objected That there are no certain Monuments of such Churches planted by him in Italy Gaul Germany or Spain What certain Monuments are there of new Churches planted by him in the East after his return And it is so much less probable because the Eastern Writers who should know best allot this time to his Preaching in the West But it is well observed by the Learned M. Velserus speaking of the Preaching of the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul in these Western parts That we are not to judge of the Planting of Churches by the remaining Annals and Monuments because on the one side we are certain that their sound went out into all the Earth And on the other great care was taken in the several Persecutions especially that of Dioclesian to burn all the Monuments which concerned the Christian Churches But yet as to Britain we have undoubted Testimony of a Christian Church planted here by the Apostles and by none so probably as Saint Paul For Gildas saith The Gospel was here received before the fatal defeat of the Britains by Suetonius Paulinus which according to Sir H. Savil's Fasti was the seventh of Nero the eighth saith Petavius And St. Paul being at liberty the fifth had time and conveniency enough to settle a Christian Church in Britain 2. That there was Incouragement and Invitation enough for St. Paul to come into Britain not onely from the Infinite numbers of People which Caesar saith were here in his time but from the new Settlements that were daily making here by the Romans after the first Success which they had in the time of Claudius For then Colonies were drawn over hither And not onely Military Colonies settled for the security of the Roman Conquests such as that of Camalodunum is described by Tacitus formerly the Royal Seat of Cynobelin King of the Trinobantes but also Civil and Trading Colonies such as London was from the beginning and therefore commended by Tacitus for its admirable Situation for Trading and all Accommodations to that end and upon the best enquiry I can make I very much incline to believe it of a Roman Foundation and no elder than the time of Claudius as will be made appear in another Discourse And that in the time of Suetonius Paulinus it was inhabited by Romans and Britains together is evident from Tacitus When Suetonius Paulinus drew out the Inhabitants the City not being then defensible against the Britains who in that Revolt destroyed LXX thousand Romans and their Allies saith Tacitus But Dio saith two Cities London and Verulam for Camalodunum was destroyed before and Eighty thousand Men. This was a time of so much Disorder and Bloudshed That Gildas with great reason places the Planting of Christianity here before it And St. Paul might have some particular incouragement at Rome to come hither from Pomponia Graecina Wife to A. Plautius the Roman Lieutenant under Claudius in Britain For that she was a Christian appears very probable from the account Tacitus gives of her He saith she was accused of foreign Superstition and that so far as to endanger her Life But her Husband clear'd her sitting as Iudge according to the ancient form and she lived long after but in perpetual sadness If Tacitus were to describe the Primitive Christians he would have done it just after this manner Charging their Religion with Superstition and the Severity of their Lives abstaining from all the Feasts and Jollities of the Romans as a continual Solitude It was the way of the Men of that time such as Suetonius and Pliny as well as Tacitus to speak of Christianity as a Barbarous and Wicked Superstition as appears by their Writings being forbidden by their Laws which they made the onely Rule of Religion And this happen'd when Nero and Calphurnius Piso were Consuls after St. Paul's coming to Rome and therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose her one of his Converts by whom he might easily be informed of the state and condition of Britain and thereby be more incouraged to undertake a Voyage thither It is certain that St. Paul did make considerable Converts at his coming to Rome Which is the reason of his mentioning the Saints in Caesar 's houshold And it is not improbable that some of the British Captives carried over with Caractacus and his family might be some of them who would certainly promote the Conversion of their Countrey by St. Paul But I cannot affirm as Moncaeius doth That Claudia mention'd by St. Paul was Caractacus his Daughter and turn'd Christian and after married to Pudens a Roman Senatour whose Marriage is celebrated by Martial in his noted Epigrams to that purpose It is certain that Claudia Ruffina was a Britain who is so much commended by Martial for her Wit and Beauty But if these Epigrams were written in Trajan's time as is very probable It is somewhat of the latest for the Daughter of Caractacus who came in Claudius his time to Rome But Alford digests all this well enough onely he is extremely concern'd lest she should be made the Apostle of Britain and Preach here before St. Peter But the Authour of the Antiquitates Britannicae whom he reflects upon saith no such thing as he would impute to him He onely saith That if she were a Christian she would acquaint her Countreymen as much with the Christian Doctrine as she did before with Martial 's Witt. Wherein there is no Profaneness or Absurdity But he adds that in so Noble a Family The rest of her kindred who were baptized with her might be the Occasions of dispersing Christianity in the British Nation So that there was no need for his bidding Claudia to keep at home and make room for St. Peter to come to Britain to preach the Gospel But if this Claudia were St. Paul's Disciple why might not she excite that Apostle to go into her Countrey to plant Christianity there as he had done with so much Success in other Places And whether St. Peter or St. Paul were more probably the Apostle of Britain is now to be considered And I affirm 3. That St. Paul was the most likely to come hither of any of the Apostles The several Traditions about St. James Simon Zelotes and Philip are so destitute of any ancient Testimony or Probability that the Competition among the Apostles can lie onely between St. Peter and St. Paul Some Writers of our Church History have endeavoured for particular Reasons to prove St. Peter to have preached the Gospel in Britain But their Proofs are very slight and inconsiderable and depend chiefly on the authority of Simeon Metaphrastes or other Legendary Writers or some Monkish Visions or some Domestick Testimonies of his pretended Successours or some late partial Advocates such as Eysengrenius who professes to follow Metaphrastes All which together are not worth mentioning in comparison with the Authours on the other side I shall therefore examine the Probability
exclusion sed Ferlegum recusavit Populus Buchanan saith that he was condemned in his Absence but he would fain reconcile this practice to their former Oath although the Advocate himself saith this Oath did in Law and Reason bind them to obey the Lineal Successour according to the proximity of Bloud but Buchanan's pretence is because the present King during the Minority of the Heir was but a King in trust and the Heir at such an Age was to succeed But how well that was observed appears by this first instance and in truth Hector Boethius and the rest after him do put the whole power as to these Matters in the hands of the People or at least of the Heads of the Clanns as will appear more afterwards It cannot therefore but be very surprising to us to see his Majesty's Advocate so zealously defending this History of the first Succession of their Kings and reflecting upon a Bishop of our Church for calling it in question And yet he cannot deny that this Law was the Occasion of many bloudy Civil Wars between the Uncles and Nephews and he calls it the Dispute betwixt such as were for the Crown and such as were for Popular Elections From whence it follows That Hector Boethius his History of the first Succession from Fergus is to set up the popular Claim And quite through that first Race Hector makes the supreme unaccountable power in all cases of Male Administration to be lodged in the Heads of the People and the Ministerial in the Monarch And therefore we should have thought it had better become his Majesty's Advocate to have overthrown such pernicious Principles to Monarchy as are contained in this account of the first Race of their Kings from Fergus the Son of Ferquard And although Buchanan among the half-learned bear the blame of these Antimonarchical Principles yet it is evident that he onely built on the Foundations laid by those who set up this first Race as the Advocate himself confesseth whose Words are All Buchanan 's Arguments for restraining Kings being founded on the Authority of our Historians who as he saith assert that King Fergus was first elected King by the People And therefore those Historians who set up this Succession in such a manner had no kindness to Monarchy as appears by what Lesly himself saith about King Fergus and his Successours It is true that the learned Advocate hath according to his duty published a Just Defence of the Monarchy of Scotland but I must crave leave to say that it can never be defended upon good grounds unless the Account of Fergus the Son of Ferquard and the Succession of Kings from him as delivered by Hector Boethius and Lesly as well as Buchanan be rejected And this is too plain from the Answers he gives to this Consent of their Historians 1. He saith That Gathelus was not at all elected by the People Whither are we now carried The question was concerning Fergus in Scotland the answer is concerning one who is supposed to have lived I know not how many Ages before him and we know not where And it had been to as much purpose to have said Adam was not chosen by the People But who was this Gathelus In very truth he was no other according to these Historians than a Son of a certain King of Athens who went into Aegypt and married Scota the Daughter of Pharaoh who was drowned in the Red Sea and afterwards setled in Portugal from him called Portus Gatheli as the Advocate observes from whence a Colony of that Race transported it self into Ireland and another into Scotland Now saith he all those who are descended from his Colonies were by Law obliged to obey the eldest Son and Representative of that Royal Family What! by the Law in King Fergus's time For there is none so much as mentioned before that fundamental Contract and was it not well kept after Fergus's death But if there had been any precedent the other had been needless However the question is not concerning Gathelus and his Posterity in Ireland but Fergus and his Successours in Scotland 2. He answers That the Heads of their Tribes acknowledged Fergus for their King But do not these Historians say expresly That they chose him and that he left it to them to chuse what Government they pleased And the Words of Fergus in Hector Boethius are these vestrum erit in hoc Negotio quid utilius ad vestram Rempublicam sit discernere nostrum vestra capessere imperia Did ever Man more own the Supreme Authority of the People than Hector Boethius makes Fergus to doe in these Words Whether these very Words were spoken by him even Hector dares not say but he is sure they were such like And afterwards he saith tandem Fergusio Regnum decernunt And to the same purpose Lesly Fergusio Regnum ab omnibus decernitur Is all this a bare acknowledgment of him for their King what more emphatical Words could be used to express a free Election and that the People gave Fergus the Power than these Historians do use 3. He goes on to give a farther Answer which is very remarkable in his Majesty's Advocate viz. that we reade nothing at all of the consent of the People but of the Heads of the Tribes who had no Commission from the People each of them having by his Birth-right a Power to command his own Tribe and consequently the Royal Power was not derived from the People What is the meaning of all this but onely to shew that the Royal Authority was not derived from the Rabble but from the Nobility or Heads of the several Clanns and consequently the Power of calling their Kings to account lay onely in them No saith he Fergus succeeded in the Right of those Chiefs to command their respective Families Then Fergus had no more Power as Monarch than the Heads of the several Clanns had before But did they according to these Historians part with their Rights of Government to Fergus and his Posterity By what Authority then did they take upon them to imprison and depose Euenus III. and set up Cadalanus as King By what Authority did they take Arms against Dardanus and set up Galdus who took away his Life communi omnium Ordinum consensu saith Lesly By what Authority did they assemble against Lugtachus Galdus his Son and sâ—â—t Souldiers to dispatch him By what Authority did they rise against Mogallus his Successour with a design to destroy him as Hector confesseth which they did effectually as Lesly agrees How came they to take upon them to imprison Conarus and set up Argadus in his room And to dispose of the Government in the time of Ethodius II. and according to Lesly commit him to Prison where he was killed How came they notwithstanding the Law of Regency to set up Athirco while he was uncapable by it I meddle not
