[Page] ΕΞΕΜΥΘΙΑ; Roman Oracles Silenced: OR, THE Prime Testimonies OF ANTIQUITY Produced by HENRY TURBERVIL IN HIS Manual of Controversies Examined and Refuted. By the Right Reverend Dr. WILLIAM THOMAS, late Lord Bishop of WORCESTER.

Imprimatur, Jan. 20. 1691. Z. Isham. R. P. D. Henrico Episc. Lond. a Sacris.

LONDON, Printed by J. R. and are to be Sold at the Crown in Cornhil, near the Stocks-Market. MDC XCI.

To the Reader.

THE Publishing of this small Tract, (opus posthumum & imperfectum) may need an Apology, as wanting the last Hand of the Accurate Author, and An­swering but to the Six first Leaves of the Manual it attacks: But since '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 Authors Name, whose Memory is Venerable and Pretious with those that knew Him; Being a Person [...], of singular Mode­sty Greg. Naz. and Humility to conquer Passion, and win Affection; yet [...], of Con­spicuous [Page] Learning and Life to convince Gain­sayers, and confound Adversaries: An In­stance both of his Candour and Dexterity Herein we have in his former Apology for our Church against the Cavils of Separatists, and in this Present Answer to the Challenge of Romanists. In both which he bath ap­proved Himself a Workman that need not be ashamed, whose unbyassed Judgment, and steady Hand carry an Equal Poise, without Preju­dioe and Partiality, Who had not learned [...], to fit his Faith to the Times; But as a faithful Soldier and Martyr stood fast in the Truth of the Church of England, kept his standing contra Homines & D [...]mones, 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.


The TENET. THAT the Church now in Communion with the See of Rome, is the only True Church.

  • 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.

[Page 2] The Major being thus propounded, is not of validity Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccl. c. 8. in the judgment of Bellarmine, who will not admit suc­cession to be a proof of the true Church.

The Major is to be denyed if understood of a Local, Personal, without a Doctrinal Succession.

H. T.

The Major proved, Isa. 59. 21. Isa. 60. 1, 3, 11. Isa. 62. 6. Ezek. 37. 16. Dan. 7. 13, 14. St. Matth. 28. 20. St. John 14. 16. Eph. 4. 11, 12, 13, 14.

W. T.

These Texts of Scripture import the Conver­sion of the Gentiles, the propagation of the Gospel, the Divine assistance to be continued to the Church in the most diffusive Capacity, without a particular restriction to any distinct place or People. A discussion whereof were a digression not pertinent to the main of our Con­troversie.

The Minor Proposition exacts a closer Exami­nation.

This Proposition hath two Members, the one positive; The Church now in Communion with the See of Rome, hath had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apo­stles.

The other Member is negative; No other Church hath had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles.

The minor Proposition is impotent in both the parts, like Mephiboseth, lame in both feet.

There is no Confirmation offered as to the later branch that excludes other Churches from the plea of Succession. Whereas the Local, Personal Succession of the Chur­ches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and others is flourisht out in specious Catalogues loss lia­ble to exception than that of Rome, which is yet more transcended in a Doctrinal succession if reduced to the Sa­cred Test of Canonical Scripture.

H. T.

The minor Proposition is proved by this ensuing Catalogue of the Roman Churches chief Pastors, Co [...]olls, Nations Converted, and Publick Professors of her Faith.

[Page 3] From the Year of Christ, Thirty.

Chief Pastors.General Councils.
30 Our Blessed Saviour, Jesus Christ. 
34 St. Peter the Apostle.The Council of the Apo­stles at Jerusalem, St. Peter presiding, Acts 15.
67 Linus. 
80 Cletus. 
93 Clement. 

W. T.

What is asserted of Concoction of Meats is ap­pliable to this point of succession in the See of Rome. An Error in the first degree is not to be corrected in the rest.

If the first link be loose, all will be shatter'd. There is no certainty because there is no harmony in the Testi­monies of Antiquity, touching the first, second, third, and fourth Bishops of Rome.

Rusinus relates that 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 Bishoprick 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.

[Page 4] 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.


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 [Page 5] lyable 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 dyed Martyrs, whose Doctrine we own and embrace as true and orthodox, whose practice (Humane Infirmi­ties excepted) we estimate as meet patterns to be imi­tated; whereas both have been notoriously scanda­lously receded from by pretended Successors in the See of Rome for at least eleven Centuries last past.


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.


St. Peter declared, (v. 14.) but defined not. He spake not first authoritatively, to lead, nor last ju­ridically, to ratifie.

Not first, untruly alledged by Bellarmine, there had 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 priviledge, this preheminence apper­tained to St. James, as Bishop of Jerusalem. Therefore he speaks last.

It is the Reason offered by St. Chrysostome and St. Theophilact.

St. Peter had a special occasion of an Historical Nar­rative touching the Gentile Conversion, as also St. Paul and St. Barnabas had, but neither did pronounce Juri­dical Sentence.

No mean Romanists had so much ingenuity as to ac­knowledge 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 (Peters) Sentence, James the Apostle and all the Priests did pass together. Ep. 89. to August. c. 2. Peter (saith he, in the same place) was Prince and Author of the Decree.


It was St. Peters 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 exprest it.

The Testimony of St. Jerome recited, consists in two phrases. The one is, St. James and the rest passing into the Sentence of Peter. Which imports no more, but that what was asserted by St. Peter was approved by St. James and the rest.

The Nicene Council did assent to the Opinion, ac­quiesce in the Judgment of the Famous Paphnutius; yet did he not preside in that Council.

The second quoted expression of St. Jerome, is, that St. Peter was Prince and Author of the Decree. This denotes a precedence of time in uttering his Opinion before those recounted afterwards, not a preheminence of place of office above them in establishing that Opi­nion.

This is not inconsistent with the significancy of Prince in Cicero's stile: That it cannot be understood in a no­tion 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.


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 [Page 7] 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.


It is a loose Illogical Inference. St. Peter re­mained not always at Antioch, therefore he translated his Chair to Rome. He might exercise his Apostolical Function in both Churches, and yet possibly discharge a distinct Episcopal Office in neither.

During his absence from Antioch, he was at Jeru­salem, at Alexandria, at Babylon. He spent some years at Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, but it cannot be thence concluded, nor is it asserted, that he fixed a Pontifical Chair in either.

As to the succession of St. Peter, Antioch had at least as much right to challenge the first Chair in a General Council as Rome.

St. Paul was at Rome, at Corinth, at Athens, at Ephe­sus, at Philippi. He was an Apostle in each place, (pro­perly) a Bishop in neither.

As to your second allegation of the Decrees of Coun­cils, Popes, Fathers, giving Primacy to the Roman Church: This is specious, pompous in appearance; but is not solid, vigorous in force.

Latet dolus in generalibus. A Generality is the fittest Dress and Vail for a Fallacy.

As for the first Chair in a General Council, (the point of Primacy specified) no Antient, General, or National, or Provincial Council hath assigned it to the Pope.

I confess, the Laterane Council, under Leo the 10th, hath so establisht it; but that was in the year 1516. 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 Iudex 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 [Page 8] arbitrarily granted to the Pope in the Primitive Church, and sometimes to other Patriarchs.

That there hath been no ancient concession, no con­stant uninterrupted Prescription for it, appears in the Records of the first Council of Nice, the Sardian Coun­cil, the first and second Constantinopolitan, the first and second Ephesine.

Whenever the Pope had the prime Chair in any Ge­neral Council anciently, it was only Honorary for Session, Turre [...]remat. sum. de Errb. l. 3. c. 13. for Distinction; not Authoritative, for Jurisdiction.


The Council of Sardis, Anno Dom. 400, (Western Fathers 300. East. 76.) decreed, That in cases of Bishops, for the honour of St. Peters memory, it should be Lawful to appeal from whatsoever other Bishop to the Bishop of Rome. Can. 3.


I offer several exceptions for the empairing the validity of this Testimony.

First, I deny this to be a General Council. If it were, it ought to be sorted the second General Council next to the Nicene, before the first Constantinopolitan.

You alledge the consluence of 300 Western, 76 Eastern Fathers. If it had been so, it had been a great dispro­portion betwixt the Eastern and Western Prelates, and a grand advantage to promote the Papal Dignity.

There is a mixture of Truth and Falshood in the cita­tion of this Authority. (Omnis fabuld fundatur in Hi­storia.) An Oecumenical Council it was in the inten­tion, the design of the Emperor, but not in the execu­tion, the management of the Council. In the one re­spect it hath been anciently called a General, in the other a Particular Council.

Both the Eastern and Western Fathers were Summoned by Imperial Edict, in Obedience whereto, both repair­ed 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.

[Page 9] The Western Prelates that remained apart at Sardis, could not constitute a General Council, nor obtrude a Canon to bind any out of the Western Limits.

My second exception is against the Canon its self pro­duced, which hath a suspitious taint of imposture, be­ing not received, not after the utmost scrutiny to be Nec in aliqua Patrum Synode. 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 Preheminence, so much discuss'd 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 authentique, (Dato non concesso) yet will it not support the weight of a due, [Page 10] durable, staple appeal to the Bishop of Rome. It is [...]. softly and warily propounded by Hosius: If it please you let us in charity honour the memory of St. Peter. It is the tenour of a novel singular favour, bound up with several restrictions; it put the Pope in a capacity, upon deliberation, for a review refer'd to him to nominate [...]. Commissioners (not out of Rome) out of the Neighbour­ing Province.

This might be an extraordinary esteem and reverence to Julius, then Bishop of Rome; not decreed as a con­stant Prerogative for succeeding Ages. If any such vigour of it be pretended, it is abrogated, annulled in the Councils of Constantinople and Antioch.


