant, not before the time of Pope Innocent the First, the Eighth in Succession after Sylvester, in whose Papacy you acknowledge this Council to be held. This Second Council of Arles recites the Vasense Council, Concil. Ar●t. 2. c. 28. Convened not till above an entire Century of years afterwards in the time of Pope Leo the First. Were this Council of Arles as managed in the Transactions, and as conveyed to us in the Records of it uncorrupted, yet it was but a Provincial Council in France, (as the Elibertine cited was in Spain) which must veil to an Ecumenical, to the first Nicene; wherein when there was an active assay of establishing a Sanction for separating the Clergy from their Wife's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to sleep together; Paphnutius that famous Confessor vigorously opposed, prevailed for the rejecting of that Novel Imposition. This is attested by Socrates, Sozomen, Ecclesiastical Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. Historians, whose Testimonies have in former Ages been venerable, though cavilled at by Baronius, Bellarmine, Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. and other Romanists of the same strain, whose Artifice it is to evade, to shift off those pregnant proofs they cannot satisfy, and will not acknowledge. These Authorities are sufficiently vindicated by Claud. Espencaeus l. 1. de continentiâ. Espencaeus. In this Illustrious Instance of Paphnutius, to deal candidly as a Son of the Church of England, and not as a Sophister in the School of Athens. An Adversary may object, That the same Paphnutius did propound, That they who were Ordained being unmarried should so persevere. I Answer, Paphnutius did divide that Stream, that Torrent which he could not entirely divert. He declared his Judgement punctually, That Conjugal Society is not inconsistent with Sacred Orders, (without any restriction to precedent or subsequent.) He avouched not only the difficulty but in some the impossibility of the observance of so rigid an interdict of the Clergies Marriage, and therein undermined the Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. foundation of the Romish restraint, he also pressed the impurity of the consequences of such a prohibition. The Prophecy of Paphnutius became St. Bernard's History. Abstinentes remedio Nuptiali, & in omie d●inceps flagitium essluentes. ●ern. de Conu. ad Cler. c. 29. Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. Socrat. l. 1. ● 4. The result was, that the Manacle was cast off, every Man left to the liberty of his own Judgement. It may further be urged by an Opponent, That Paphnutius mentioned the Ancient Tradition of the Church. For the Clergy that were unmarried, to abstain from Wedlock. I Answer, That Paphnutius did herein most probably reflect upon the Church of Egypt, (wherein himself was dignified) or on Thessaly. It might be the particular custom of one Province, not Universal of all. There was no such Tradition in Armenia, if the Sixth Quoniam cognovimus in Arme●niorum Regione eos solum in cleri ordinem referri qui sunt ex genere Sacerdotali. Conc. Constant. 6. Can. 33. Constantinopolitan Council may be credited. No such Tradition in Ephesus (the Metropolis of the lesser Asia.) Before the end of the 2d. Century, Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus in his contest, touching the Observation of Easter with Victor, Bishop of Rome, in an Epistle Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 24. to him, asserts Seven 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 Crect. When Pinitus would have introduced it among the Cretians, Dionysius Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 4. c. 23. of Corinth reprehended, dissuaded 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 Aliter se habet traditio Orientalium Ecclesiarum, aliter hujus S. Romanae Ecclesiae. Nam illarum Sacerdotes, Diaconi, 〈◊〉 subdiaconi matrimonio Copulantur. Dist. 3. to the Authentic 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 impaired or eclipsed as to the discharging of the Exercises of Divinity, the Sacred Offices of his Function. No such received Tradition in the African Churches, wherein Tertullian was a Married Presbyter, as also among many others, Foelix and Numidicus, both themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozom. l. 1. c. 11. and their Consorts, reputably recited by St. Cyprian. No such custom (as not in the Modern) not in the Cyprian. l. 4. Ep. 10. l. 5. Ep. 15. 