Scicambri r. Sicambri 330. l. 12. for when r. whom p. 338. l. 8. for Island r. Iseland THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. Of the first planting a Christian Church in Britain by S. Paul NO Christian Church planted in Britain during the Reign of Tiberius Page 2. Gildas his Words misunderstood p. 4. The Tradition concerning Joseph of Arimathea and his Brethren coming to Glassenbury at large examined p. 6. The pretended Testimonies of British Writers disproved p. 8. St. Patrick's Epistle a Forgery p. 14. Of the Saxon Charters especially the large one of King Ina. p. 17. The Antiquity of Seals in England p. 19. Ingulphus his Testimony explained p. 20. All the Saxon Charters suspicious till the end of the seventh Century p. 18 22. The occasion of this Tradition from an old British Church there p. 10 26 28. The Circumstances about Joseph of Arimathea and Arviragus very improbale p. 29. Sir H. Spelman vindicated p. 30. The state of the Roman Province about that time p. 31. No such King as Arviragus then p. 32. Not the same with Caractacus p. 34. A Christian Church proved to be planted here in the Apostles times p. 35. The authentick Testimonies of Eusebius Theodoret Clemens Romanus to that purpose p. 36. St. Paul in probability the first Founder of a Church here p. 38. The Time and Opportunity he had for it after his Release p. 39. Of Pomponia Graecina and Claudea Rufina Christians at Rome and their influence on his coming hither p. 43. St. Peter and St. Paul compared as to their Preaching here and the far greater probability of St. Paul's p. 45. CHAP. II. Of the Succession of the British Churches to the first Council of Nice The Testimony of Tertullian concerning them cleared p. 50. The National Conversion of the Scots under King Donald fabulous p. 51. Of Dempster's old Annals p. 52. Prosper speaks not of the Scots in Britain p. 53. The Testimony of Severus Sulpicius examined p. 55. Several Testimonies of Origen concerning the British Churches in his time p. 57. The different Traditions about King Lucius p. 58. The state of the Roman Province here overthrows his being King over all Britain p. 60. Great probability there was such a King in some part of Britain and then converted to Christianity p. 62. A Conjecture proposed in what Part of Britain he reigned p. 63. The most probable means of his Conversion and the Story cleared from Monkish Fables p. 66. Of Dioclesian's Persecution in Britain and the stopping of it by means of Constantius p. 70. The flourishing of the British Churches under Constantine p. 74. The Reason of three Bishops of Britain onely present in the Council of Arles p. 75. Of the great Antiquity of Episcopal Government here p. 77. Of Geffrey's Flamines and Archiflamines how far agreeable to the Roman Constitution p. 78. Maximinus his Pagan Hierarchy in imitation of the Christian p. 81. The Canons of the Council of Arles not sent to the Pope to confirm but to publish them p. 83. CHAP. III. Of the Succession of the British Churches from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum Great Probabilities that the British Bishops were present in the Council of Nice p. 89. The Testimonies of Constantine's being born in Britain cleared p. 90. The particular Canons of that Council explained p. 92. Especially those relating to the Government of Churches p. 95. How far the right of Election was devolved to the Bishops p. 96. Of the Authority of Provincial Synods there settled p. 99. Particular Exceptions as to the Bishops of Alexandria Rome and Antioch from ancient Custome p. 101. They had then a Patriarchal Power within certain Bounds p. 103. No Metropolitans under the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria p. 104. The just Rights of the British Churches cleared p. 108. No evidence that they were under the Roman Patriarchate p. 110. The Cyprian Privilege vindicated from all late Exceptions p. 106. The Patriarchal Rights examined and from them the Pope's Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches at large disputed and overthrown p. 111. Pope Leo's Arguments against the Patriarch of Constantinople held for the Western Churches against him p. 132. The British Bishops present in the Councill of Sardica with those of Gaul p. 135. What Authority granted by them to the Bishop of Rome and how far it extends p. 138. CHAP. IV. Of the Faith and Service of the British Churches The Faith of the British Churches enquired into p. 146. The charge of Arianism considered ibid. The true state of the Arian Controversie from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum and some late Mistakes rectified p. 147. Of several Arian Councils before that of Ariminum p. 164. The British Churches cleared from Arianism after it p. 176. The Number and Poverty of the British Bishops there present ibid. Of the ancient endowment of Churches before Constantine p. 177. The Privileges granted to Churches by him p. 178. The charge of Pelagianism considered p. 180. Pelagius and Caelestius both born in these Islands p. 181. When Aremorica first called Britain ibid. What sort of Monk Pelagius was p. 185. No probability of his returning to Britain p. 186. Of Agricola and others spreading the Pelagian Doctrine in the British Churches p. 187. Germanus and Lupus sent by a Council of Gallican Bishops hither to stop it p. 189. The Testimony of Prosper concerning their being sent by Caelestine considered p. 192. Of Fastidius a British Bishop p. 194. London the chief Metropolis in the Roman Government p. 195. Of Faustus originally a Britain but a Bishop in Gaul and the great esteem he had there p. 197. Of the Semipelagians and Praedestinatians p. 199. Of the Schools of Learning set up here by the means of Germanus and Lupus p. 202. Dubricius and Iltutus the Disciples of St. German and of their Schools p. 203. Of the Monastery of Banchor and the ancient Western Monasteries and their difference as to Learning from the Benedictine Institution p. 205. Of Gildas his Iren whether an University in Britain p. 207. Of the Schools of Learning in the Roman Cities chiefly at Rome Alexandria and Constantinople and the Professours of Arts and Sciences and the publick Libraries there p. 210. Of the Schools of Learning in the Provinces and the Constitution of Gratian to that purpose extending to Britain p. 215. Of the Publick Service of the British Churches the Gallican Offices introduced by St. German p. 216. The Nature of them at large explained and their difference from the Roman Offices both as to the Morning and Communion Service p. 217. The Conformity of the Liturgy of the Church of England to the ancient British Offices and not derived from the Church of Rome as our Dissenters affirm p. 232. CHAP. V. Of the Declension of the British Churches Britain never totally subdued by the Romans p. 239. That was the occasion of the Miseries of the Britains in the Province by the Incursions from beyond the Wall p. 240. Of the
Picts and Scots their mortal Enemies p. 242. The true original of the Picts from Scandinavia p. 246. That Name given to the new Colonies not to the old Inhabitants p. 241. The Scotish Antiquities enquired into p. 248. Fordon's Account of them compared with that of Hector Boethius and Buchanan p. 250. Of Veremundus Cornelius Hibernicus and their ancient Annals p. 255. The Modern Pleas for their Antiquities considered p. 261 282. An Account of the Antiquities of Ireland and of the Authority of their Traditions and Annals compared with Geffrey's British Antiquities in point of Credibility p. 266. A true Account of the fabulous Antiquities of the Northern Nations p. 277. The first coming of the Scots into Britain according to the Irish Writers p. 280. The first Cause of the Declension of the British Churches was the laying them open to the Fury of the Scots and Picts p. 286. Of Maximus his withdrawing the Roman Forces and the Emperours sending Numbers of Picts to draw them back p. 288. The miserable Condition of the Britains thus forsaken and Supplies sent them for a time and then taken away p. 293. Of the Walls built for their security and the Roman Legions there placed p. 297. The great degeneracy of Manners among the Britains p. 302. Of intestine Divisions and calling in foreign assistence p. 304. Of the Saxons coming who they were and whence they came p. 305. Bede's Account examined and reconciled with the circumstances of those times p. 313. Of the Reasons of Vortigern's calling in the Saxons p. 319. Of the dissatisfaction of the Britains upon their coming and Vortigern's League with them p. 320. Of the Valour of Vortimer and Aurelius Ambrosius against the Saxons p. 322. The different Account of the Battels between the Britains and Saxons among our Historians p. 325. The sad condition of the British Churches at that time ibid. The imperfect Account given by the British History p. 332. Of King Arthur's story and success p. 334. Of Persons in greatest Reputation then in the British Churches and particularly of St. David p. 346. Of the Britains passing over to Aremorica and the beginning of that Colony p. 351. Gildas there writes his Epistle the scope and design of it p. 354. The British Kings he writes to p. 355. The Independency of the British Churches proved from their carriage towards Augustin the Monk p. 356. The particulars of that Story cleared And the whole concluded p. 357. A Catalogue of Books published by the Reverend EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Dean of St. Paul's and sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard A Rational account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. wherein the true Grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England vindicated from the imputation of Schism and the most important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined the second Edition Folio Sermons preached upon several occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the true reasons of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius his Answer to Grotius is considered Folio Origines Britannicae or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph Folio Irenicum A weapon Salve for the Churches Wounds Quarto Origines Sacrae or a Rational account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine authority of the Scriptures and matters therein contained Quarto The Unreasonableness of Separation or an impartial account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England to which several late Letters are annexed of eminent Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Nature of our Differences and the way to compose them Quarto A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it in answer to some Papers of a revolted Protestant wherein a particular account is given of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it the first Part Octavo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the Pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church Octavo An Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a Person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stilling fleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters Octavo Several Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of England being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. Octavo The grand Question concerning the Bishops Right to vote in Parlament in Cases capital stated and argued from the Parlament Rolls and the History of former times with an Enquiry into their Peerage and the three Estates in Parlament Octavo Sermons preached upon several Occasions by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Paul's not yet collected into a Volume THE Reformation justified in a Sermon preached at Guild-hall Chapel Sept. 21. 