The Council of Chalcedon, (Anno Domini 451. Fathers 600.) We thoroughly consider truly, that all Primacy and chief Honour, according to the Canons, is to be kept for the Arch-Bishop of Old Rome. Action. 16.


I readily grant all Primacy and chief Honour to the Arch-Bishop of Rome, according to the genuine unforged Canons in the Primitive Church, which assert only a priority of Order before other Patriarchs, not a superiority of Power over them, much less a supre­macy over Councils and Princes, vindicated by Mo­dern Canonists, by the Jesuits, the neat Sophisters of the Church, the smooth Parasites of the Court of Rome.

If H. T. be an Advocate for the for­mer primary I oppose him not; if for the 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 preheminence. It directly clashes with the ninth Canon of that Council.

The fallacy in citing of the Testimony of the Council of Chalcedon, is unmasked in the immediate subsequent [Page 11] words, which ascribes the same Primacy and Honour to the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople.

This equality of Dignity of New Rome with the Old was passionately resented, vigorously opposed, but in­effectually unsuccessfully by the Legates of the Pope.

Upon whose dissatisfaction there was a Recognition, a new deliberate discussion of the Canon.

After which it was more solemnly ratified, with an universal, reiterated, declared consent.

Leo, then Bishop of Rome, attested the reality of this Leo in Ep. ad Anaccl. & in Ep. ad Pulcher. Degree, even whilst in several Epistles he exprest 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 pri­viledges [...]. 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 antient Latin Copies, extant in Libraries.

The substance of this constitution is establisht in the Ephes. Conc. can. 9. Trull. Conc. can. 36. Ephesine and Trullan Councils.


In the relation of the said Council to Pope Leo. We have confirmed, say they, the rule of the One Hun­dred and Fifty Fathers, in the first Constantinopolitan Council, Anno 381. which hath commanded, that after the most Holy and Apostolick See of Rome, the Constan­tinopolitan should have Honour.


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 accrew to the Roman See more than is already granted?

If there be any colour for an Argument, it must be [Page 12] from the Epithets, most Holy and Apostolick, or in­serting the See of Constantinople in a seeming inferiour rank to that of Rome.

Epithets are no Charters for Prerogatives: The com­plemental Rhetorick of a Title is no firm Topick to prove a real preheminence.

These Epithets are frequently applyed to other Pa­triarchs, and sometimes to inferiour Prelates in the Pri­mitive Church. The Records of Antiquity abound in instances, which if required, shall be plentifully pro­duced.

All those Churches that have been planted by the Apostles, or wherein they have exercised their Fun­ction, Ter [...]ull. in l. de Praeser. Aug. in Ep. 162. have been stiled Apostolical Seats; as the Chur­ches of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus.

In a secondary Consideration, Bishops have been an­tiently termed Apostles, and Episcopacy Apostleship.

The second hint of an Argument is presumed to be from the ranking of the Constantinopolitan See after that of Rome. This doth not advance the power of the Ju­risdiction of Rome, as not in the Council of Chalcedon, (which hath been already demonstrated) so not in the Rule of the first Constantinopolitan recited. The express Decree is in the Latin Translation, pari honore frui, to enjoy a like honour; but it is more pregnant in the Greek; [...] Concil. Constant. 1. Can. 36. to be equally priviledged or dignified, as to apreheminence of power in Ecclesiastical matters alike, [...], to be exalted or magnified; but for precedence of place that is distinctly allotted in the same Canon to the Roman See before the Constantinopolitan, to the Constantinopolitan be­fore the Alexandrian, and to that of Alexandria before Jerusalem. If Leo the Roman Patriark had not been con­vinced, That an equality of Authority and Jurisdiction had been setl [...]d by that Council upon the several recited Patriarks in their several Sees and Provinces, he would not have been so much offended with that Canon of the Chalcedon Council before-mentioned, and bustled against [Page 13] 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.


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.


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 preheminence alledged, Tanti Apostola­tus Principa­tum meruit. Aug. Chrys. in 1. Gal. as hath been already manifested. St. Austin applyed the same Phrase to St. Paul, who was acknowledged by St. Chrysostome to be equal in Dignity with St. Peter ( [...].)


St. Gregory sayes he knows no Bishop but is sub­ject to the See of Rome, Ep. 6. 2.


St. Gregory (though his memory be pretious) be­ing 600 years after Christ (when the Church of Rome de­clined in piety, though improved in power) hath the less Authentick veneration. This great Prelate being a Party, is no competent Witness to assert and vindicate the Papal prerogative.

As the Witness produced, so the Evidence it self is justly liable to exception. That he knew none but sub­ject [Page 14] 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 Patriarks, assuming only a frater­nal Candour to advise.

That St. Gregory was not ignorant of a Grandee who was not subject to the See of Rome, but challenged a higher station Ecclesiastical than himself, is abundantly manifest by his zealous resentment of the Patriark of Con­stantinople his contemporary in espousing the transcendent Title of Universal Bishop, not in excluding all others (as the Romish Champions would sophistically evade it) but in subjecting them. It is his paraphrase of this Title, To Nulli subesse, omnibus praeesse. Ep. 38 l. 7. be Inferiour to no other, to be Superior to all.

St. Gregory amply declared his abhorrence of this Ti­tle, branding it to be novel, prophane, superstitious, Greg. l. 4. Ep. 32, 36, 38, 39. proud, presumptuous, an effect of Infidelity, a tincture of Lucifer's Apostacy, a badge of Antichrist.


Catholick Professors to the year 100, the Blessed Virgin, St. John Baptist, St. John Evangelist, &c. Martha, Magdalen, St. Paul, St. Stephen, Timothy, Barnabas, Terla, Dennis, Martial, Ignatius, Clemens.


They who are of sober discerning Intellectuals, cannot but disgust and nauseate this unsavoury fallacy in obtruding shells without kernels, Names without any Allegations. These are as insignificant for proof in Divi­nity, as Cyphers without any Figures are for account in Arithmetick; unless you design to confute as Magicians, to conjure by Names, to produce Spells instead of Argu­ments, for Enchantment, not Conviction.

Your Confidence in those venerable Saints, and your Interest also, seems to be the same with that distracted person at Athens, whose deluded Imaginations prompted [Page 15] to him, That all the Ships and Commodities in the Haven were his own.


The Church was spread in this Age over all those Countreys, to which St. Paul wrote his Epistles; as also France, Spain, England, &c. See Baronius.


This is out of the Track of our Controversie; That Church which was spread in this Age, asserted no other Doctrines but what are owned by the Church of England.


Catholick Professors to the year 200, Eustachius, Hermes, Getulius, Policarp, Concordius, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Vincentius, Potentianus, Sophia, Fides, Spes, Charitas, St. Felicity, with her Seven Chil­dren, Lucius King of England, &c.


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.


The Apostles Canons define, That if any Bishop or Priest (the Oblation (Mass) being made) shall not communi­cate, he should be excommunicated, as giving suspition of him, who hath sacrificed, That▪ he hath not rightly offered. Can. 9. approved in the Sixth General Synod.


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.

[Page 16] 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 it self.

The alteration and corruptions of time are the smooth Apologies for the familiar recesses from these pretended Apostolical Rules.

They are branded for Apocryphal in the worst Nations, as not received in the Catholick Church, not in the Pri­mitive Roman, as composed by He­reticks in the judgment of Gelasius, 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 alledged) 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 Toletan Library to Rome; which being a publick Record, ha­ving so signal, a Papal Approbation, ought to be more Venerable, Authentick for credit and estimate, than that private Co­py 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 con­fest, They may be so far deserved­ly termed Apocryphal, as being destitute of Authority to have been entirely established by the Apostles.

Whereas Gelasius inserted them among Apocryphal Gel. Decr. in 2. Vol. Concil. Edit. Nicol. Phorius in Bib­lioch. c [...]p. 113. Books that are not received.

Photius the Learned Patriark of Constantinople, about the middle of the Ninth Century, takes the rise of these [Page 17] 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 Reformed Divines have by weighty Arguments unmaskt these Canons (which have passed abroad with a false Passport) not to be truly Apostolical.

Among others, the Centurists of Magdeburg have offered these proofs.

1. They clash with the uncontrouled, uncontradict­ed Apostolical Scriptures; (as the 17th Canon with the 1 Tim. 5. 1 Cor. 7. the 27th Canon with the 1 Tim. 4. 1 Cor. 9. 1 Tim. 4. Canon 68 with 1 Tim. 4.

2. A repugnancy with [...]h other, jarring strings not tuned to a harmony; (as the 6, 17, 27, 40, 50, 65, 68.)

3. The inconsistency of some Canons (as the 8, 20, 36, 38,) with the Historical Transactions of the Age of the Apostles.

4. They are not testified by any Authority of any Credit, neither in the Age of the Apostles, not in the first, the second, very scantily in the third, that suc­ceed; not in Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, or St. Jerome.

I insist upon this Subject the longer, that I may, once for all, discover the paint and varnish of this adulterate beauty of the Sanctuary, trickt up in the title, the dress of the Canons of the Apostles. I confess they have the face of Antiquity (though not entirely unblemisht) but they have not the immediate, not the true stamp of the Authority of the Apostles, as their Authors. As for the Ninth Canon alledged, if it be of any validity, why doth the Trentine Council, the Oracle of the present 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?

[Page 18] The approbation of the Sixth General Council produ­ced, is obnoxious to the same exception. If any stress may be laid upon it, why is the lustre of it so studiously, zealously eclipsed; Why are the Doctrines decreed so severely impeacht, confidently doomed for erroneous, by the Grandees of your Church, by Popes, Cardinals, because that Council hath allowed the Marriage of Priests, Concil. Constan. siv [...] 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 it self.