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 Married Prelates, and co-habited with their Wives. No stamp of any such Tradition in Germany, not in England, no tract of any such custom for 1000 years Sacerdoles illâ Tempestate uxores pu●●icè sicut caeteri Christiani habebant. Et filios procreabant. De Germ. ait Avent. in Hist. Boiorum. l. 5. in Anno 1074. 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 Married. Justinian the Emperor, about the beginning of the De Britannis te●tantur Fabianus in Chron. p. 263. Floren. ●n Chror. ad Annum 997. Nove● Const. 8 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 De legitimis Conjugiis Nati Cap. Cenamensi. Socr. l. 5. c. 22. 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 Tunc licebat Sacerdotes habere uxores. Hug. Card. in 1 Tim. 3. Tunc non suit indicta clericis continentia. Bonav. 4. d. 81. q. 3. 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 reestablished by several of his Successors in multiplied Decrees, but not without Regrets, Oppositions, Tumults. No solemn Universal Sanction obtruded before Gregory Lego & Relego Romanorum Regum & imperatorum Gesta, at nunquam inveni quenquam eorum ante Hunc. (Hen. 4.) à Rom. Pontisice Excommunicatum vel regno Privatum Otto Friz. l. 6. ca 35. Ut pace omnium dixerim, Haec sola Noviter non dicam haeretici nec dum in Mundo. Sigebert in Anno 1088. Conc. Gangr. Can. 4. Greg. Sept. ●xoratos Sacerdotes à Divino removit officio, & Laicos missam eorum audire interdixit in annum 1075. 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 Ecumenical Approbation, solemnly approved by Pope Leo the Fourth. I shall not quit this Persecutor of the Married Clergy without two Remarks of fame. The one touching the lasciviousness, licentiousness of Distinct. 20. ca de Libellis Lamb. Schaf. Hist. Germ. his Life, his scandalous Converse with the grand Countess Maud. The other touching his Stings of Conscience at his Death, which then impeached him for exerting his Tyranny Confessus in Extremis suis valde se peccasse in Pastorali curâ & suadente Diabolo contra genus Humanum Odium & iram irritatum. Florent. Monach. Vego in Chronico ad annam 1 106. 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 Novum prorsus conversionis Genus, Licita non saciunt, illicita committunt. Temperare à conjugio, non Temperare à Rapinâ. Quid agis stulta persuasio? Peccata interdixit Deus, non Matrimonia. Item non est Conversio sed Aversio: Qui jampridem ut fama est opus Honesti Matrimonii re●inquitis, tandem à Sc●lere cessatt. Salu. l. 5. the Provide. Experientiâ docente Contrarius Effectus sequitur ex illà Lege continentiae, cum hodie non vivant spiritualiter, nec sint mundi, sed maculentur illicito coitu cum eorum gravissimo peccato, ubi cum propriâ uxore esset castitas. Unde deberet Ecclesia facere sicut bonus Medicus, si Medicina experientiâ docente potius officiat quam prosit eam tollere nemo re●uit citius. forbear from Wedlock, and forbear not Rapine. What actest thou, O foolish persuasion? 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, Sacerdotibus magnâ ratione sublatas Naptias, majore restituendas videri: Platina in Vitâ Pii Secundi. 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 Silvius the Cardinal) professed, 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 Hebr. 13. 4. in itself, it is not sullied: Where there is no guilt, there is no stain. Both the Schoolmen and Canonists acknowledged, Gratian. dist. 28. c. Diaconi, & dist. 31. c. Aliter Aquin. q. 80. Art. 11. Cajetan. in Opusc. To. 1. Tract. 27. Est communis Sententia Theologorum veterum & Recentiorum. Azor. p. 1. Inst. Mor. l. 13. c. 11. 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 Profane Temporal Interests. To indulge, to licence 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 Traffic, the Policy, but not the Virtue, the Innocency of the Church of Rome. H.T. Catholic Professors to the Year 500 Severinus, Tigrius, Exuperius, Eutropius, St. Jo. chrysostom, 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, etc. The Scots converted by Palladius, the French by S. Remigius and Vedastus, 4979 Martyrs of Africa, and many others. W.T. This Catholic 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 Calendar) and of Richardus Praemonstratensis. This is the grand support of the Coten Divinity, the Pageantry of its Sepulchers, 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 discussed, are unmasked to be Dreams; the Revelations convicted, to be Collusions. The second Argument for avouching Ursula and her numerous illustrious Train is the Allegation of an Historical Evidence, wherein there is no credible, no rational account given to satisfy 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.) ●icet multa de aliis habeat Auc●or Fabulosa. Baron. Tom. 4. Annal. in An. 383. Coton. Instit. l. 1. c. 19 Incidit in Librum quendam Britanicum ab homine cujus adhoc Nomen ignoratur conscriptum, ac spurcissimis scatentem, quem latinum ille secit. De Galfrido, Alanus Copus. Dial. 5. c. 19 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' 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, Miraeus Edition of Sigebert at Antwerp. Bonfin. Hunger. rerum Decad. 