1673. before the Lord Mayor c. upon Acts XXIV 14. A Sermon preached Nov. 5. 1673. at St. Margaret's Westminster upon Matt. VII 15 16. A Sermon preached before the King at Whitehall Feb. 24. 1674 3. upon Heb. III. 13. A Sermon preached on the Fast-day Nov. 13. 1678. at St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of Commons upon 1 Sam. XII 24 25. A Sermon preached before the King at White-hall March 7. 1678 9. upon Matt. X. 16. The Mischief of Separation a Sermon preached at Guild-hall Chapel May 11. 1680. before the Lord Mayor c. upon Phil. III. 16. Protestant Charity a Sermon preached at S. Sepulchre's Church on Tuesday in Easter Week 1681. before the Lord Mayor c. upon Galat. VI. 9. Of the nature of Superstition a Sermon preached at St. Dunstan's West March 31. 1682. upon Colos. II. 23. A Sermon preached before the King Feb. 15. 1683 4. upon Job XXIII 15. A Sermon preached at a publick Ordination at St. Peter's Cornhill March 15. 1684 5 upon 1 Tim. V. 22. THE Antiquities of Nottinghamshire extracted out of Records Original Evidences Leiger Books and other Manuscripts and authentick Authorities beautified with Maps Prospects and Portraictures by Robert Thoroton Dr. of Physick Folio THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE British-Churches CHAP. I. Of the first Planting a Christian Church in Britain by St. Paul
Glassenbury I do not question that King Ina did found a Monastery there where before had been an ancient Church in the British times But I see no ground to believe that either Joseph of Arimathea or St. Patrick or St. David had ever been there But these were great and well sounding Names to amuse the People with and by degrees advanced that Monastery to so high a Reputation that the very Monks of other places were concerned to lessen the authority of this Tradition as is evident by the MS. Chronicle of St. Augustine's wherein the Monks of Glassenbury are charged with pretending to greater authority than they had reason for that Monastery being first founded by King Ina but they give out they had Land given by Arviragus a King of the Britains And even William of Malmsbury although when he writes the Antiquities of Glassenbury he seems firmly to believe Saint Patrick's being there yet when he comes elsewhere to speak of his being buried there he adds that cooling Expression Si credere dignum and takes not the least notice of Joseph of Arimathea and his Companions So much difference he thought there ought to be between writing the Legend of a Monastery and a true History And there he plainly affirms that King Ina was the first Founder of it To which Asserius agrees in an ancient MS. Copy of his Annals For A. D. 726. he saith Ina went to Rome and there died having built and dedicated a Monastery in Glassenbury But what Presumption was it to say He dedicated it if it were dedicated so long before by Christ himself as the Vision of St. David and the Glassenbury Tradition affirm I do not then deny that there was an ancient Church before Ina's time which after the Western Saxons became Christians grew into mighty Reputation but all the Succession of Abbats before either of Worgresius or Brightwaldus or others I look on as fabulous For Bede and others say Brightwaldus was Abbat of Reculver before he was Archbishop which is a good distance from Glassenbury But the first Abbat there was Hemgislus to whom Ina granted a Charter after him Beorwaldus to whom King Ina granted several Lands by Charters far more probable than this large one whose authority I have hitherto discussed Those Charters are short and the Style agreeable to those times and not one Word of Joseph of Arimathea or St. Patrick or St. David in any of them And those I believe were the original Charters of that Abbey But the Abbey being thus founded and well endowed then like a man that hath made his own Fortunes who pretends to be derived from some ancient Stock so this Monastery growing rich betimes saw it must be cast much behind in Place and Dignity unless it could lay claim to some greater Antiquity And for this the old British Church was an admirable Foundation And St. Patrick and St. David being two Saints of wonderfull esteem in Ireland and Wales they first set up with the Reputation of their being at Glassenbury the former lying buried there and the latter building a little Chapel The Monks finding the advantage of these Pretences made a farther step towards the advancement of their Monastery by giving out that their old Church was the first Church in Britain and that all Religion came from thence into other parts which by degrees gaining belief they at last pitched upon Joseph of Arimathea as the person who came first hither being a Man whose Name was every where in great esteem for the respect he shew'd to our Saviour's Body And him they thought they might safely pitch upon not being pretended to by any other Church But it was a considerable time before the Name of Joseph of Arimathea came to be mention'd not being found in any of the Saxon Charters which speak most to the advantage of Glassenbury as may be seen by those of King Edmond and King Edgar in the Monasticon But by the time of Henry II. the Tradition was generally received that the old Church at Glassenbury was built by the Disciples of our Lord and that it was the original Church of this Nation as appears by the Charter of Henry II. omitted in the Monasticon but printed by Harpsfield and the learned Primate of Armagh by which we see what Authority the Monks of Glassenbury had then obtained for not onely this Tradition is inserted in the Charter as a thing certain but a Repetition is there made of several other Charters as seen and read before the King which were undoubtedly counterfeit such as that of King Arthur and several others yet all these went down then and were confirmed by the King 's Inspeximus From this time the Monks of Glassenbury were triumphant and no one durst dispute their Traditions how improbable soever This Charter being confirmed by the Inspeximus of Edw. II. An. 6 7. of Edw. III. An. 1 6. and 1 Edw. IV. And from hence it grew to be the common opinion of the Nation and was pleaded for the honour of it in the Councils of Pisa Constance Siena and Basil of which the Primate hath given a full account and as things passed among them then Our Nation had as just Right to insist on their Tradition of Joseph of Arimathea as the Spaniards on that of St. James going into Spain for certainly one Tradition was as good as the other But having thus far examined the Authority of this Tradition I now come to consider the Circumstances of it And supposing the Testimonies to confirm it to have been of far greater Authority than I find them yet the very improbable Circumstances of the Story it self would be a sufficient reason for me to pass it over leaving every one to believe as much of it as he sees cause viz. 1. The Tradition of the Church mentioned by Eusebius Sophronius S. Chrysostome and Hippolytus Portuensis That Saint Philip continued Preaching in the Eastern parts about Phrygia and suffer'd at Hierapolis 2 The Eremitical course of their Lives so wholly different from that of the Apostles and other Disciples of our Lord in an Age of so much business and employment in Preaching the Gospel who went from one City and Countrey to another for that End 3. The building of the Church by a Vision of the Archangel and devoting it and themselves to the Blessed Virgin favours too grosly of Monkish Superstition to be near the time pretended 4. The Consecrating a Church-yard together with a Church in order to the burial of persons in it at that time is none of the most probable Circumstances and yet it is a material one Quod ipse Dominus Ecclesiam simul cum Coemeterio dedicarat Sir H. Spelman observes That the custome of compassing Churches with Church-yards was not so ancient And withall he adds That although the British Cities had Churches from the beginning of Christianity yet there were no burying places within Cities
till Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury obtain'd leave for it about Anno Dom. 758. Upon this Alford and Cressy charge him with a manifest mistake and great impertinency A mistake in that Ethelbert and Augustine were both buried in the Church of St. Peter and Saint Paul And what then Doth Sir H. Spelman say there was no burying in Churches before Cuthbert's time No. But that there was no Burying Place in Cities before that time For the Church of St. Augustine or St. Peter and St. Paul was without the City For so the MS. Chronicle of St. Augustine 's saith That when the Bodies of the Kings and Archbishops were carried thither to burial they follow'd our Saviour who suffer'd without the Gate And that it was like the children of Israel 's going out of Egypt c. Which is sufficient to prove the truth of Sir H. Spelman's Observation which relates to Burying in Cities and not in Churches And withall the Reason alledged in one of the Charters of King Ethelbert why that place was assigned for a Burying place is because the City is for the Living and not for the Dead But why do they not prove the Antiquity of Church-yards to be so great which was the most to the purpose But they say Sir H. Spelman 's Observation was impertinent Glassenbury being then a solitary place and very far from being a City It is true If the weight had been laid by him onely upon that there being no Evidence of any Roman City there But his design was to prove That Church-yards were not then adjoining to Churches because the Cemeteries were without the City and the Churches within in the British times And even in the Saxon times he saith although they buried in Churches yet those Churches in which they buried were without the Cities till Cuthbert first procured the alteration by Royal authority and some say by Papal too But the Monks of St. Augustine's denied the Pope's confirmation But the main Circumstance I shall insist upon is the Incongruity of this Story with the condition of the Roman Province at that time For there was no such British King then as Arviragus and in that Countrey as will appear by the more Southern parts of the Island being reduced into the form of a Province before Anno Dom. 63. when the Glassenbury Tradition saith Joseph of Arimathea came first to Britain For Tacitus saith it was done as to the nearest part of the Island when A. Plautius and Ostorius Scapula were Governours here and between them and Suetonius Paulinus were Didius Gallus and Veranius In probability the Belgae were subdued by Vespasian of whom Suetonius saith That he conquer'd here two powerfull Nations aboue twenty Towns and the Isle of Wight By which we find his employment was Westward and the Belgae and Damnonii were the two powerfull Nations that way And in all the Actions afterwards we find no Care taken by the Roman Generals to secure themselves against the Belgae as they did against the Brigantes and Silures among whom Caractacus commanded so that there could be no such British King at that time among the Belgae as Arviragus is supposed to have been For if there had been when Ostorius marched Northwards having suppressed the Iceni it is not to be supposed that he would have fixed his Garrisons on the Severn and the Avon to secure the Province For as our Judicious Antiquary hath well observed The design of Ostorius therein was to keep the Provincial Britains from joining with the others and therefore all on this side those Garrisons were within the Roman Province Now the Places where the Garrisons were placed are by Tacitus said to be Antona and Sabrina The