It is a fallacy without any grain of ingenuity to offer that for a figure to be much reckoned to us, which to your selves passeth for a Cypher of no value.

To inspect the strength of your Argument for the Second Century.

A single pretended 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 Oecumenical or Orthodox by the greatest Champions of the present Church of Rome, hath defined that any Bishop or Priest (the Oblation being made) not communicating shall be Excommunicated.

Therefore the Church now in Communion with the See of Rome, and no other, had a Succession from Christ and the Apostles for the Second Century. A very loose extravagant Inference. Doway or Rome may invent such Logick, neither Athens nor Alexandria would.

H. T.

From the Year of Christ, 200.

Chief Pastors.
  • 205 Zepherinus.
  • 221 Calixtus I.
  • 223 Pontianus.
  • 238 Antherus.
  • 239 Fabianus.
  • 255 Cornelius.
  • 255 Lucius.
  • [Page 19] 257 Stephanus I.
  • 260 Sixtus II.
  • 261 Dionysius I.
  • 273 Felix I.
  • 275 Eutychianus
  • 284 Caius.
  • 291 Marcellinus.

The Second and Third Ages (whether by reason of the Churches great Persecutions, or the not stirring of any famous Hereticks) produced no Councils, yet the Succession of Popes, Martyrs and Confessors, we have, which is suf­ficient for our purpose.


We assert a more genuine Interest in these Mar­tyrs, Confessors recited than your selves.

To ratifie, or rather to varnish a false claim, you pro­duce counterfeit Decrees of Popes.


The Decrees of Popes in these Ages.

Anacletus decreed, That Priests when they sacrifice to our Lord, must not do it alone, but have Witnesses that they may be proved to have sacrificed perfectly to God in Sa­cred places, and so the Apostles have appointed, and the Roman Church holds, 1. Epist. de Consecr. d. 1. c. Epis­copus. And in the end of the same Epistle, If more dif­ficult questions shall arise, let them be referred to the Apo­stolick See of Rome. For so the Apostles have ordained by the Command of our Lord, Anno Dom. 101.

Alexander decreed, That Bread only, and Wine min­gled with Water, should be offered in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Epist. Orthod. de Consecr. ch. 2. in Sacram.

Sixtus decreed, That the Sacred Mysteries (the B. Eu­charist and Sacred Vessels) should not be touched, but by Sacred Ministers; and that the Priests beginning Mass, the People should sing, Holy, Holy, Holy, &c. In his Epistle to all the faithful of Christ. Anno Dom. 129.

[Page 20] Telesphorus Commanded the Seven Weeks of Lent to be fasted, Ep. Decr. Anno Dom. 139.

Pius in his Epistles to the Italians enjoyned Penance for him, by whose negligence any of the Blood of our Lord should be spilt, 9. 1. c. qui compulsus, An. Dom. 147.

Anicetus tells us, That James was made Bishop of Jeru­salem by St. Peter, James and John in his Decr. Ep. to the Bishop of France, and cites Anacletus for it. Ep. 2. dist. 25. c. prohibe fratres.

Soter decreed, That no Man should say Mass after he had eaten or drunk. De Consecr. dist. 1. c. ut illud.

Zepherinus decreed, That the greater causes of the Church are to be determined by the Apostolick See, because the Apostles and their Successors had ordained. Ep. to the Bishop of Sicily. 217.

These were all Popes of Rome, but no true Protestants I hope.


We reject all these specious Evidences as disin­genuous Forgeries. Una litura sat est.

The Grounds of our Rejection are these.

1. Because the Style is not varied (whereas commonly Mens Expressions are as different as their Complexions, their Styles as their Features.)

As the Style is not varied, so it is not adorned, not only void of the Elegancy of Rhetorick, but of the congru­ity of the Grammar, directly repugnant to the terseness, the politeness of the Phrase of those times, both for Ec­clesiastical and prophane Authors (Minuius, Felix, St. Cyprian, Pliny, Suetonius,) the uniform barbarism of Expression manifests these decretals to be the products of the same rude Pen in a later corrupter Age than is pre­tended.

2. Because the Matter of these Decretals doth not correspond with the Piety and Exigency of those times of bloody Persecution. They conduce to promote Am­bition, [Page 21] not Martyrdom, to gratifie Carnal, not Spiritual Interests, calculated for the splendour of the Church, not its Umbrage, its Adversity, not to excite Devotion, but support Preheminence. [...].

3. The Scripture Citations are according to St. Jerom's Translation, whereas the youngest Pope in the present Catalogue (in dispute) were deceased many years be­fore St. Jerom's Birth, in the year 341.

I might add to this falseh [...] [...] point of Chronology, 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 joyned together according to the Test. of Baronius Annals, and some in other Ages separated.

4. These Decrees are not mentioned by Eusebius, the Favourite of Constantine the Great in the East, nor by St. Jerome who converst with Pope Damasus in the West, not by Damasus himself, though such had fair occasions of relating them, had there been any such, they are not recorded, not insisted, not reflected on by any of the Fathers for 800 years after Christ.

They were first brought upon the Stage by Isidore a Collector of Councils and (pretended) Decretal Epistles in the beginning of the Ninth Century inserted in the Ro­man Code, first countenanced by Pope Leo the Fourth on the midst of that Century prescribed as Authentick to the British Bishops, and afterwards within Ten years by his next but one immediately Successor, Pope Nicholas the Eighteenth, Authoritatively recommended to the Gallicane Bishops. The Papal usurpt Jurisdiction in that Age wanted such adulterate stamps to pass for currant Coyne. Not one of these Decretal Epistles was received, recited in the Universal Code, the Primitive Vene­rable Rule consisting of the Canons of the Councils; Four whereof were General as to the Convention; the rest were General in point of Estimate, and Approba­tion. That Isidore from whom these Decretal Epistles take their Rise, their Original for Extraction, was not Isidore Pelusiot, most illustrious for Piety and Antiquity; [Page 22] not Isidore Hispalensis the Noted Famous Bishop of Siville in Spain, Scholar to St. Gregory: But a later notorious, infamous Isidore Mercator, who made Religion his Mer­chandize, Antiquity his disguise (to act the Gibeonites) who vented Novel Impostures for Ancient Decrees. This is not the Impeachment only of Protestants; Baronius as­cribes to him some of the Decretal Epistles.

Turrianus a hasty Zel [...] of the School of Ignatius as­say'd to vindicate (ineffe [...]y) the integrity of the De­cretal Epistles.

Others of the same Society, but of a higher Rank, of more piercing judgments, Bellarmine, Baronius, Cusanus, would not adventure to be Advocates for such egregious frauds.

As for Bellarmine, I shall not insist upon his acknow­ledgment of this spurious Off spring, though attested by some credible Witnesses, because not apparent in the printed Edition of his Lectures at Rome.

I still find extant in the Edition of Sartorius at Ingolst, 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 profest that he demon­strated, that in many respects they are suspected.

Cusanus is yet more clear and positive in his Confession, That they betray themselves.

Thus have I declared the invalidity of the forgery of 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 alledged for the Conviction or Confutation of any intelligent Adversaries.

[Page 23] There are but three Decrees of Popes produced in this Century of any material controversal moment.

The one is a determination in point of Fact, the other [...] point of Right and Prerogative.

The matter of Fact is the Testimony of Anicetus, that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, James and John. Whereas more solemn credible Re­cords of Antiquity without Corruption, testifie that 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 Learnedst Sticklers for the Church of Rome not adhere to it? Who derive the Episcopal preheminence of St. James at Jerusa­lem entirely from St. Peter. Were this a true Genuine Epi­stle of Anicetus, were this an Authentick Evidence, yet this would but sort and rank Peter with James and John, which will not cotten with the 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.

[Page 24] The two other Decretal Epistles of material difference, of Anacletus and Zepherinus alledged of the same impor­tance, are of the same, (of no) credit, concerning the De­cision of grand, of difficult Causes by the Apostolick See.

Neither is Extant in the entire Universal Code fore­mentioned, approved, ratified by the Great General Council of Chalcedon, (even in the first Canon of it) in the year 451, nor in the Translation of it out of Greek to Latin, by Dionysius Exiguus a Roman Abbot (devoted to the Roman Interest) in the year 325, nor yet in the Breviaion of Ferrandus (as he titles it) in the year 530.

There could be no such Decree de jure, in point of Right, there was no such de facto in point of Fact. Not of Right, because it had been lyable to two Brands in the School Divinity, an Usurpt Judgment not warranted by due Authority, extended beyond the bounds of the Roman Patriarchal Sphere, the utmost pale of its Juris­diction in the Primitive Church.

It had been also destitute of Equity, the byass of 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 Expence and Travel which the Primitive Church did prudentially prevent in several Councils, even in the first General Council of Nice.

That there was no such Decree in point of Fact, is more than probably evinced by the Historical Trans­actions in the purest Antiquity.

In the Ancient Contests in point of Appeal betwixt the Roman and African Churches, no such Decree was produced, pretended, which had not been waved, had there been any testimony to have been tendred. St. John the Evangelist being at Ephesus, did not suspend the doom of the Ni [...]olaitans, or Cerinthians, in expectation of the Dictate or Sentence of the See of Rome.

[Page 25] 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 Judgment. Both resolutely persisted in their different Opinions, without prescription to, or condemnation of each other.

Such was the true Candour of that Anicetus, falsly produced in point of Dominion, or Domination rather of the Roman Prelacy.