1. l. 5. 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 Baron. Annal. ad Annum 237. 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 Britain 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 Britain's 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 Catholic Professors of the Roman Stamp. St. Austin who is distinctly nominated in the Catholic Catalogue, for this Age, did subscribe to the Decrees of the Council of Carthage, which did exclude the Romish Jurisdiction in Africa. St. chrysostom who is expressly cited, was a Catholic Professor of the Greek, not the Roman Church. He was not ignorant of the First Constantinopolitan Ecumenical 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 Supreme Judge. His Devoir, Resort, his Appeal was not to a Papal, but a Synodical Determination. To sum up the British, African, Greek Catholic 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 Established in the Trentine Council. H. T. From the Year of Christ 500 Chief Pastors. General Councils. 514 Hormisda. The Second Constantinopolitan 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' Precedency in the Second Constantinopolitan Council, H. T. is more positive than Bellarmine In Concllio aut: praefuisse aut praeesse potuisse Vigilium. Bellarm. 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, Papam tribu●re Concilio suum esse & Forma● ait Turrecrem. l. 3. c. 4. Poudus Conciliis dat summi Pontisicis gravitas & Authoritas. Canus l. 5. c. 5. 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 Non invenitur instantia in Octo Conciliis praeterquam in tertia Actione Concil. Chalced. Cusan. l 3. c. 16. a Truth, ingenuously acknowledged, That in the Primitive Ecumenical 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 Exceptio sirmat Regulam in non Exceptis Reg. jur. excepted by this Consequence, the alleged 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 Constantinopolitan Council was Convened the Year 553, (as H. T. professes) whereas the Testimonies produced are of a much later Date. Zonara's 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 Authentic Historian before Vigilias per lic●ras Consensit Concilio, non tamen interesse vo●●●t. Evagr. l. 4. c. 37. the end of the Sixth Century, testifies the Consent of Vigilius by his Letters (an Orthodox Correspondence of Judgement, 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 citys the First Zonaras, as the Tempter did the Psalmist, imperfectly. Zonara's joins Eutychius of Constantinople, Apollinarius Zonar. in Vitâ Justiniani. 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 Niceph. l. 17. c. 27. to be Precedent 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 entreated, 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 Archbishop of Constantinople, being Precedent. Claranza the Abbreviator of the Councils Devoted Constantinop. Synodus quintâ Praesidente Mennâ Patriarchâ Caranza in summa Conc. 56. Conc. Const. 2. Art. prima. Baron. in Ann. 553. to the Romish Interest, asserts the Presidency of Menas in the front of the Second Constantinopolitan Council. This is cleared beyond dispute by the Acts of the Council itself, wherein is inserted, Menas being Precedent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will admit no other Construction. Baronius himself (the Third Witness quoted) produced this Record. H. T. The Second Constantinopolitan 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 Archbishop 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 and 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 Controversy. No Heresy condemned in the Second Constantinopolitan 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 Catholic 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 poi● Controverted. The Romanists descent 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 Judgement 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, etc.) doth derogate from the Supreme Ecclesiastical Pre-eminence 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 itself. 