latter is certainly the Severn which parted the Belgae and the Silures For Antona Camden reads Aufona although Northanton comes nearer the former Name and Southanton had its Name from the River Anton which there runs into the Sea and Ptolemy calls Trisanton i. e. saith Camden Traith Anton the Mouth of Anton But he chuses Aufona for this reason because the two Avons rise both in the Country of Northampton and so cut the Island that none can pass out of the North but they must cross one or the other of them or else fall upon the Roman Garrisons between the Remainders whereof he takes notice of between the rise of the two Avons at Gildsborough and Daintry by which means he hindred all intercourse between the Brigantes and the Roman Province as the other did between the Silures and them But if there had been such a British King as Arviragus among the Belgae what would the fortifying the Severn have signified when the Enemies to the Romans lived on the Roman side Tacitus indeed mentions an Expedition of Ostorius against the Cangi whom Camden sometimes thought a small People among the Belgae but upon better consideration he places them in Cheshire where he found an Inscription concerning the CEANGI And Tacitus saith They were not far from the Sea coast which looks towards Ireland R. White of Basingstoke supposes this Arviragus to bestow the Island on Joseph of Arimathea when Trebellius Maximus was Governour here who succeeded Petronius Turpilianus the year C. Suetonius Paulinus was Consul at Rome Which according to the Savilian Fasti was in the twelfth year of Nero and Anno Domini 67. four years after Joseph's coming according to the Glassenbury Tradition but that is no great matter if at that time we are sure there was such a King as Arvinagus among the Belgae But he again contradicts the Glassenbury Story For Malmsbury saith That the Barbarous King obstinately refused to quit his Religion but out of pity to them gave them the Island to live in but White saith He was well affected to the Christian Religion and was in all respects an admirable Prince This Arviragus he takes out of the British History where pleasant Stories are told of him and from thence in Matthew Westminster as of his opposing Claudius and then marrying his Daughter Genissa and the reconciliation between him and Vespasian by her means c. And how his Son Marius succeeded him and then Coillus who was wonderfully beloved by the Roman Senate Here we have found at last the three Kings of Glassenbury Arviragus Marius and Coillus as they are exstant in Capgrave and others So that the Glassenbury Tradition had not its perfection till it had received these improvements from the British History For William of Malmsbury though he took so great pains in this matter yet knew nothing of Arviragus Marius and Coillus He speaks indeed of three Pagan Kings giving twelve portions of Land to the twelve Brethren but he knew not their Names Which Grant he saith was confirmed by King Lucius to twelve others who were placed there in imitation of the first twelve And this continued to the coming of St. Patrick And yet towards the Conclusion of this Book
the History of all Churches designing an Ecclesiastical History out of the Collections he made The Testimony of a Person so qualified cannot but deserve great Consideration especially when it is not delivered by way of Report but when the force of an Argument depends upon it And Eusebius in his third Book of Evangelical Demonstration undertakes to prove that the Apostles who first preached the Gospel to the World could be no Impostours or Deceivers and among other Arguments he makes use of this That although it were possible for such men to deceive their Neighbours and Countreymen with an improbable Story yet what madness were it for such illiterate men who understood onely their Mother Tongue to go about to deceive the World by preaching this Doctrine in the remotest Cities and Countries And having named the Romans Persians Armenians Parthians Indians Scythians he adds particularly that some passed over the Ocean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those which are called the British Islands From whence he concludes that some more than humane power did accompany the Apostles and that they were no light or inconsiderable men much less Impostours and Deceivers Now unless this had been a thing very well known at that time that Christianity was planted here by the Apostles why should he so particularly and expresly mention the British Islands It cannot be said that they are onely set down to denote the most remote and obscure places For long before that time the British Islands were very well known all over the Roman Empire Britain having been the Scene of many Warlike Actions from Claudius his time The Occasion of Emperours additional Titles and Triumphs The Residence of Roman Lieutenants and Legions The Place of many Roman Colonies Cities and Ways But especially about Constantine's time It was the talk of the World for the Revolt of Carausius and Allectus The Victory and Death of Constantius here The Succession of Constantine and his being declared Emperour by the Army in Britain So that scarce any Roman Province was so much interested in the several Revolutions of the Empire as Britain and therefore Constantine going from hence and being so much in the esteem of Eusebius it is not to be conceived that he should speak these Words at random but that he had made a diligent Enquiry both of Constantine himself to whom he was well known and of others of his Court concerning the State of the British Churches of what continuance they were and by whom planted After all which Eusebius affirms it with so much assurance That some of the Apostles preached the Gospel in the British Islands Much to the same purpose Theodoret speaks another learned and judicious Church Historian For among the Nations converted by the Apostles he expresly names the Britains and elsewhere saith That St. Paul brought Salvation to the Islands that lie in the Ocean after he had mention'd Spain and therefore in all probability the British Islands are understood by him And in another place he saith That St. Paul after his Release at Rome went to Spain and from thence carried the Light of the Gospel to other Nations What other Nations so likely to be understood as those which lay the nearest and are elsewhere said to be converted by the Apostles as the Britains are by him St. Jerome saith That St. Paul having been in Spain went from one Ocean to another imitating the motion and course of the Sun of Righteousness of whom it is said his going forth is from the end of Heaven and his circuit unto the ends of it And that his diligence in Preaching extended as far as the Earth it self Which are more indefinite Expressions But elsewhere he saith That St. Paul after his Imprisonment preached the Gospel in the Western parts By which the British Islands were especially understood As will appear by the following Testimony of Clemens Romanus who saith St. Paul preached Righteousness through the whole World and in so doing went 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the utmost bounds of the West Which Passage will necessarily take in Britain if we consider what was then meant by the Bounds of the West Plutarch in the Life of Caesar speaking of his Expedition into Britain saith He was the first who brought a Fleet into the Western Ocean By which he understands the Sea between Gaul and Britain And Eusebius several times calls the British Ocean the Western and joins the British Ocean and the Western parts together And elsewhere he mentions Gaul and the Western parts beyond it by which he understands Britain And Theodoret reckons up the Inhabitants of Spain of Britain and Gaul who saith he lie between the other two as those who dwell in the bounds of the West And among these the Britains must be in the utmost bounds because the Gauls lie in the midst Herodotus saith the Celtae are the most Western of all the Europeans Now the ancient Greek Geographers knew of but two Nations in Europe besides themselves the Celtae and the Scythae these latter comprehended all in the most Northern parts of Europe and the Celtae the Western And among these the remotest were the Britains Thence Horace calls them Vltimos Orbis Britannos As Catullus before him Vltimósque Britannos For before the discovery of Britain the Morini who lived over against it were said to be the utmost People of the Earth So Virgil calls them Extremos hominum Morinos And Pliny VltimÃque hominum existimati Morini Aethicus saith they were Gentes Oceani Occidentalis But Britain being throughly made known in the time of Claudius The utmost bounds of the West must be understood of Britain especially since Catullus calls Britain Vltimam Occidentis Insulam And Arnobius setting down the bounds of the Gospel East and West for the East he mentions the Indians and for the West the Britains I cannot but wonder what so Learned a man as Joh. Launoy means when being urged by his Adversaries with this place of Clemens his Epistle to prove the Apostolical Antiquity of the Gallican Churches He fairly rejects the authority of this Epistle which hath been so universally received by all Learned men since the first publishing of it But then he argues well that if this passage holds for Gaul it will much more hold for Britain So that from this undoubted Testimony of Clemens it follows not onely That the Gospel was preached in Britain in the times of the Romans but That St. Paul himself was the Preacher of it Which is affirmed by Venantius Fortunatus where he describes St. Paul's labours Transit Oceanum vel quà facit Insula Portum Quásque Britannus habet terras quásque ultima Thule But because this may look onely like a Poetical Expression 3. To make this out more fully I shall consider the concurrent probability of Circumstances together with these Testimonies And I shall make it appear 1. From
in that Epistle makes it his business to persuade Arsacius to take all things commendable from the Christians and no doubt this was thought so by his Predecessours who first set up this Sacerdotal Government of Provinces among them And if I mistake not it began much later than the first Settlement of Episcopacy in the British Churches For Eusebius saith That Maximinus appointed not onely Priests in the Cities but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chief-priests in the Provinces where Valesius mistakes his meaning for he thinks all the Innovation of Maximinus was the appointing them himself whereas they were wont to be chosen by the Decuriones in the Cities But he speaks of it as a new thing of Maximinus to appoint such an Order and Office among the Priests which had not been known before And that which puts this matter out of doubt is That Lactantius in his excellent Piece lately published out of MS. by Baluzius saith expresly of Maximinus Novo more Sacerdotes maximos per singulas Civitates singulos ex primoribus fecit i.e. That by a new Custome he appointed Chief Priests in the several Cities of the greatest Persons in them who were not onely to doe the Office of Priests themselves but to look after the inferiour Priests and by their means to hinder the Christians from their Worship and to bring them to punishment But as though this were not enough He appointed other Priests over the Provinces in a higher degree above the rest Although then Valesius asserted that such were elder than Maximinus yet Lactantius whose authority is far greater hath determined the contrary I am not ignorant that long before Maximinus his time Tertullian mentions the Praesides Sacerdotales but those do not relate to this matter but to the Spectacula as appears by the place Some insist on the Sacerdotes Provinciales in Tertullian but Rigaltius shews there ought to be a comma between them it being very unlikely the Provincial Priests should have Golden Crowns when those at Rome had not And in a Canon of the African Code we find the Sacerdotes Provinciae but that Council was long after Anno Dom. 407. And these seem to be no other than Advocates who were to appear for the Causes which concerned the Temples and Sacrifices throughout the Province According to