Which being violently pursued by Pope Victor (in the track of the same Controversie) his Sanction was reje­cted though abetted by a Roman Synod, his Excommu­nication disregarded by Polycrates and other Asiatick Bishops.

St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France, the Scholar of St. Polycarp, though he owned the Tenour of Pope Victor, yet in his own and the concurrent Judgment of the Gallicane Divines, he reprehended Victor with a Holy Acrimony.

When several points were warmly Controverted in the Africane Church, within the Compass of the Third Century (the present consideration) St. Cyprian, the Martyr, Bishop of Carthage did not wait for a decision from Rome, but did refer the Questions to be discust and determined by Africane Councils.

When St. Cornelius (his Contemporary) Bishop of 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.)

[Page 26] Upon this account the Patriarlts and Bishops of Episcopi quo (que) 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 Judgment of St. Ambrose was implored from Millaine.

Sometimes Convicted, Condemned Delinquents in other Churches repaired to the See of Rome, as Fugi­tives to skulk, as Sophisters to delude. Such were Fortunatus and Felicissimus doomed in Africa.

Thus when Basilides was justly Excommunicated, De­posed 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 re-admission. This precipi­tate, unjustifiable attempt gave great offence to the Spanish Bishops, who passionately complained of it to St. Cyprian and the other Bishops of Carthage, reque­sting 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 determin, 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. Chrysostome, 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.

[Page 27] Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pope Pius the Second Ante Nicenam Synodum quisq, sibi vixit, at parvus respectus ad Romanam Ecclesiam habe­batur. Aen. Sylv. 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 Patriarks (the one of Alexandria, the other of Constantinople) of St. Athanasius and St. Chrysostome.

In the former, Constantius the Arrian Emperour being exasperated against St. Athanasius, Liberius Bishop of Rome cajoled him, supplicated him, that a Council might be assembled at Alexandria, he offered in effect the same reason for appointing Alexandria in the Cause of St. Athanasius, that St Cyprian did in excepting against Cypr. Ep. 55. Theodor. Hist. l. 2. c. 16. Rome in the African concerns. (Where the Party impeacht, the Accusers, Advocates, and others interested, may most fitly be convened.) This is recited in the admi­rable Colloquy (as the Centurist of Magdeburg stile it) Magdeb. in Cent. 4. cap. 3. betwixt Constantius and Liberius.

Liberius alledged no decisive Jurisdiction in himself, in the See of Rome.

The later instance is the cause of St. Chrysostome, Sozom. l. 8. cap. 25. wherein Pope Innocentius the first declared a necessity of a Synodal Convention to asswage the Tempest in the Church.

He asserted no Papal Oecumenical Power to deter­mine Controversies.

[Page 28] He approved the Milevitan Council, which prohibi­ted Innocent. in Ep. ad Mile­vit. Concil. Non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vtl 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 Apostolick See from the Apostles and their Successors. The former from the Apostles by the Commandment of our Lord. Fallacies are enwrapped, shrowded in generalities. No injunction of Christ or any of his Apostles is recited for the Papal final deciding of difficult Controversies.

De non existentibus & de non apparentibus eadem est ratio. What is not apparent, may rationally be rejected as not existent.

After these false varnishes of Antiquity, H. T. having marshalled the specious Pictures of a Gallery, rather than the vigorous Forces of a Camp, or the Arguments of the School, he insults before he vanquishes, or in­deed encounters, marches in Triumph like the Roman Emperour with his Army, having collected Cockleshels, not conquered any Enemies. He quits the Field in this quarrel with a flaunting Trophee of Victory. These were all Popes of Rome, but no true Protestants I hope. This Sarcasme is more imbitter'd with Gall, than seaso­ned with Salt.

The Name of Protestants took its Rise in the year 1529, from the protestation of Six Princes and 14 Prin­cipal [...]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.

[Page 29] These Protestants did, and those who are so called, do still own the Tenets in Religion of the Popes recited in this▪ Third Century.


Catholick Professors to the year 300.

Simplicius, Callepodius, Abdon, Sennen, Pammachius, Tyburtius, Valerianus, Marcellinus, Dorotheus, Gordianus Pudentiana, Triphon, Elaesius, Maximianus Clemens, Barbara, Agatha, Apollonia, Cyprianus, Hippo­lytus, Gregorius Thaumauturgus, Laurentius Tharsus, Cecilia, Victorius, Nemesius, Olympius, Adrianus, Geor­gius, Pantaleon, Agens, Barlain, Jereon, with his Com­panions, Cosmas, Damianus, Mauritius, with the Theban Legion, &c.


This Muster of Names is no Hostile Battalia, un­less against your selves.

We assert a real affinity Doctrinal and Practical with these Saints and Martyrs, whereas you degenerate from the Purity, the Loyalty of their Principles.

The Theban Legion that brings up the Rear, was not trained up in the Corrupt, Modern Romish Divinity, sta­ting it lawful to resist Princes in case of Infidelity, He­resie, or Tyranny, which Bellarmine did not blush to aver to be the common sentiment of Divines.


Catholick Professors to the year 400.

Domnus with 2000 Martyrs, Lucianus Theodorus, Paulus the first Eremite, Jacobus Nissibitanus, Spiridion, Macharius, Nicolaus, Helena (the Mother of Constantine the Great) Constantine (the first Christian Emperour) Marcus, Arethusius, Nicetus, Theodorus, Antonius, Hi­larion, Athanasius, Paulus Constantinopolitanus, Hi­larius, Martianus, Basilius, Hieronimus, Epiphanius, Patianus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem &c.

[Page 30] Nations converted. Dacians, Gebes, Bessites, Scythians, Morines, Armenians, Hunnes, Indians, Aethiopians, &c.


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.


From the year of Christ 300.

Chief Pastors.General Councils.
304 MarcellusThe first Nicene Council (Fathers 328) approved by Pope Sylvester, An. Dom. 325. against Arrius.
309 Eusebius 
312 Melchiades 
314 SylvesterAuthors, Cedrenus, Photius, So­crates, Eusebius.
336 Malchus 
339 JuliusThe First Constantinopolitane Council (Fathers 150) Pope Dama­sus presiding, An. Dom. 381. against Macedonius.
352 Liberius 
358 Foelix 2. 
367 Damasus 
385 SiriciusAuthors, Socrates, Photius, Ba­ronius.
398 Anastasius 


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 Heresie of Arrius condemned in the one, and of Macedonius in the other.

[Page 31] That the Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylvester was not singular, it was allowed, subscribed by all the other Bishops. It was Sylvesters Suffrage, his Con­sent, not his Edict, his Bull to ratifie it, if Sylvester were then Living. That it was in the time of his Successor, Pope Julius, Dr. Whitaker, proves by the Testimonies of Sozomen, l. 1. c. 17. Athanas. Apol. 2. Nicephor. l. 7. c. 14. Beda in Chron.

However that Council was convened, governed, con­firmed, 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 alledged by H. T. That Pope Damasus presided in the First Constantinopolitane Council.

Whereas Damasus was so far from being President of, that he was not present in that Council, not personally, nor representatively by a Proxy, by any Legate, but Nectarius, Arch-Bishop of Constantinople, of Noble Ex­traction presided.

Bellarmines plea is [...], a subterfuge to evade, not a proof to demonstrate. That if Damasus had not been absent, he had presided.

An Inference of no validity. Vigilius Bishop of Rome sat in the Fifth Oecumenical, but did not preside in it. This Dignity was not fixt, entail'd to the Papacy of Rome.

The Popes were Presidents in some Ancient Coun­cils, but not in all, Not in the first Nicene, not in the first or second Constantinopolitane, not in the first or se­cond Ephesine, not in the Sardique, not in the Carthagi­nian Council.

Had Damasus been President in the First Constantinopo­litane Council. Yet they would not have vindicated the transcendent Papal Prerogative in and over Councils, (challenged in later times) not attempted, aspired to in the Primitive Church.)

[Page 32] Since Soveraigns 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 Constantinopolitane Council was summon'd, establisht, dismist by Theodosius the Empe­rour, the Senior.


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 HilariusThe Chalcedon Council, (Fa­thers 600) Pope Leo presiding, Anno Dom. 451. against Eu­tyches.
468 Simplicius 
483 Felix 
492 Gelasius I. 
497 AnastasiusAuthors Leo Ep. 50. Ba­ronius, &c.
499 Symmachus 


I shall not contend, touching the formal Mu­sters of your Popes in point of Divinity or Chronology.

Pope Celestines presiding in the first Ephesine Council, is easier asserted than proved Celestine was at that time personally engaged in an Italian Council (which was not esteemed Oecumenical, but its Contemporary, the Ephesine consisting of the Eastern Bishops.)

The Romish Champions plead that Pope Celestine did constitute St. Cyril of Alexandria to be his Proxy.

If I grant, he did delegate his suffrage (there being a singular Correspondence betwixt these two Orthodox Prelates) yet not a Prerogative of presiding in the Council, which though arbitrarily, sometimes indulged [Page 33] to the Pope in person, yet was▪ not so necessarily annext to the Papal Dignity, as to be challenged by his Legates (as not in the Fifth Carthag. Conc.)

It is testified by Sozomen, that Vitus and Vincentius Sozom. l. 1. c. 17. the Popes 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 Emperour to summon the Council. He was the most Eminent Prelate present, the Patriarch of Constantinople, being in umbrage under the Eclipse of a charge of Heresie, so that it is most pro­bable that he did preside not as substitute from Rome, but 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, confirmes ad Populi docu­mentum. In Epist. Or­thodox. Sanctissimo Piis­simo (que) 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 President of the first Ephe­sine Council, without the least mention of any deriva­tion or lustre from his Predecessor, Pope Celestine.