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 poise, but to down-weigh the Third Council of Carthage: I shall set in the opposite Scale the Synod of Laodicea, though not entirely Ecumenical, 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 confessed of all hands, that it preceded Baron. An●al. in Append. ad Tom. 4. 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 Ecumenical Council (that of Chalcedon) and in the Primitive Authentic Code established in the same Council, that of Carthage being first inserted in the Code by Dionysius Exiguus, the Abbot in the year 425. The same Council of Laodicea recounts the same Canonical Laodic. Concil. Can. 59 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. Resp. 3. believing the Books of Canon-Scripture to be those which the Laodicean Synod hath put down, and which the Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ being Illuminated by the Holy Ghost, hath confessed. 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 Judgement) and the best Vindication of the Sixth General Council from an implicit contradiction of itself 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 Article. 6th. Manners, but yet doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine. Cardinal Cajetane, the Most Learned Textuary and Non esse Canonicos, id est, Regulares ad Con●irmandum ea quae sunt sidei. Posse tamen dici Canonicos; Id est, Regulares ad aedificationem fidelium utpote in Canaone Bibliorum ad hoc receptos & Auctoratos. Cum hâc distinctione discerni posse dicta Augustini Exsc●ipta in Provinciali Synodo Carthaginensi. Cajet. in fine Comment. ad Hist. Vet. Test. 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 ●●nus reprehended Cajetane, for making St. Jerome Canus in loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11. ad 2. Arg. his Rule, and derogates from St. Jerome, because he did tract Josephus (the Famous Jewish Antiquary) in the Enumeration of the Canonical Books of Scripture. It is confessed by Driedo, That St. Jerom did herein retain Drido l. 1. c 3. parte primâ ad Hier. the Computation of the Jewish Synagogue, not of the Christian Church, as he pretends. Andradius acknowledges that St. Jerome recited the Andrad. l. 3. Det. Trident. Ep. ad Rom. c. 3. v. 2. 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 Divina Oracula in Sac●is Scriptures Contenta. Tolet in Ep. ad c. 3. v. 2. wit, contained in Sacred Scripture. So Cardinal Tolet expounds them. The Jews, the Faithful Depositories for these Jewels, Ita ut non nisi per Judaeos ad Gentiles devenerint. Corn. à Lap. in Ro. 3. without whom they had not been transmitted to the Gentiles, is the acknowledgement of Cornelius à Lapide. Upon this account St. Austin called the Jews, a Scriniary Nation, carrying the Law and the Prophets, and the Augustin. contra Faustum. Man. l. 12. c. 23. Augustin. in Psalm. 56. 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 confessed Compurgators Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 8. c. 2. of the Jews Integrity by Learned Romanists. I shall not need to add St Augustine's clear Evidences, August. de Clvit. Dei. l. 15. c. 13. Per Religionem noluerunt unquam textum corrumpere Bellarm. de Verbo Dei, l. 2. c. 2. 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 Authentic 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 stamped with Divine Inspiration, as embraced with a true, (not equivocal) Catholic Allowance for a Doctrinal Infallible Test. The grand proofs of Antiquity (besides the Third Innocent. 1. in Ep. 3. ad exuperium Conci●ium Roin. sub disinherited 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, Hoc etiam Fratri et Consacerdoti nostro Bonificio ve● aliis earum partium Episcopis pro confirmando isto Canone innotescat. Caranz. in Sum. Carth. Concil. Can. 47. that of Innocentius the First, if there were a reality of his Decree alleged, there needed no probationary reference of the Forty-Seventh Canon in the Third Council of Carthage, so much insisted on to the Judgement of Bonifacius, inferior 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. Cousin, late Bishop of Durham (after a copious distinct examination of particulars.) Thus have we hitherto taken an exact and perfect Dr. Cousins Scholastical Hist. of the Canon of Script. Parag. 