which method the African Bishops there desire That the Churches might have Advocates too with the same Privileges Which Request was granted by Honorius and was the first Introduction of Lawyers into the Service of the Church who were called Defensores Ecclesiarum and were afterwards Judges in Ecclesiastical Causes But that which comes nearer to this matter is the Authority of the Asiarchae who in some Coins mentioned by Spanhemius are said to be Priests over thirteen Cities And this in the Law is called Sacerdotium Asiae But these seem to have been no other than those who took care of the publick Solemnities in the common Assembly in Asia when the People met out of these Cities to perform them either at Ephesus or Smyrna or any other of the Cities within this combination as is observed by many Learned Men. And although there were but one Chief at a time yet the Office seem'd to have passed by turns through the several Cities And he in whose City the Solemnities were to be kept was the President for that time and had the Title of Asiarcha But Alb. Rubenius shews from Aristides and Dio That the Asiarchae had a Superintendency over the Temples and the Priests within the Community of the Asian Cities But these were onely he saith For the Temples erected to the Caesars out of the common Stock The Temple of Diana at Ephesus belonging to the Ionian Community and not to that of Asia Herodes Atticus is called in the Inscription at Athens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caesar 's High-priest But that seems to be onely a Title without Power But it appears by the Inscription at Thyatira That the Asiarcha was called the High-priest of Asia and had Power to place Priests in the Cities under his Care But still this falls short of such Chief-priests in the Provinces as Maximinus appointed And thus I have endeavour'd to clear the Antiquity and Original Institution of Episcopacy here by shewing that it was not taken up according to the Monkish Tradition from the Heathen Flamins and Archiflamins But came down by Succession from the first planting of Apostolical Churches For although we cannot deduce a lineal Succession of Bishops as they could in other Churches where Writings were preserved yet assoon as through the Churches Peace they came to have intercourse with foreign Churches as in the Council of Arles they appeared with a proportionable number of Bishops with those of other Provinces And their Succession was not in the least disputed among them they subscribing to the Sentence and Canons as others did And what Canons did then pass did no doubt as much concern the British Churches to observe as any other Churches whose Bishops were there present Which Canons were passed by their own Authority For they never sent to the Bishop of Rome to confirm but to publish them as appears by the Synodical Epistle which they sent to him Their words are Quae decrevimus Communi Concilio Charitati tuae significamus ut omnes sciant quid in futurum obserâ—are debeant Baronius had good luck to find out the necessity of the Pope's confirmation here Whereas they plainly tell him they had already decreed them by common consent and sent them to him to divulge them i. e. As Petrus de Marca saith As the Emperours sent their Edicts to their Praefecti Praetorio Was that to confirm them It is true they say the Pope had a larger Diocese But if these words had implied so much as a Patriarchal Power over the Bishops there assembled how could they assume to themselves this Power to make Canons And onely to signifie to him what they had done and to desire him to communicate these Canons to others Would such a Message from a Council have been born since the Papal Supremacy hath been owned Nay how fancily would it have looked in any Council within the Patriarchats of the East to have done so But these Bishops of Arles knew no other Style then but Charitati tuae And they signifie to the Bishop of Rome what they had already decreed but not what they had prepared for him to confirm And they are so far from owning his Authority in calling them together That they tell him They were assembled at the Emperour's Command and were so far from expecting Directions from him that they tell him they had a Divine Authority present with them and a certain Tradition and Rule of Faith They wished indeed he had been present with them and to have judged together with them Was this to make him sole Iudge or could they believe him
at the same time to be their Supreme Head They could have been glad of the Company of their Brother of Rome as they familiarly call him But since his Occasions would not permit his Absence from home they acquaint him what they had done and so send him an Abstract of their Canons as may be seen at large both in Sirmondus and Baronius By this we see what Opinion the British Bishops and their Brethren had of the Pope's Supremacy But now to their Canons Those may be reduced to three Heads Either to the Keeping of Easter Or to the Discipline of the Clergy Or to Lay Communion 1. As to Easter That Council decreed Can. 1. That it should be observed on the same day and time throughout the World And that the Bishop of Rome should give notice of the day according to custome But this latter part was repealed as Binius confesses by the Council of Nice which referr'd this matter to the Bishop of Alexandria 2. As to the Clergy There were Canons which related to Bishops Priests and Deacons 1. To Bishops and those were four 1. That no Bishop should trample upon another Can. 17. which Albaspineus well interprets of invading another's Diocese 2. As to travelling Bishops that they should be allow'd to perform Divine Offices in the City they came unto Can. 19. 3. That no Bishop should consecrate another alone but he ought to take seven with him or at least three Can. 20. Which shews the number of Bishops then in the Western Provinces and so in Britain at that time The Nicene Canon C. 4. takes notice onely of three Bishops as necessary to be present because many Eastern Provinces had not seven as Christianus Lupus observes on that Canon In an African Council in Cresconius we find That because two had presumed to consecrate a Bishop they desire that twelve may be present But Aurelius Bishop of Carthage refused it for this reason Because in the Province of Tripolis there were but five Bishops Therefore when the Council of Arles appoints seven it doth suppose these Provinces to have a greater number of Bishops 4. That if any were proved to have been Traditores in the Time of Persecution i. e. to have given up the Sacred Books or Vessels or to have betrayed their Brethren and this proved by Authentick Acts Then they were to be deposed However their Ordinations are declared to be valid Can. 13. 2. As to inferiour Clergy 1. Excommunication is denounced against those that put out money to use Can. 12. 2. That they were not to forsake the Churches where they were ordained Can. 2. And Deprivation is threatned on that account Can. 21. 3. The Deacons are forbidden to celebrate the Lord's Supper there called Offering Can. 15. 3. As to Lay Communion 1. Those that refuse to continue in their Employment as Souldiers now the Persecution was over were to be suspended Communion Can. 3. The words are de his qui Arma projiciunt in Pace Of which some do hardly make tolerable sense Binius saith it must be read in Bello But nothing can be more contrary to Peace than War How then should such a mistake happen Albaspineus saith It is against those who refuse to be Souldiers in time of Peace Baronius saith It is against them that apostatize in time of Peace But if a Metaphorical Sense will be allow'd that which seems most probable is That many Christians now the Persecution was over neglected that Care of themselves and that Strictness of Discipline which they used before And therefore such are here threatned if not to be thrown out yet to be debarr'd Communion till they had recover'd themselves And much to this purpose Josephus Aegyptius and Joh. Antiochenus do understand the 12. Can. of the Council of Nice But if a Metaphorical Sense be thought too hard Then I suppose the meaning is against those who renounced being Souldiers as much now in time of the Churches Peace as under Persecution when they could not be Souldiers without committing Idolatry as appear'd in the Persecution of Licinius and others Constantine as Eusebius saith gave them all leave to forsake their Employment that would But the Council of Arles might well apprehend That if all Christians renounced being Souldiers They must still have an Army of Heathens whatever the Emperours were And therefore they had reason to make such a Canon as this since the Christians ever thought it lawfull to serve in the Wars Provided no Idolatrous Acts were imposed which was frequently done on purpose by the Persecutours as Maximianus Licinius Julian c. And this I think the true meaning of this difficult Canon 2. For those who drove the Chariots in Races and acted on Theatres as long as they continued so to doe There being so many Occasions of Idolatry in both of them They were to be cast out of Communion Can. 4 5. 3. That those who were Christians and made Governours of remote places should carry with them the communicatory Letters of their own Bishop and not be debarr'd Communion unless they acted against the Discipline of the Church This I take to be the meaning of Can. 7. 4. That those who were received into the Church in their weakness should have Imposition of hands afterwards Can. 6. 5. That those who brought Testimonials from Confessours should be bound to take communicatory Letters from their Bishop Can. 9. 6. That those who found their Wives in Adultery should be advised not to marry again while they did live Can. 10. 7. That those young Women who did marry Infidels should for a time be suspended Communion Can. 11. 8. That those who falsly accused their Brethren should not be admitted to Communion as long as they lived Can. 14. 9. That none who were excommunicated in one place should be absolved in another Can. 16. 10. That no Apostate should be admitted to Communion in Sickness But they ought to wait till they recover'd and shew'd amendment Can. 22. 11. That those who were baptized in the Faith of the Holy Trinity should not be rebaptized Can. 8. And this was the Canon which Saint Augustine on all occasions pressed upon the Donatists as Sirmondus and Launoy think And therefore they suppose this Council to be called so often a Plenary and Vniversal Council not from the number of Bishops present but from the Provinces out of which they came And so it was the first General Council of the Western Church CHAP. III Of the Succession of the British Churches from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum GReat Probabilities that the British Bishops were present in the Council of Nice The Testimonies of Constantine's being born in Britain clear'd The particular Canons of the Council of Nice relating to the Government of Churches explained How far the right of Election was devolved to the Bishops Of the Authority of Provincial Synods there settled Particular Exceptions as to the Bishops of Alexandria Rome and Antioch from ancient Custome