This is expresly, solemnly attested in the Code, who ever was in the Nature of Moderator, he was inferior to the Emperour in the transactions of that Council to Theod [...]sius, who not only summoned, establisht, autho­thorised it, but had a singular over ruling influence in re­gulating it, in composing differences in it. The Fathers convened in that Synod solemnly implored the Emperors Ratification.

True it is, the first Ephesine Council in an Epistle to Pope Celestine, gave him an account of their Proceedings against Nestorius, but it was out of Amity, not Duty; a Conformity in point of Faith, not a Submission in point of Power. The Epistle is directed in a style of parity.

As touching the Council of Chalcedon. If I grant the Popes Legates had a precedence by the favour of the [Page 34] Prince, or the respect of the Fathers convened to the personal Eminence, or Patriarchal Lustre of Leo the First.

Yet the Emperour Martianus did seem to preside, as the grand Moderator in that Council, at first personally immediately, afterwards mediately by his Commissioners, 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 Oecumenical Synod is clearly ascribed to the Emperour.

How solemn is the submission to the Emperours 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 Establisht in his place.

The Legates of the Bishop of Rome in that Synod in­treated the Moderators of the Council, that Dioscorus should be required to recede, which themselves had en­joyned, not requested had they presided.

In the Sixteenth Article of that Synod, the Decree was opposite to the Sentiments of the Popes Legates.

In that Article Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople 27 Canones 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.


The first Nicene Council defined against Arrius, That the Son of God is consubstantial to his Father and true God.


This Testimony is impertinently produced. The Church of England doth detest Arrianisme as much as the Church of Rome.

H. T.

2. That he who holds the See of Rome, is the Head and Chief of all the Patriarks, seeing he is the first; as Peter, to whom Power Ecclesiastical is given over all [Page 35] Christian Princes, and all People, &c. and whosoever shall contradict this, is Excommunicated by the Synod. Can. 39. Arab.


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 track St. Ambrose would not recede for the peril of Death, nor for the terror of the Sword.

Which St. Basil propounded for the Test, whereby judgment is to be made of Hereticks.

As with St. Athanasius, we wonder at their audacious­ness, who start any question in points that have past the determination of that Nicene Council; so we cannot without astonishment resent the disingenuous fraud in counterfeiting so Venerable a Record in obtruding a Fa­ble for an Oracle.

The more famous the Authority is of the Nicene Council, the more infamous is the Impiety in falsifying it.

The alledged Thirty Ninth Arabick Canon may be unmaskt, and then appear a Romish Imposture.

That there were but Twenty Genuine Canons of the Nicene C [...]uncil, is proved by the Authority of Rufinus, Isidore, Theodoret, (Testimonies acknowledged by Baronius) by Pope Stephen, (attested by Gratian) by Two Hundred and Seventeen Bishops Convened in the Sixth Council of Carthage, by unanimous suffrages of uncorrupt Antiquity.

The Nicene Synod was held the Year 316, the tumor the amplifying of the Canons to the number of Thirty in the Notion and Style of Arabick Canons, produced above Twelve Hundred years after.

When they first appeared to the World, they were pretended to be brought by Baptista Romanus from the Patriark of Alexandria, set out by Alphonsus, Pizanus, and Franciscus Turrianus, both of the same Society, both zealous Advocates not only for asserting, but straining [Page 36] the P [...]pal Preheminence (per fas (que) nefas (que)) First inserted in the Edition of the Councils at Venice by Dominicus. Ni­colinus in the Year 1585. not above Five years before printed apart (the Plantine Impression) by Turrianus.

It appears at the first blush as strange an incongruity in Geography as Chronology at so great a distance of time and place, to vindicate the Canons of the Nicene Council in the Fourth Century, by an Arabick remote Evidence in the Sixteenth Century.

How have they been obscured dormant for so many Ages?

Turrianus the most confident Stickler for these Arabick Canons acknowledged there is no Record as to any Tota res ad con­jecturas & sig­na quibus veri­ [...]as illustrari so­let traducenda est. Translation of these out of Greek to Arabick, no proof, no evidence but conjecture.

The wily Jesuit pretending to wave infinite other Testimonies (in the smooth Rhetorick, the subtle fallacy of his Mention by way of Omission) insists on the Afri­cane Fathers as sufficient Witnesses, alledging, unless they had certainly and exactly known this, they would not so have written to Pope Boniface. Because they could find Canons in no Greek Books, they earnestly desire they might be 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 Cyrill of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople, and recited in the Sixth Council of Carthage.

I am amazed that there should be so little integrity in a Person of so much Literature as Turrianus of the profest Society of the Holy Jesus (the Name of a Saint being the Guilt, the Impeachment of a Miscreant according to Salvian) so notoriously to juggle and pre­varicate. Nomen Sancti reatus impii. Salvian.

For the clearer discovery of his Collusion, and the more warrantable rejection of the additional Arabick Ca­nons, I shall offer a true summary Narrative of the trans­actions of the Africane Fathers falsly presented by Turrianus.

[Page 37] Apiarius being justly deliberately sentenced in Africa Qui judicat in­auaitâ 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 prest a Canon of the Nicene Coun­cil to justifie Appeals to Rome. The African Fathers were startled at a Novel Claim abetted by an unheard of Canon, wherein they first examined the Copy brought from Nice by Concilianus (Arch-Bishop of Carthage) in which they found no such Canon alledged. However they were not prone to suspect any fraud in the Bishop of Rome, (where there is the greatest Truth, there be­ing also the greatest Charity) but proceeded with an equal mixture of Prudence and Candour.

They resolved to transmit Mercuries to Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, to procure Genuine Transcripts of the Nicene Canons, and whilst the matter was in sus­pence, they condescended to admit Appeals to Rome.

They imparted their design to the Legates, implored their joint Assistance, made several Addresses in this sincere pursuit of Truth to Three Popes in their Successi­ons (Zozymus, Bonifacius, Celestine.)

After the concurrent Testimonies, the Exact Copies sent from the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexan­dria, after the discussion of 6 Years, there being no con­trary Evidence produced by either of the Popes reci­ted, or their Legates; the African Bishops unanimously rejected the obtruded Canons as spurious, and prohibi­ted all Appeals from the African Churches to Rome.

There never was a more calm, accurate, mature ven­tilation of any Claim. Never clearer Evidence. Twen­ty Canons only found in the Archives of Constantinople, Alexandria; Antioch, being searcht with great dili­gence, as Baronius confesses.

[Page 38] Attious profest in his Rescript that Copy to be un­maimed, [...].

St. Cyrill as confidently avouches the fidelity of his also, [...].

Never a more manifest Conviction of a Notorious Fraud, whereto the Roman Legates being most proba­bly too conscious, would not close with the African Fathers in an unbyast, untainted Scrutiny; but reitera­ted their importunate Motion, that the Examination and Decision might be referred entirely to the Bishop of Rome, that the Criminal Party might be the sole Judge.

To palliate the Deformity of this Imposture, other Adulterate Testimonies are vaunted of the Letter of Athanasius to Pope Marcus, and the Rescript of Marcus which are not only by the Centurists and other Refor­med Divines proved to be fraudulent upon sifting the Phrase, and the Subject, Calculating the Date; but the more Learned Romish Champions Posserine, Bellar­mine, Baronius have confest it.

The last whereof (that famous Analist) Records the decease of Pope Marcus before the date of his preten­ded Letter, and brands it together with a counterfeit submission [...] a succeeding Bishop of Car­thage; to be fictions of the same Forge. I have dilated this detection, the rather because the Romanists lay so much stress upon so weak, so false a foundation.


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 [Page 39] 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.


Neither the Papal Decrees, nor the Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council are to be allowed for Or­thodox Tests in deciding Controversies. I shall not re­iterate my Exceptions against the Fallacy of both.

As for the Restraint of Deacons in reference to Priests recited, it is a point of Discipline, not Doctrine; a Regularity not to be contended for, if rightly un­derstood.


The First Constantinopolitane Council defined against Macedonius, who denyed the Holy Ghost to be God, and decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next to the Bishop of Rome.


This Allegation consists of two branches: The First is Impertinent, the Second Frandulent.

The Church of England explodes the Macedo­nian Heresie as much as the Church of Rome.; as is evident in the Fifth Article of the Church of En­gland.

As to the second branch of the Allegation, it is of­fered with little Fidelity, or at least Advertency.

The Patriarch of Constantinople was not mentioned in the Nicene Council, wherein the priviledge of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch are solemnly recited, Constantino­ple being then in Eclipse, in Umbrage, in respect of its succeeding Splendor. After it was augmented, ador­ned, dignified by the Translation of the Imperial Seat, Socrat. Hist. l. 1. c. 12. it then obtained as signal an Ecclesiastical, as Secular Grandeur.

It was the design of the First Constantinopolitane Synod to match the See of Constantinople with that of Rome; this being allowed a Priority of Place, not a Superiori­ty of Office, of Authority.

[Page 40] Constantinople is ranked with Rome, not subjected un­der it, It levels, truckles not.

The reason of the Equality of Dignity is exprest in the Council it self, because that Constantinople is New 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 Constantinopolitane Council is directed to the Reverend Brethren and Colleagues, Damasus, Aurelius, &c.

If the Canon debated establish his Parity, it's vainly cited by H. T. If it doth not establish it, it is vainly granted to the Romanists.


The first Ephesine Council defined against Nestor, who denied the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God. c. 1, 2, 3, 4.

It defined that Peter was the Head and Prince of the Apostles; and that the Power of Loosing and binding Sins was given by our Lord to St. Peter, who (in his Successors) Lives and Exercises Judgment to this very Time, and Al­ways, Act. 3.