178. view of what the Catholic 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 chrysostom, Anastasius, St. Gregory, Nicephorus, and Balsamon: In Greece by Dionysius, 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 Poic●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 Countries by Rabanus, Strabus, Hermanus, Contract Ado. R●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 numbered. Thus far Doctor Cousin 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, anathemas are the proper frequent Apologies for Convicted Errors. With what Truth or Candour, with what strength of Religion or Reason, with what warrant of Piety or Antiquity the Canon of Scripture being there solemnly asserted, universally established in all Climates, in all Ages may in the Sixteenth Century of Christianity be contradicted, controlled, 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 Judgements to determine. H.T. In this Ag● the Milevitane Council defined, That whoever denied Children newly born to be Baptised; or says, They contract nothing of Original Sin from Adam, which may be cleansed by the lavoer of Regeneration, etc. 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 Articles of Religion, 9 27. 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 Ab universis Episcopis dictum est, Placet. Const. 2. vol. Edit. Dominic. 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 Concil. Trident. Sess. 9 Can. 17. Conc. Trident. Sess. 9 can. 7. Twelve years of Age? Only Abbatisses and Prioresses are limited to the Age of Forty years.) If this be an uncancelled, unvoided Decree alleged, why is it not observed by the Romanists? If it be canceled 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 places, 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; aught to sing Mass, and to offer Sacrifices upon our Lerd to our Lord upon the Altar, so in no other but consecrated places. De consecrat. dist. 1. C. Sicut non alii. W.T. To wave Exceptions as to the Authority of Pope John the First (not obligatory) because out of the Verge of his own Jurisdiction) and as to the validity of the proof by a Mosaical, Ritual, Ceremonial Institution: I shall only observe, That this is no point contended for. We allow distinct consecrated places and persons. As to the numerous, specious, Testimonies the Instances and Arguments of H. T. for this Sixth Century, there is but one, and that ministerpreted (out of the 3d Council of Carthage) that hath any affinity to any Controversy betwixt the Romish and the Reformed Established Churches; which with the rest, are of no weight to demonstrate the Succession of the one, or to evince that of the other. They may conduce to amuse, to delude an ignorant implicitly devoted Disciple, but cannot convince and satisfy any unprejudiced circumspect Reader. H. T. Catholic Professors to the Year 600. Gerardus, Genovesa, Columbus, Oportuna, Germanus Parisiensis, Maria of Egypt, Brigitta, Simeon Salus, Leander, St. Benedict, (Institutor of the Holy Order of the Benedictine Monks) Rupertus, Maurus, Placidus, Arnulphus, Radegundis Leonard, Columbanus, John Climacus, Isaac, Herminigildus, Fortunatus, Agricola, Bonifacious, Victor, Eleutherius, Gregorius, Turonensis, etc. W.T. Though the purity of Christian Religion somewhat declined in this Century, which did not shine with such bright Stars of the Church as the two former; yet neither of the Professors recounted by H. T. nor other more Illustrious commemorated by the Centurists of Magdeburg, and by Baronius in his Annals did assert the Religion of the present Church of Rome, according to the Trentine Standard in those Tenants, in which it is opposite to the Reformed. Some of the Professors recited were Catholics, not Romanists, as Mary of Egypt, Brigitta (of Scotland.) Neither the Egyptian, nor Scottish Churches did in this Age own any Homage to the Papal Jurisdiction. As for St. Benedict, (who is so distinctly signalised, as being the Institutor of the Holy Order of the Benedictines,) I shall not question his Sanctity, it being related by St. Gregory, That it was the obloquy of Satan Greg. Dial. l. a. c. 8. to asperse him with the brand of an opposite Title, Maledictus. I shall grant to St. Benedict the due Elegy the Historian applies to Probus, Vir sui nominis, he did not recede from his own Name, but the present Romanists recede from his Doctrine and Practice. He did impose upon himself and others Religious Austerities; no Superstitious Cruelties, no Stripes or Manacles. However Sacred and Refined this Order might be in it● Primitive Regularity, whilst it was a Seminary of Monachi moribu● ut Eura●tione praesici●bantur eruditissimi qui non solùm in Divinis docti essent, verùm etiam in Mathematica Scientia. Trith. in Chron. Hisang. ad An. 840. Monachi simul cum Abbatibus in praecipitium