They had then a Patriarchal Power within certain bounds No Metropolitans under the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria The just Rights of the British Churches clear'd No evidence that they were under the Roman Patriarchate The Cyprian Privilege vindicated from all late Exceptions The Patriarchal Rights examin'd And from them the Pope's Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches at large disputed and overthrown Pope Leo's Arguments against the Patriarch of Constantinople held for the Western Churches against him The British Bishops present in the Council of Sardica What Authority granted by them to the Bishop of Rome and how far it extends HAving deduced the Succession of the British Churches down to the Appearance of the British Bishops at the first Council of Arles I now come to the famous Council of Nice And although the Subscriptions still remaining which are very imperfect and confused in the best Copies do not discover any of the British Bishops to have been there present yet there are many Probabilities to induce us to believe that they were For 1. Constantine declares that his Design was to have as full an Appearance of Bishops there from all parts as he could well get together To that end he sent forth an universal Summons for the Bishops to come out of all Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word used by Eusebius And presently after he saith Constantine's Edict was divulged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all Provinces of the Empire How can this be if there were no Summons in the Provinces of Gaul and Britain And to prevent all Objections as to difficulty and charges of Passage Eusebius adds That he had given order to have the publick Carriages ready and all Expences to be defrayed for them To this purpose Tractoriae were to be given them by the Emperour's Order which secured their Passage and Provision in all Places The form of which is exstant in Baronius And the Classis Britannica lying near to Britain to secure these Coasts from the Franks and Saxons who were then troublesome and over which Carausius so lately was appointed Admiral to clear these Seas the Bishops here could not want conveniency to transport them 2. Constantine expressed great satisfaction in the Numbers that did appear from all parts So that there is no reason to question That they did answer his expectation For in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria he saith He had brought together a great number of Bishops But more fully in his Epistle to the Churches That to the Settlement of the Christian Faith it was then necessary that all the Bishops should meet together or at least the greatest part Therefore he had assembled as many as he could But when it appears by the Council of Arles what numbers of Bishops there were in these Western Provinces how could Constantine use such Expressions as these if they were not summoned to appear And Eusebius saith Those that were summon'd did come according to appointment with great readiness not onely for the sake of the Council but of the Emperour And he after saith That the most eminent Bishops of all Churches as well those of Europe as Asia and Africa did come to Nice Did not Eusebius know of the Churches of Britain Yes most certainly For he mentions their early conversion to Christianity as I have already shew'd And in that very Book of the Life of Constantine he mentions the Churches of Britain as well as those of Gaul and Spain And there Constantine insists upon the consent of the Western and Northern Churches about Easter as well as the Southern and some of the Eastern Now if their Consent were so considerable as to add weight in this matter It is not to be supposed they should be left out when he designed an Oecumenical Council as far as it was in his power to make it so which certainly extended to all the Provinces within the Empire 3. It is not probable the Churches of Britain should be left out considering Constantine's relation to Britain For he was not onely proclaimed Emperour here on the death of his Father But if the Panegyrist who lived in that time may be believed He was born here For comparing Constantius and him together he saith That his Father deliver'd Britain from Slavery Tu etiam Nobiles illic oriendo fecisti The question now is Whether these words relate to his Birth or to his being proclaimed Caesar here Livineius is for the latter after Lipsius But I see no reason to decline the most natural and proper sense viz. That he brought a great honour to Britain by being born in it Eumenius in another Panegyrick applauds the happiness of Britain That had the first sight of Constantine Caesar. This is likewise capable of both senses But he immediately falls into a high commendation of Britain for its Temper Fertility Riches and Length of days If this were Constantine's own Countrey this was done like an Oratour If not to what purpose is all this And then he parallels Britain with Egypt where Mercury was born Which shews that he spake of the Place of Nativity Besides the former Panegyrist made his Oration to Maximianus and Constantine together upon his Marriage of Theodora his Daughter But it is not so probable that he would to him so much own Constantine's being made Caesar in Britain For that was not according to the Rules of Government in the Court of Maximianus and Dioclesian for as Galerius told Dioclesian when he would have had four Augusti No saith he That is against your own Maxim which is to have onely two Augusti and for them to name two Caesars Therefore it is not likely That the Oratour should to Maximianus his face own him to be made Caesar without the consent of those who were then Augusti But if he speaks of his being made Caesar by Galerius it is very doubtfull whether he were then in Britain For Lactantius saith he took time to consider about it and was very hardly brought to it But Nazarius and Praxagoras both say That Constantine went into Gaul soon after his Father's death And therefore Gaul first saw him Caesar according to the constitution of the Empire at that time So that this one Testimony of the Panegyrist weighs more with me than ten Cedrenus's or Nicephorus's who say he was born in the East But I produce this onely as an argument of the improbability That the British Churches should be omitted by Constantine in the Summons to his Oecumenical Council or That they being summon'd should neglect to go 4. They were certainly summon'd and did go to the Councils of Sardica and Ariminum after and to that of Arles before and why should we believe them left out in that of Nice This argument alone prevailed with Mr. Selden to believe them present at the Council of Nice And we are now forced to make use of the best Probabilities
brought to him out of the several Provinces as appears not onely by the plain Testimony of Epiphanius in the case of Meletius but by the Jurisdiction exercised by Dionysius over Pentapolis long before the Council of Nice And Athanasius saith the Care of those Churches then belong'd to the Bishop of Alexandria If it be said That there were then no Metropolitanes under the Bishop of Alexandria but he was the sole Metropolitane and therefore this was no Patriarchal but a Metropolitane power I answer 1. This doth not solve the difficulty but rather makes it greater because it doth more overthrow the Metropolitane Government of the Church here settled by the Council of Nice For then there were several Provinces without Metropolitanes How then could the Canons here made be ever observed in them as to the Consecration of Bishops and Provincial Synods 2. I do confess there was something peculiar in the case of the Bishop of Alexandria For all the Provinces of Egypt were under his immediate care which was Patriarchal as to Extent but Metropolitical in the Administration And so was the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome at the time which is the true reason of bringing the Custome of Rome to justifie that of Alexandria For as it is well observed by Christianus Lupus The Bishop of Rome had then no Metropolitanes under him within the Provinces subject to his Iurisdiction and so all Appeals lay immediately from the several Bishops to him And therein lay the exact parallel between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria So that I do not question but the first part of this Canon was brought in as a Proviso to the former which put the last resort into Provincial Synods For Alexander Bishop of Alexandria could not but think himself extremely concerned in this matter and although he prevailed against Arius in matter of Doctrine yet if he had gone home so much less than he came thither having great part of his Authority taken from him by Provincial Synods this would have weakned his Cause so much in Egypt that for his sake the Nicene Fathers were willing to make an Exception as to the general Rule they had laid down before Which proved of very ill consequence afterwards For upon this encouragement others in following Councils obtained as large Privileges though without pretence of Custome and the Church of Rome though but named occasionally here to avoid envy yet improved this to the utmost advantage And the Agents of the Bishop of Rome had the impudence in the Council of Chalcedon to falsifie the Title of this Canon and to pretend a Supremacy owned by it which was as far from the intention of this Council as a limited Patriarch is from being Head of the Church And it is impossible for them with all their Arts and Distinctions they have used to reconcile this Canon with an universal and unbounded Supremacy in the Bishop of that Church For it would be like the saying that the Sheriff of Yorkshire shall have Jurisdiction over all three Ridings because the King of England hath power over all the Nation What Parallel is there between these two But if the Clause be restrained to his Patriarchal power then we are certain the Council of Nice did suppose the Bishop of Rome to have onely a limited power within certain Provinces Which according to Ruffinus who very well understood the Extent of the Bishop of Romes Jurisdiction was onely to the Suburbicary Churches Which is the greater Diocese mention'd by the Council of Arles it so very much exceeding the Diocese of any Western Bishop besides And it is observable that Athanasius as he calls Milan the Metropolis of Italy i. e. of the Italick Diocese so he calls Rome the Metropolis of Romania i. e. of the Roman Diocese But the Council of Nice fixing the last Appeal to Provincial Synods in other Places utterly overthrows a patriarchal as well as unlimited Jurisdiction where ancient Custome did not then prevail 2. This Canon was designed to secure the Privileges of other Churches For that is the general nature of Exceptions to make the Rule more firm in cases not excepted So that all Churches are to enjoy their just Rights of having the last resort to Provincial Synods that cannot be brought within these Exceptions allow'd by the Council of Nice And here we fix our Right as to the British Churches that they were not under any Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome before the Council of Nice i. e. That he never had the Authority to consecrate the Metropolitanes or Bishops of these Provinces That he never called them to his Councils at Rome That he had no Appeals from hence That the British Bishops never owned his Jurisdiction over them and therefore our Churches were still to enjoy their former Privileges of being govern'd by their own Provincial Synods It was upon this ground the Cyprian Bishops made their Application to the Council of Ephesus Because the Bishop of Antioch did invade their Privileges contrary to the Nicene Canons pretending to a Right to consecrate their Metropolitane which they knew very well was a design to bring their Churches in subjection to him The Council upon hearing the Cause declared their opinion in favour of the Cyprian Privilege and not onely so but declared it to be a common Cause that concerned other Churches which were bound to maintain their own Rights against all Vsurpations And that no Bishops should presume to invade anothers Province And if they did usurp any authority over them they were bound to lay it down as being contrary to the Canons Savouring of Worldly ambition and destructive of that Liberty which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us with his own Bloud And therefore the Council decreed That every Province should enjoy its own Rights pure and inviolable which it had from the beginning according to the ancient Custome This important Canon is passed over very slightly by Baronius and others but Carolus à Sancto Paulo saith it proceeded upon a false suggestion although the Bishops of Cyprus do most solemnly avow the truth of their ancient Privilege Christianus Lupus imputes the Decree to the Partiality of the Council against the Bishop of Antioch although he confesses they insisted upon the Nicene Canons Which even Leo I. in his eager Disputes with Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople pleads for as inviolable and as the Standard of the Rights of Churches And by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus all Churches are bound to stand up for their own Rights against the Usurpations of foreign Bishops But Joh. Morinus apprehending the force of this consequence makes it his business to overthrow it by shewing that this was a particular and occasional thing and therefore not to be made an Example to other Churches A twofold occasion he assigns First the difficulty of Passage by Sea from Cyprus to Antioch especially in Winter when it was very possible a Metropolitane