Here is produced a double Testimony out of the first Ephesine Council: The one a Condemnation of the Nestorian Heresie, the other a Certificate of the Su­premacy of St. Peter, and his pretended Successors.

The first is not Controverted between the Roma­nists and the Reformed.

The second is but a Shadow at the best, but a var­nish of a Proof, as it is destitute of substance and soli­dity, so of Truth and Candour.

The Ephesine Council decreed no such flaunting Ti­tle, no Principality of St. Peter, nor Entail to his Suc­cessors; but it was insolently uttered by one of the Three Legates of Celestine the Bishop of Rome, by Philip a Candidate for Promotion, a Parasite of the Court of Rome.

[Page 41] 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. Cyrill his Brother, and fellow-Bishop.

This was not a Courtesie, a Complement of his Con­descension, like the smooth insinuation of the Roman Ge­nerals in the Camp, Commilitones, Fellow-Souldiers; many of the Fathers rank them with equal respect in their distinct suffrages recounted in that Council.

It was their Universal, Unanimous Acclamation. One Celestine, one Cyrill, one Faith of the Synod, one Faith of the World.

Nay, Theodosius the Emperour, who Summoned, Au­thorized, Establisht that Council, having occasion to mention both these Prelates, first nominates Cyrill, after­wards Celestinus; the former set out with the flourish of an Epithet (The Most Holy Bishop of Alexandria,) the 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 judgment 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 opprest by the Encroachment of the Patriarch of Antioch.

[Page 42] The Controversie was Exactly Discuss't, Authori­tatively Determined in that Council. The Decision doth by infallible consequence vindicate the Immunity of the British Bishops, doth brand and condemn the Usur­pations of the Roman.

We have the same plea of Exemption, the purest Primitive Antiquity, before the first Council of Ephe­sus before the first of Nice.

As for the claims, the pretences of any succeeding Ages; the Canon of the first Ephesine Council is not to be evaded.

That no Bishop occupy another Province, which for­merly, and from the beginning was not under the po­wer of him or his Predecessors.

The same Council prescribes Restitution if there be any such injurious attempt, enjoynes the preservation of Ancient Rights ( [...]) from the beginning in every Province.; for the prevention of the contempt of the Canons of the Fathers, and of the Introduction of Arro­gance in the Dress, the disguise of Secular Power.


The Council of Chalcedon defined against Eutyches and Dioscorus, who denyed Two Natures in Christ, Affirming, That the Humane Nature was changed into the Divine.


This Arrow is shot at random, it wounds not, Lights not near the Protestants, who disclaim, detest the Eutychian Heresie.


In the third Action in this Council, Pope Leo is called Universal Arch-Bishop, and Patriarch of old Rome.


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, [Page 43] no such Expression of the Synod it self. If this Style of Universal Arch-Bishop were of any importance, it might be more vigorously pleaded in behalf of the Pa­triarch of Constantinople: To whom it is applyed by more Numerous, Illustrious Persons, not only by the Monks of Antioch, but also by the Syrian Bishops in the Domino nostr [...] Sanctissimo & Beatissimo Pa­tri Patrum Archiepiscopo & Oecumenico Patriarchae Johanni Synod. in hâc Imperiall Ci­vitate Congregata. fifth General Council; nay, by the Synod it self.

This Title paramount was no Novelty, no Rarity in the second Council of Nice, as to the Application of it, to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Pope Adrian was not shy to ascribe it to Tharasius: Adrianus dile­cto fratri Tha­rasio generali Patriarche. Greg. l. 7. Ep. 32. Pope Gregory the First asserts that all his Predecessors have rejected this Title.


Sentence is pronounced against Dioscorus in the Name of Leo and St. Peter, to acknowledge Leo to be St. Peters Successor.


This is not Extant, not in the proposition of the Edict, not in the Sentence of the Condemuation, (the censure of Dioscorus) not in the Synodical Publica­tion to the Clergy of Alexandria; not in the relation, the account of it to the Empress Pulcheria.

It was only the arrogant Tumor of the Popes Le­gates, when they pronounced their Suffrages: None of the Fathers then assembled, utter'd any such Ran­ting Preface of Preheminence, but they sorted, ranked together the Arch-Bishop of Old and New Rome, as ap­pears by their Votes distinctly Recounted.


The Elibertine Council in Spain subscribed by Hosius and others, who were present at the first Nicene [Page 44] Council, defined, That Bishops, Priests, and Deacons should abstain from their Wives, or else be degraded. c. 33. Age the Fourth.


The Romanists themselves have little venera­tion for the Dictates of this Council. Some disgust it as imbittered with the Novatian Leaven.

In the Edition of the Councils at Venice by Dominicus 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 paenitent. 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 Logick, being deduced from an Insinuated Errour in Chronolo­gy. (That this Council was subscribed by Hosius and others, who were present at the first Nicene Council.) The most exact Chronologers date the Elibertine Coun­cil a considerable time before the Nicene Council; Twelve years before the Computation of Onuphrius, Twenty years more Ancient in the Calculation of Baronius.

[Page 45] 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 establisht in an Oecume­nical Council, cannot be repealed in a Provincial, espe­cially in the instance recited; the General Council be­ing both Ample and Authentique; the Provincial scan­ted for Number, not unquestioned, not unblemisht for Repute.


The Second Council of Arles defined. That no Man who was married could be made a Priest, unless a Conversion be promised. Can. 2.


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.

[Page 46] Were this Council of Arles as managed in the Trans­actions, and as conveighed to us in the Records of it uncorrupted, yet it was but a Provincial Council in France, (as the Elibertine cited was in Spain) which must vail to an Oecumenical, to the first Nicene; wherein when there was an active assay of establishing a Sanction for separating the Clergy from their Wives [...], not to sleep together; Paphnutius that famous Con­fessor vigorously opposed, prevailed for the rejecting of that Novel Imposition.

This is attested by Socrates, Sozomen, Ecclesiastical 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 satisfie, 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 Judgment punctually, That Conju­gal Society is not inconsistent with Sacred Orders, (with­out any restriction to precedent or subsequent.)

He avouched not only the difficulty but in some the impossibility of the observance of so rigid an interdict of the Clergies Marriage, and therein undermined the Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. [Page 37] foundation of the Romish restraint, he also pressed the impurity of the consequences of such a prohibition. The Prophecy of Paphnutius became St. Bernards History. Abstinentes re­medio Nuptiali, & in om [...]e d [...] ­inceps flagitium essluentes. [...]ern. de Conv. 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 Judgment.

It may further be urged by an Opponent, That Paphnutius mentioned the Ancient Tradition of the Church. For the Clergy that were unmarryed, to ab­stain from Wedlock.

I Answer,

That Paphnutius did herein most probably reflect upon the Church of Egypt, (wherein himself was dignified) or on Thessaly. It might be the particular custom of one Province, not Universal of all.

There was no such Tradition in Armenia, if the Sixth Quoniam cogno­vimus in Arme [...] ­niorum Regio­ne eos solum in cleri ordinem referri qui sunt ex genere Sacerdotali. Conc. Constant. 6. Can. 33. Constantinopolitane Council may be credited.

No such Tradition in Ephesus (the Metropolis of the lesser Asia.) Before the end of the 2d. Century, Policrates Bishop of Ephesus in his contest, touching the Observa­tion of Easter with Victor, Bishop of Rome, in an Epistle 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 Creet. When Pinitus would have introduced it among the Cretians, Dionysius Bi­shop [...]. Euseb. l. 4. c. 23. of Corinth reprehended, dis­swaded it as a grievous pressure, not to be imposed as a necessary Duty, but that the Infirmities of many were to be re­garded.

[Page 48] 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 Authentick Record of the Canon Law, the Decretal of Pope Stephen.

No such custom in Cyprus, the Renowned Spiridion, being Bishop, had Wife and Children; not thereby em­paired or eclipsed as to the discharging of the Exercises of Divinity, the Sacred Offices of his Function.

No such received Tradition in the Africane Churches, wherein Tertullian was a Married Presbyter, as also among many others, Foelix and Numidicus, both them­selves [...]. 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 Ma [...] ­ried Prelates, and co-habited with their Wives.

No stamp of any such Tradition in Germany, not in England, no track of any such custom for 1000 years 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 Marryed.

Justinian the Emperour, 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.

[Page 49] 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 re-established by several of his Successors in multi­plyed 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 Oecumenical Approba­tion, solemnly approved by Pope Leo the Fourth.

I shall not quit this Persecutor of the Marryed Cler­gy without two Remarks of fame.

[Page 50] 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 impeacht 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. Salv. l. 5. de Provid. Experientiâ docente Contrarius Effectus sequitur ex illà Lege continentiae, cùm 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 quàm prosit eam tollere nemo re­ [...]uit citius. forbear from Wedlock, and forbear not Rapine. What actest thou, O foolish perswasion? God hath forbidden Sins, not Marriages. In like manner it is not a Conversion, but an Aversion. You that long since as it is famed, relinquish the work of honest Matrimony, at length de­sist from Mischief.

The prodigious Enormities of Lusts which have been occasioned by the debarring the Clergy the Innocent Expedient of Gods Sacred Ordinance, hath extorted the Pathetical Complaints of many Conscientious Romanists, 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 Sylvius the Cardinal) profest, greater reason for the Resti­tution, the Release, than the Restraint.

[Page 51] 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 it self, it is not sullyed: Where there is no guilt, there is no stain.

Both the School-men 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 Prophane Tempo­ral Interests.