vitiorum Corruerunt. Trith. in Chron. His. Piety, and Literature of Virtues and Sciences, as Trithemius sets it out, who was himself a Benedictine, who passionately complained of the degenerate Corruption in later times; for Instance, in the Thirteenth Century. He acknowledges that there was no tract of the Pristine Institution in the Monasteries of Germany; Monks and Abbots rushed to a precipice of Vices. The Learned moderate Cassander pathetically resents, deplores the scandalous Monastical Depravations in his Age, notoriously warping from the Original Rectitude, quam lo●gè Monachatus hodie a primâ suâ Origine degeneravit, & quantis Abusibus contaminatus & deormatus sit satis per se est Manisestum, manent adhuc vestigia Communis & Canonicae Vitae sed in adisiciis ac Nominibus tantum. Cassander, Cons. 5. Art. 25. confessing, that there is no footstep (no impression) of a common Canonical Life, Extant but in Fabrics and Names. The profaneness of the Monks did render the dissolution of the Monasteries in this Nation more practicable and feasible than otherwise it could possibly have proved. H.T. Nations converted, St. Augustine the Monk sent by Pope. Gregory, converted England. The Northern Picts, Goths, Bavarians, and Burgundians, were also converted in this Age. W.T. I confess the memory of St. Austin the Monk ought to be precious, and celebrated with a grateful respect; but H. T. amplifies too much the Orb of this Luminary in ascribing to this Monk the Conversion of England. Britannia omnium provinciarum prima publicitus Chris●i nomen recepit. Sabel. Ennead. 7. l. Gildas Epist. Capgravius in Vitâ Sancti Josephi. Pitsaeus de Illyr. Script. Covorruvius in Praefat. ad Philipp. Baron. Annal. Anno 35. The distinct Instances are produced by Bishop Jewel against Harding. p. 11. Christian Religion being publicly professed in this Island before any other Climate or Country in the World; the Gospel being planted here by Joseph of Arimathea in the Reign of Tiberius, as 'tis recorded by famous Antiquaries, and even by Baronius. How it fructified in succeeding Centuries before the Birth of Austin the Monk is evidenced by the solemn Recitals of Tertullian, Origen, Hilary, and chrysostom in their several Generations, by the Episcopal, Archi-Episcopal Dignities erected continued, by the Repute and Lustre of those Prelates in Foreign Councils at Arles, at Sardis, at Arimine, nay at Nice itself, the British Bishops being Zealous Orthodox Sticklers at home and abroad in the Confutation, the Extirpation of arianism. When St. Austin the Monk repaired to England, his Pious, heroic design was prepared and facilitated by the British Christians intermingled with Pagan Saxons, tho' the most eminent Britain's took Wales for their refuge together with their retinues; yet multitudes of the Conquered remained in England dispersed among the Conquerors. The Influence of St. Austin the Monk was in a manner confined to Kent, it extended little farther. Even in Kent, Austin's Task wasless difficult, being promoted by Queen Berta, who made profession of Christian Religion before the Arrival of Austin, had a Church in Canterbury for the Solemnity of Divine Service, had a Bishop Luidhard to preside in it, a Praecursor, Luidhardus Paecursor & Janitor venturi. Augustini. Capgr. in Vitâ. August. Beda l. 4. c. 37. a Porter to St. Austin in Capgraves' Expression. Even Aidan and Finan, whose Names are observed in Histories, not flourished in the Romish Calendars, had more numerous Converts in England than Austin himself, the Province of their successful Doctrines more enlarged. As for the specious Relation of the Northern Picts, Goths, Bavarians, Burgundians rallied as converted in this Age, they were Disciples of Antioch, not of Rome; they embraced the Evangelical unblemished Doctrine; they acknowledged no Papal unlimited Jurisdiction, not challenged in this Age not by Austin the Monk in his Conference with the British Bishops and Monks, he cajoled, entreated a Conformity to the Rituals of the Roman Church in the Celebration of Baptism in the Observation of Easter, he exacted no submission to the Authority, Universal Supremacy of that Church. This was reprehended, branded by Pope Gregory, whose Emissary he was, by Pelagius, before him in the same Gregor. l. 4. Ep. 36. Distinct. 99 Nullus unquam Praedecessorum meorum hujusmodi tam profano vocabulo (scilicet universalis Episcopus) uti Consuevit. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 36. See of Rome, nay by all Predecessors, as Gregory himself attests. Caetera desiderantur.