might die and rather than live so long without one they chose to set up one themselves Another is the fourty years Schism in the Church of Antioch between Euzoius Meletius and Paulinus But these are onely slight and frivolous Evasions For the Cyprian Bishops never alledged the first Inconveniencie nor did the Bishop of Antioch the second No not when Alexander was unanimously chosen as Morinus confesseth and made his Complaint of the Cyprian Privilege to Innocentius I. as may be seen by his 18 Epistle To whom the Pope gave an ignorant Answer as appears by Morinus himself For he pretends that the Cyprian Bishops had broken the Nicene Canons in consecrating their own Metropolitane because saith he The Council of Nice had set the Church of Antioch not over any Province but over the Diocese By which he must mean the Eastern Diocese within which Cyprus was comprehended But there is not one word of the Diocese in the Nicene Canons and these things are refer'd to ancient Customs as Morinus acknowledgeth And he saith the Diocese of the Orient as distinguished from Asiana and Pontica was not settled at the time of the Nicene Council And yet he brings the Testimony of Innocentius to disprove the allegation of the Cyprian Bishops when he confesses that he was so mistaken in the Nicene Canons on which he grounds that Right And the Cyprian Bishops had the Nicene Canons to plead for themselves as the general Council of Ephesus thought who understood them far better than Innocentius seems to have done If what he saith had been true it is not to be thought that the Council of Ephesus would have determin'd in favour of the Cyprian Bishops But Morinus urges against them 1. That they named onely three Bishops Troilus Sabinus and Epiphanius But do they not ayer that it had been always so from the Apostles time 2. That no one pleaded for the Bishop of Antioch What then If they were satisfied of the truth of their Allegation the Nicene Council had already determin'd the case 3. They onely doe it conditionally if it were so But they enjoy'd their Privilege by virtue of it which shews it could not be disproved 4. The Cyprian Privilege was granted in Zeno's time upon finding the Body of St. Barnabas But it is evident they enjoy'd it before by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus And it was not properly a Privilege For that implies a particular exemption But it was a Confirmation of their just Rights And not onely as to them but as to all Provincial Churches So that this Decree is the Magna Charta of Metropolitane Churches against any Incroachments upon their Liberties And so the Council thought it when it appoints all Metropolitanes to take Copies of it and voids all Acts that should be made against it It is necessary now to enquire whether the Bishop of Rome had a Patriarchal power over the British Churches before the Council of Nice And the onely way to doe that is to examine the several Patriarchal rights which were allow'd in the Church And if the Marks of none of them do appear We have reason to conclude he had no Patriarchal power For however some urge the Conversion of Britain by Eleutherius as a Pretence to the Bishop of Rome's Authority yet allowing it to be true no man of understanding can pretend to derive a Patriarchal power from thence unless there were a concurrence of Jurisdiction from that time Neither were it of force if Saint Peter himself had preached the Gospel here and settled the Bishops of these Churches For by the same reason there could have been no Patriarchates at Antioch or Alexandria where he is supposed to have placed Saint Mark but if notwithstanding the Bishops of those Churches had a true Patriarchal power Then so might the Metropolitanes of the British Churches have their proper Rights Although Saint Peter himself had founded these Churches Morinus saith The Patriarchal power consisted in these four things 1. In the Consecration of Metropolitanes and the Confirmation of other Bishops 2. In calling Councils out of the several Provinces under his Iurisdiction 3. In receiving Appeals from Provincial Synods 4. In the Delegation of persons with authority from him to act in the several Provinces The first is that upon which the rest are founded As we see in the case of the Bishop of Antioch and the Bishops of Cyprus For if he could have carried the Point of Consecration of the Bishop of Constance he knew all the rest would follow In the Patriarchate of Alexandria it appears by the Epistles of Synesius That the Bishops of Pentapolis although then under a Metropolitane of their own yet had their Consecration from the Bishop of Alexandria When Justinian advanced the Bishop of Justiniana prima to the dignity of a Patriarch by giving him power over seven Provinces he expresses the Patriarchal power by this That all the Bishops of those Provinces should be consecrated by him and consequently be under his Jurisdiction and be liable to be called to his Council as Justinian elsewhere determines And when the Bishop of Justinianopolis removed from Cyprus thither he not onely enjoy'd the Cyprian privilege there but was allow'd for a Patriarch by the Council in Trullo and consequently the Consecration of the Bishops in the Province of Hellespont belong'd to him And when the Patriarchal power was settled at Constantinople that was the chief thing insisted upon at least as to Metropolitanes The first attempt the Bishop of Constantinople made towards any true Patriarchal power for all that the Council of Constantinople gave him was a mere honorary Title was the Consecrating Bishops in the Dioceses of Asiana and Pontica and Thracia And this was charged on St. Chrysostome as an Innovation in the Synod ad Quercum i. e. in the Suburbs of Chalcedon And his actings in the Council at Ephesus and Consecrating of many Bishops in that Diocese could not be justified by the Canons of the Church The best excuse is what Palladius makes viz. That his going into Asia was upon the great importunity of the Bishops and Clergy there For what Morinus saith That he did this by the Pope's authority is ridiculous It being not once thought of by St. Chrysostome or his Friends And for a Bishop of Constantinople to act by authority from the Bishop of Rome was then as absurd as for the Czar of Muscovy to act by Commission from the Emperour of Germany For it is plain That one stood upon equal Privileges with the other As fully appears by the Council of Chalcedon and the warm Debates which follow'd it between the two Sees And what could have served Leo's turn better against Anatolius than to have produced St. Chrysostome's Delegation from one of his Predecessours But in the Council of Chalcedon where the Right of the Patriarch of Constantinople was at large debated this Act of St. Chrysostome was alledged as
a remarkable Precedent to prove a Patriarchal power And there a Canon was passed That the Metropolitanes of those three Dioceses should be consecrated by the Bishop of Constantinople which was the establishment of his Patriarchal authority over them Upon this Pope Leo insisted on the Council of Nice and the Canons there made and pleaded strongly That this was an unjust Invasion of the Rights of those Churches which ought to be inviolably preserved And we desire no better Arguments against the Pope's pretended Patriarchal power over these Western Churches than what Leo insisted on for the Dioceses of Asia Pontus and Thrace against the Patriarchal power of the Bishop of Constantinople For we plead the very same things That all Churches ought to enjoy the Rights of Provincial Synods And that no Person can be excused in violating the Nicene Canons But if it be pretended That the Bishop of Rome had always a Patriarchal power over the British Churches Let any one Instance be given of it Let them tell us when he consecrated the Metropolitanes or Bishops of the three Provinces of Britain or summon'd them to his Councils or heard their Causes or received Appeals from hence or so much as sent any one Legate to exercise Authority in his Name And if they can produce nothing of this kind there is not then the least appearance of his Patriarchal power We do not deny that the Bishop of Rome had any Patriarchal power in those times But we say It was confined within the Roman Diocese As that did comprehend the Churches within the Suburbicary Provinces And within these he exercised the same Authority that the Eastern Patriarchs did i. e. He consecrated Bishops called Synods and received Appeals which are the main Patriarchal rights But if we go beyond these Provinces Petrus de Marca himself is extremely put to it to prove the exercise of a Patriarchal power He confesses the matter is not clear either as to Consecrations or Councils but he runs to References Consultations and Appeals in greater causes And yet he confesses as to Appeals which onely do imply a just Authority There is no one certain evidence of them before the Council of Sardica So that by the confession of the most learned and judicious of those who plead for the Pope's being Patriarch of the West No proper Acts of Patriarchal power can be proved beyond the Roman Diocese before the Council of Nice And the same learned Archbishop doth grant that the Bishop of Rome did not consecrate even in Italy out of the Roman Diocese as appears by the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia Nor in Africa nor in Spain nor in Gaul And after these Concessions it is impossible to prove the Bishop of Rome Patriarch of the Western Churches Which some late Writers of that Church have been much concerned at and have endeavour'd to shew the contrary Christianus Lupus hath written a Dissertation on purpose But the greatest thing he saith to prove it is That to affirm that the Bishop of Rome had no such authority is an Eusebian and Schismatical Errour and came first from the Council of Philippopolis yet he grants That in the Western Provinces the Metropolitanes did consecrate their Suffragans and they their Metropolitanes But all this he saith was done by special privilege But where is any such privilege to be seen It is evident by the Nicene Canons every Province had its own just Rights for these things And if there were any privilege it must be produced on the other side He doth not deny That Leo disown'd having any thing to doe in the Consecration of the Gallican Bishops in his Epistle to the Bishops of Vienna or that Hincmarus saith The Transalpine Bishops did not belong to the Consecration or Councils of the Bishop of Rome And therefore Ecclesiastical Causes were to be heard and determin'd by Provincial Synods But he thinks to bring off all at last by saying That these were privileges indulged because of distance from Rome Which is a mere Shuffle without any colour for it unless such privileges could be produced for otherwise it will appear to be common Right And yet this is the main which a late Authour Emanuel à Schelstraet hath to say about this matter But this hath been the common Artifice of Rome Where any Bishops insisted on their own Rights and ancient Customs and Canons of Councils to pretend that all came from privileges allow'd by the See of Rome And the Defenders of it are now shamefully driven to these Arts having nothing else left to plead for the Pope's Usurpation But this last Authour the present Keeper of the Vatican Library which makes so great a noise in the World for Church Records having endeavour'd in a set Discourse to assert the Pope's Patriarchal power over the Western Churches I shall here examine the strength of all that he produceth to that purpose He agrees with us in determining the Patriarchal Rights which he saith lie in these three things 1. In the right of Consecration of Bishops and Metropolitanes 2. In the right of summoning them to Councils 3. In the right of Appeals All which he proves to be the just and true Patriarchal Rights from the seventeenth Canon of the eighth General Council And by these we are contented to stand or fall 1. As to the Right of Consecration of Bishops and Metropolitanes throughout the Western Churches He confesses That such a Right was not exercised Because the Metropolitanes in the several Provinces were allow'd to consecrate the Bishops belonging to them upon the Summons of the Provincial Synod And for this he produces the 4 th Canon of the Council of Nice Here then is a plain allowance of the Metropolitane Rights by this General Council But how doth this prove the Patriarchal Or rather is it not a plain derogation from them No saith he The Patriarchal Rights are preserved by the sixth Canon I grant it But then it must be proved That the Patriarchal Rights of the Bishop of Rome did at the time of the Council of Nice extend to all the Western Churches which I utterly deny Yet I grant farther That the Bishop of Rome had all the Patriarchal Rights within the Provinces which were then under his Jurisdiction and were therefore called the Suburbicary Churches But these were so far from taking in all the Western Churches that they did not comprehend the Provinces of Italy properly so called But he offers to prove out of Gratian and from the Testimony of Pelagius Bishop of Rome That by reason of the length of the way the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia did consecrate each other But is such Authority sufficient to prove that the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia were of old subject to the Roman Patriarchate We have nothing to prove this but the bare word of one who was too much concerned to be a competent Witness and too much alone to