To indulge, to license what God detests; Condemns (Fornication) to make Stores, Revenues, to raise Trea­sures out of Impurities (in a more unsavoury, than ex­tracting of Gold out of the Dung of Ennius.) And to prohibit to doom in the Clergy what God allows, justifies in all, may pass for the Traffick, the Policy, but not the Virtue, the Innocency of the Church of Rome.


Catholick Professors to the Year 500.

Severinus, Tigrius, Exuperius, Eutropius, St. Jo. Chrysostome, Paulinus, Mauritius, St. Augustine, Maxi­mus, Zozimus, Vinceutius, Lirinensis, Jacobus Persa, Alexius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Uriula with 11000 Virgins, Prosper, Honoratus, Palladius, Bonifacius, Euthymius, Simon Stelites, Chrysologus, Patricius, Eu­genius, Fulgentius, Boetius, Epiphanius, Tirinensis, Se­verinus, &c.

[Page 52] The Scots converted by Palladius, the French by S. Remigius and Vedastus, 4979 Martyrs of Africa, and many others.


This Catholick band is a specious, but pro­bably a false Muster, wherein Ursula leads the Van to 11000 Virgins.

This being strictly inspected will appear an imagina­ry Romance, not a real Transaction.

There is a double proof offered, the one is Fanatical, the other fabulous.

The first consists in Visions, in the Revelations of St. Elizabeth, (in the Romish Style and Kalendar) and of Richardus Praemonstratensis.

This is the grand support of the Coten Divinity, the Pageantry of its Sepulchres, so much blazed and gloried in: Ad populum phaleras.

The most circumspect, ingenuous Romanists, blush to own the Originals and the products of the vain Enthu­siasms in this Instance.

The Visions presented being exactly discust, are un­maskt to be Dreams; the Revelations convicted, to be Collusions.

The second Argument for avouching Ursula and her numerous illustrious Train is the Allegation of an Hi­storical Evidence, wherein there is no credible, no ra­tional account given to satisfie a judicious Inquisitor.

The best Author that Baronius upon the most industri­ous search could light on, was Geoffry of Monmouth (more reputably called Galsridus Asaphensis) whom all Histo­rians that mention brand for an Impostor: Baronius him­self (in other subjects) gives him no better character.

Even Galfridus (the prime Oracle for this Fable.) [...]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 [Page 53] obscure Authority of Anonymus, one of no Name, of no Esteem, consequently of no Credit.

No Ancient Historian of the Third, the Fourth or Fifth Century (wherein the Sience is variously laid) nor in some subsequent Ages, recites the Martyrdom, or Saint­ship of Ursula, and her vast Virginal Retinue.

There is no Harmony among the Asserters of it, tou­ching the Age, Whether in the Fifth Century, where H. T. and others place it (in the year 454) or in the Fourth Century, where Baronius fixes it (in the year 383) or in the Third Century, where the Cistertian Breviary disposeth it (in the year 237.)

There is no consent touching Ursula's Extraction, her Habitation, whether her Native Soil were England (being as it is pretended courted to be the Bride of an English Prince;) or Scotland, (according to Wicelius's Poetry; or Ireland, according to the Vindication of Combachius.) Thus where there is no Truth, there is no Stability, no Concord.

Sigebertus (in his uncorrupt Edition) Petrus de Na­talibus, Miraeus Edition of Sigebert at Antwerp. Bonfin. Hun­gar. 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.

[Page 54] The Brittain Church did neither in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Century submit to the Roman, nor conform to it, not in its Liturgy; not in its Ri­tuals, its Canons; not in point of Ordination of Priests, of the Prohibition of their Matrimony, not in the Observation of Easter.

So little a Correspondence there was in matters Ec­clesiastical, betwixt them; That Gregory the First was ignorant and inquisitive (in the Testimony of Paulus Diaconus) whether the Britains were Christians or Pa­gans.

The inserting by H. T. of Four Thousand Nine Hun­dred and Seventy Nine Martyrs of Africa is as wide an Impertinency of a List of Catholick Professors of the Ro­man Stamp. St. Austin who is distinctly nominated in the Catholick Catalogue, for this Age, did subscribe to the Decrees of the Council of Carthage, which did ex­clude the Romish Jurisdiction in Africa.

St. Chrysostome who is expresly cited, was a Catholick Professor of the Greek, not the Roman Church.

He was not ignorant of the First Constantinopolitane Oecumenical Council, which ranked him, being Patriarch of Constantinople, with the Patriarch of Rome.

His Epistles First and Second to Pope Innocentius, do not derogate from this Equality. (As the Romanists object.) They declare a voluntary Respect, not a due sub­mission.

In his Exigencies he made the See of Rome his San­ctuary for Refuge, for Assistance, not his Tribunal for Sentence.

His Address to Pope Innocentius, was as to an Or­thodox Prelate, not as to a Supream Judge.

His Devoir, Resort, his Appeal was not to a Papal, but a Synodical Determination.

To summ up the British, African, Greek Catholick Professors produced, they are unjustly challenged, ap­propriated [Page 55] by H. T. They were at a great distance from the Ancient City of Rome, but at a much greater from the Modern Church of Rome, as it is Establisht in the Trentine Council.

H. T.

From the Year of Christ 500.

Chief Pastors.General Councils.
514 Hormisda.The Second Constanti­nopolitane Council, Pope Vigilius presiding (Fathers 165, An. Dom. 553) against Anthimius and Theodorus.
524 Johannes 1.Authors Zonaras, Ni­cephorus, and Baronius.
526 Foelix 4. 
530 Bonifacius 2. 
532 Johannes 2. 
535 Agapetus. 
437 Sylverius. 
540 Vigilius. 
526 Pelagius 1. 
560 Johannes 3. 
573 Benedictus 1. 
578 Pelagius 2. 
590 Gregorius Magnus. 


As for the Eleven Popes nominated, they were no Asserters of the Tenets wherein the Reformed differ from the present Church of Rome.

As for Vigilius's Precedency in the Second Constanti­nopolitane Council, H. T. is more positive than Bellarmine 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.)

[Page 56] 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 Oecumenical Councils there is but a single Instance, and that in the Third Action of the Council of Chalcedon, which Exception is not warranted by the Genuine Records of that Council, were it allowed, yet according to the Rational Maxim of the Civil Law. An Exception ratifies the Rule in what is not Exceptio sirmat Regulam in non Exceptis Reg. jur. excepted by this Consequence, the alledged Presiden­cy of Vigilius is infallibly discarded; for Vindication whereof, H. T. produceth Three Witnesses, Zonaras, Nicephorus, Baronius.

These are defective in point of Antiquity, and there­by less credible.

The Second Constantinopolitane Council was Conve­ned the Year 553, (as H. T. professes) whereas the Testimonies produced are of a much later Date. Zonaras wrote in the Twelfth Century, Nicephorus in the Thir­teenth, Baronius in the last; who was no less the Advo­cate of the Papacy, than the Annalist of the Church, too frequently Adulterating the Records of Antiquity, and prostituting them to the Grandeur of the See of Rome.

Evagrius a more Ancient Authentick Historian before 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 Judgment, no Authoritative Confirmation of Power) he was so far from presiding in that Council, that he would not be present at it.

[Page 57] H. T. Produces three Witnesses, not without some grains of a Sophister, he cites the First Zonaras, as the Tempter did the Psalmist, imperfectly.

Zonaras joyns Eutychius of Constantinople, Apollina­rius 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 President of that Council, but Menas and Eutychius successively the one in the Beginning, the other in the Progress and Close of the Council.

Vigilius repaired to Constantinople, but not to the Council, though frequently intreated, importuned, yet ineffectually; he absented himself upon several preten­ces of Indisposition of Body (really of mind) of the small Number of Western Bishops, of the invalidity of which reason, he was sufficiently convinced. Whereas the true concealed Reason confessed by Nicephorus, was the Stomach of Vigilius, that he could not brook to be Eclipsed by the Bright Lustre of the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople, being President.

Claranza the Abbreviator of the Councils Devoted 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 Constantinopolitane Council. This is cleared beyond dispute by the Acts of the Coun­cil it self, wherein is inserted, Menas being President, [...], will admit no other Construction.

Baronius himself (the Third Witness quoted) pro­duced this Record.

H. T.

The Second Constantinopolitane Council defined, That our Lord Jesus Christ Crucified in the Flesh, is both the True Lord of Glory, and one of the Holy Trini­ty, Can. 10. against Peter the Arch-Bishop of Constanti­nople, who held that the whole Trinity was Crucified for us, as appears Art. 1.

It defined One Divine Nature to be in all Three Persons, Can. 1. 2. Nativities in Christ, c. 2. One only Person to be in Christ, though two distinct Natures, against Anthi­mius annd Theodor. Can. 4. 5.

It defined against Theodore, That Christ was not troubled with Passions in the Mind, or Concupiscences of the Flesh, Can. 12.


This is a Digression from the Controversie. No Heresie condemned in the Second Constantinopolitane Council is Espoused in the Reformed Churches.


In this Age the Third Council of Carthage De­creed, That the Sacrament of the Altar (Mass) but by such only as were fasting, Can. 29. It approved the whole Ca­talogue of Canonical Books by name, as they are now pub­lished in our Bible, and approved by the Catholick Church, except only Baruch, which is not named, because an Ap­pendix to Jeremy, whose Secretary he was, Can. 47. This Council was subscribed by St. Augustine, and ap­proved in the Sixth General Synod.


The Time of the Sacraments Celebration is no poi [...] Controverted.

The Romanists dissent touching the Numerical Synod of Carthage, wherein the latter Canon produced, the Forty Seventh was Established; whether in the Third, or in the Seventh Council of Carthage.

[Page 59] Most refer it to the Third; yet among them there is a difference touching the Date of it.

Some fix it in the year 387, others in the year 419, but H. T. degrades it to a lower Station within the Cir­cuit of the Sixth Century, and thereby renders its Te­stimony the less Venerable.

The Romish Doctors set no grand Estimate on the Di­ctates of this Council.

The Twenty Third Canon, (That Prayer be always directed to God the Father at the Altar) consists not with the Judgment or Practice of the Church of Rome.

The Missal solemnly directs a Devout Address to the Lamb of God.

The Second Canon, That a Bishop of a prime Seat be not called Prince of Priests, or Chief Priests, &c.) doth derogate from the Supream Ecclesiastical Prehemi­nence challenged due to the Roman Papacy: In the vin­dicating whereof, whilst Gratian Recites this Canon, he prevaricates in a Parenthesis (The Bishop of Rome excepted.) This Addition being shuffled in without any Warrant from the Council it self.

Others upon this occasion depretiate the Council as being Provincial only, that could not transmit any Ob­ligation from Africa to Rome. As not to Rome, so not to Britain neither.

As it had the force of a Provincial Council only for the Twenty-Third, Twenty-Sixth Canons, so for the Forty-Seventh also objected by H. T. Not only to poize, but to down-weigh the Third Council of Carthage: I shall set in the opposite Scale the Synod of Laodicea, though not entirely Oecumenical, yet not barely (di­minutively) [Page 60] Provincial; being a Convention out of divers Provinces of Asia; though not more Ancient than the first Council of Nice, (according to the computation of Baronius, yet it is confest of all hands, that it preceded 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 Oecumenical Coun­cil (that of Chalcedon) and in the Primitive Authentick Code establisht in the same Council, that of Carthage being first inserted in the Code by Dionisius Exiguus, the Abbot in the year 425.

The same Council of Laodicea recounts the same Ca­nonical 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 Catholick Church of Christ being Illumi­nated by the Holy Ghost, hath confest.

But because of the presence of St. Austin, and the Authority of the Sixth General Synod produced as Abet­tors to the Third of Carthage, I shall not Explode, but [Page 61] Interpret the Canon produced by H. T. offering that Genuine Construction of it, which best conforms to the Tracts of St. Austin (the best Evidence of his Judg­ment) and the best Vindication of the Sixth General Council from an implicit contradiction of it self in the approbation of Two Synods (the one of Laodicea, the other the Third of Carthage, whose Canons seem to clash with each other.

The Books excepted by the Church of England, not listed in the Canonical Catalogues (as not in the Church of Laodicea.) The Church doth read, (as Jerome saith) for Example of Life, and Instruction of 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 track Josephus (the Famous Jewish Antiquary) in the Enumeration of the Canonical Books of Scripture.

It is confest by Driedo, That St. Jerom did herein re­tain Drido l. 1. c 3. parte primâ ad Hier. the Computation of the Jewish Synagogue, not of the Christian Church, as he pretends.

[Page 62] 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 Scrip­turis 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 acknowledgment 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 confest Compurga­tors Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 8. c. 2. of the Jews Integrity by Learned Romanists.

I shall not need to add St Austins 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 Au­thentick Suffrages of the Jews, it is observed, That neither Christ, nor any of his Apostles in the New Te­stament did cite any passage out of those Books which are in the Old Testament, Exploded from being Cano­nical Scripture, by Reformed Churches, called Eccle­siastical Books, by St. Cyprian, Apocryphal by others.

[Page 63] The Primitive Church never Exposed them for Canonical in the strictest sense, viz. as stampt with Di­vine Inspiration, as embraced with a true, (not equi­vocal) Catholick Allowance for a Doctrinal Infallible Test.

The grand proofs of Antiquity (besides the Third Innocent. 1. in Ep. 3. ad exu­perium Conci­ [...]ium Roin. sub distrusted Council of Carthage) are the sentiments of two Popes, Innocentius the First, and Gelasius. Both which may rationally be suspected for counterfeit Au­thorities, there being no such extant, till Three Hun­dred years after the dissolution of each.

As for the former, the more clear and Venerable Te­stimony, 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 alledged, there needed no proba­tionary reference of the Forty-Seventh Canon in the Third Council of Carthage, so much insisted on to the Judgment of Bonifacius, inferiour to Innocentius the First for Age, for Repute, and Lustre.

To manifest the Romish Catalogue of Canonical Books of Scripture to be Novel and Unwarrantable; I shall conclude this point with the summary Recapitulation of Dr. Cosin, late Bishop of Durham (after a copious di­stinct examination of particulars.)

Thus have we hitherto taken an exact and perfect Dr. Cosins S [...]olastical Hist. of the Ca­non of Script. Parag. 178. view of what the Catholick Church of God hath deli­vered, concerning the Canon of Divine Scripture in all times, and in all places: In Judea by the An­cient Hebrews, by Christ himself, and by his Holy Apostles: In Palestine and Syria, by Justin Martyr, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and Damascon; In the Apostolical Churches of Asia, by Melito Polycrates, and Onesims; In Phrygia, Cappadocia, Lycaonia, and Cyprus; by the Council of Laodicea, St. Basil, Amphilochius, Epiphanius; In Egypt by Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, and Atha­nasius, [Page 64] In the Churches of Africa, by Julius, Tertul­ian, St. Cyprian, and St. Austin; the Council of Car­thage, Junitius, and Primasius; In all the Five Patri­archates by St. Cyril, St. John Chrysostome, Anastasius, St. Gregory, Nicephorus, and Balsamon: In Greece by Dionisius, Antiochus, Adrianus, Lentius, Zonaras, Philippus and Callistus: In Italy, by Philastrius Rusi­nus, Cassiodore, Commestor, Balbus, Antoninus Miran­dula, Cajetine and Pagnine; In Spain by Isidore. Hugo Cardinalis, Paulus Burgensis, Tostatus and Ximenius; In France by St. Hilary; the Divines of Marseils, Vi­ctorinus of 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 Countreys 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 numbred.

Thus far Doctor Cosin abbreviates his ample accu­rate History. which (as far as my Intelligence extends) hath not been assayed to be answered by any Romanist.

It may with much more facility be reviled, menaced, than confuted; Invectives, Anathema's are the proper frequent Apologies for Convicted Errors.

With what Truth or Candor, with what strength of Religion or Reason, with what warrant of Piety or An­tiquity the Canon of Scripture being there solemnly as­serted, universally establisht in all Climates, in all Ages may in the Sixteenth Century of Christianity be contra­dicted, [Page 65] controuled, condemned by an inconsiderable num­ber of Prelates assembled at Trent; some thereof being Titular only; all Homagers of the Papacy entirely swayed, irresistibly influenced from the Conclave at Rome. I refer it to all unbyast Intellectuals, to all un­corrupt Judgments to determine.


In this Ag [...] the Milevitane Council defined, That whoever denyed Children newly born to be Baptized; or says, They contract nothing of Original Sin from Adam, which may be cleansed by the lavoer of Regeneration, &c. Anathema.


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.


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.


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.

[Page 66] 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 alledged, why is it not observed by the Romanists? If it be cancelled and voided by them, why is it objected to the Reformed? This is no probate of a Succession, but a Collusion.


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 pla [...]es, giving this reason, be­cause it is written; See thou offer not thy Holocausts in every place, but in the place which the Lord thy God hath chosen, Deut. 12. Anno 522. For as no other but Priests consecrated to our Lord; ought to sing Masse, and to offer Sacrifices upon our Lerd to our Lord upon the Altar, so in no other but consecrated places. De consecrat. dist. 1. C. Sicut non alii.


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 Controversie 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 amuze, to delude an ig­norant implicitly devoted Disciple, but cannot convince and satisfie any unprejudiced circumspect Reader.

H. T.

Catholick 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, &c.


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 Tenents, in which it is opposite to the Reformed.

Some of the Professors recited were Catholicks, 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 signalized, 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 Elogy the Histo­rian applyes to Probus, Vir sui nominis, he did not re­cede from his own Name, but the present Romanists recede from his Doctrine and Practice.

[Page 68] 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 track of the Pristine Institution in the Monasteries of Germany; Monks and Abbots rusht 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, Quàm 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 Fabricks and Names.

The prophaneness of the Monks did render the disso­lution of the Monasteries in this Nation more practica­ble and feasible than otherwise it could possibly have proved.


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.


I confess the memory of St. Austin the Monk ought to be precious, and celebrated with a grateful re­spect; [Page 69] 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 publickly profest in this Island before any other Climate or Countrey 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 Chrysostome in their several Generations, by the Episcopal, Archi-Episcopal Dignities erected continued, by the Repute and Lustre of those Prelates in Forreign Councils at Arles, at Sar­dis, at Arimine, nay at Nice it self, the British Bishops being Zealous Orthodox Sticklers at home and abroad in the Confutation, the Extirpation of Arrianisme.

When St. Austin the Monk repaired to England, his Pious, heroique design was prepared and facilitated by the British Christians intermingled with Pagan Saxons, tho' the most eminent Britains took Wales for their refuge together with their retinues; yet multitudes of the Conquered remained in England disperst among the Conquerors.

The Influence of St. Austin the Monk was in a man­ner confined to Kent, it extended little farther.

Even in Kent, Austines Task wasless difficult, being promoted by Queen Berta, who made profession of Christian Religion before the Arrival of Austine, 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 flourisht in the Romish Calendars, had more numerous Converts in England than Austin himself, the Province of their successful Doctrines more enlarged.

[Page 70] As for the specious Relation of the Northern Picts, Gothes, Bavarians, Burgundians rallied as converted in this Age, they were Disciples of Antioch, not of Rome; they embraced the Evangelical unblemisht 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, intreated 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.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.