were not negligent in promoting their own Authority in the Provinces of Illyricum nor in withstanding the Innovations of the Bishop of Rome To which purpose they obtained an Imperial Edict to this day extant in both Codes which strictly forbids any Innovation in the Provinces of Illyricum and declares That if any doubtfull Case happen'd according to the ancient Custome and Canons it was to be left to the provincial Synod but not without the advice of the Bishop of Constantinople The occasion whereof was this Perigenes being rejected at Patrae the Bishop of Rome takes upon him to put him into Corinth without the consent of the provincial Synod This the Bishops of Thessaly among whom the chief were Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus look upon as a notorius Invasion of their Rights and therefore in a provincial Synod they appoint another Person to succeed there Which Proceeding of theirs is heinously taken at Rome as appears by Boniface's Epistles about it both to Rufus of Thessalonica whom he had made his Legate and to the Bishops of Thessaly and the other Provinces But they make Application to the Patriarch of Constantinople who procures this Law in favour of the ancient provincial Synods and for restraint of the Pope's Incroachments but withall so as to reserve the last resort to the Bishop of Constantinople At this Boniface shews himself extremely nettled as appears by his next Epistle to Rufus and incourages him to stand it out to the utmost And gives him authority to excommunicate those Bishops and to depose Maximus whom they consecrated according to the ancient Canons But all the Art of his management of this Cause lay in throwing the Odium of it upon the Ambition of the Bishop of Constantinople And thus the Contention between the Bishops of the two Imperial Cities proved the destruction of the Ancient Polity of the Church as it was settled by the Council of Nice It is said by Petrus de Marca and Holstenius That all this attempt of Theodosius was to no purpose Because afterwards the Bishops of Macedonia submitted to the Pope's power And that Rescript was revoked by another of Theodosius published in the Roman Collection It cannot be denied That for some time the Bishop of Rome prevailed but it appears that it was not long by the sad Complaint made to Boniface II. of the Prevalency of the Patriarch of Constantinople in those parts made by Stephen Bishop of Larissa the Metropolis of Thessaly and his Brethren Theodosius Elpidius and Timotheus And our Author himself confesses that it appears by the Notitiae That these Provinces were at last wholly taken away from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and made subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople From which account of the matter of Fact we have these things very observable 1. That there was no Precedent could be produced as to the Pope's interposing in their Consecrations before the time of Siricius It is true Damasus his Epistle to Acholius is mention'd sometimes by the following Popes But any one that reads both his Epistles in the Roman Collection will find that neither of them do relate to this matter And the former is not onely directed to Acholius but to several other Bishops And the Design of it is To advise them to take care that a worthy person be put into the See of Constantinople in the approaching Council And to the same purpose is the following Epistle to Acholius But what is this to the Pope's power about Consecrations in the Provinces of Illyricum And how was Acholius more concern'd than Euridicus Severus Vranius and the rest of the Bishops 2. That the Bishop of Rome's interposing in their Consecrations was disliked and opposed as an Innovation by the Bishops of those Provinces Which appears by the Epistles of Pope Boniface about the Case of Perigenes For by the Canons of the Church the Consecration and Designation of the Bishops of the Province was left to the provincial Synods And therefore they did not understand on what account the Bishop of Rome should interpose therein 3. That the Law of Theodosius was principally designed to restore the Canonical Discipline and the Authority of provincial Synods For the words are Omni innovatione cessante vetustatem Canones pristinos Ecclesiasticos qui nunc usque tenuerunt per omnes Illyrici Provincias servari praecipimus Which cannot be well understood of any other Canons than such as relate to the Ecclesiastical Government of Provinces and not of any peculiar Customs there as Gothofred mistakes the meaning of them And in case any difference did arise it was to be left Conventui sacerdotali sanctóque Iudicio i. e. To the provincial Synod and not to any Legate of the Bishop of Rome Whose incroachment was that Innovation which was to be laid aside as is now plain by the Roman Collection without which this Law was not rightly understood as appears by the several attempts of Baronius Peron and Gothofred 4. That although by the means of Honorius upon the importunity of the Bishop of Rome this Rescript was recalled by Theodosius Yet the former onely was enter'd into the Codes both of Theodosius and Justinian which hath all the formality of a Law being directed to the P. P. of Illyricum and hath the date by Consuls annexed but the Revocation is onely a Rescript from Theodosius to Honorius and refers to an Edict sent to the P. P. of Illyricum which not appearing the other being enter'd into the Code gives great ground to believe that this Revocation was voided and the former stood as the Law Which ought rather to be presumed to be the Act of Justinian himself the Privileges of Constantinople being concerned herein than merely the Pique of Tribonian and the Collectours of the Laws against the Roman See as Holstenius suggests So that from this whole matter it appears what Opposition the Pope's interposing in foreign Consecrations met with not onely from the Bishops of those Provinces but from the Imperial Laws But let us now see what Patriarchal Authority as to Consecrations the Bishops of Rome exercised in these more Western Churches As to Gaul our Authour confesseth That the Bishops of Rome did not challenge the practice of Consecrations to themselves as appears by the Words of Leo to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna which he produces Non nobis Ordinationes vestrarum Provinciarum defendimus for so he understands these Words of Consecrations although they are capable of another meaning viz. That he did not take upon him to manage the Affairs of the Gallican Churches but onely took care that they should doe it themselves according to the Canons which was Leo's Pretence in that Epistle but then he distinguisheth between the Right it self and the Exercise of it which may be parted with by particular privileges granted but the Right it self may be still reserved And the same he after saith in general
of the Western Provinces wherein he can trace no Footsteps of the practice and therefore concludes it must be from privileges granted by the Bishops of Rome by reason of distance which the Patriarch of Alexandria would not grant But we are now proving the Right by the Practice and therefore it is unreasonable to alledge a Right without it For this way of proving is ridiculous viz. to prove that the Pope had patriarchal Rights because he did exercise them And then to say Though he did not exercise them yet he had them And so to prove that he had them because he was Patriarch of the West Yet this is in truth the way of proof this late Authour useth He sheweth from Lupus That all Consecrations of metropolitane and provincial Bishops belong to the Patriarch Then to prove a patriarchal Power it is necessary to prove that all the Consecrations within the Provinces do belong to that See But how doth this appear as to the Western Provinces Did all the Consecrations of Bishops within them belong to the Bishops of Rome If not then they were not within the Roman Patriarchate If they did we expect the proof of it by the practice No he confesseth the practice was different But still they had the patriarchal Right How so Yes saith he That is plain because the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch of the West This way of proving may be good against De Marca who had granted the Pope to be the Western Patriarch but it is ridiculous to those that deny it But he attempts something farther viz. That the Bishop of Rome had before the Council of Nice the power of deposing Bishops in Gaul as appears by Martianus of Arles deposed by Stephanus This Martianus had openly declared himself of the Novatian party At which Faustinus Bishop of Lyons and other Bishops in Gaul were very much troubled and expressed their Resentments of it but he slighted their Censures of him Both parties made Applications to St. Cyprian and Martianus desired to preserve Communion with him But he was utterly rejected there for joining in the Novatian Schism But it seems by St. Cyprian's Epistle he had still hopes not to be condemned at Rome although the Schism began there For saith he How ill would it look after Novatian himself had been so lately and universally rejected to suffer our selves to be deceived by his Flatterers St. Cyprian and his Collegues were in no danger for they had already detected and condemned him therefore this must be understood of Stephen which is the Reason he presses him so hard and with some Authority to dispatch his Letters to the People of Arles to chuse another Bishop in the place of Martianus Dirigantur in Provinciam ad Plebem Arelatae consistentem à te Literae c. And a little before he tells him He ought to send his mind at large to their Brethren the Bishops of Gaul That they ought not suffer him to insult over their Fraternity c. And the Reason he gives for this Freedom which he useth with him is Because they held the Balance of the Government of the Church in common among them And being several Pastours they took care of the same Flock who ought all to join in condemning such a Follower of Novatian and thereby preserve the reputation of their Predecessours Cornelius and Lucius who were glorious Martyrs and he especially who succeeded them And so not doubting his compliance in a friendly manner he desires him to let him know who succeeded Martianus at Arles that he might know to whom to write I appeal to any Man of common Sense whether this looks like the Application made to the Western Patriarch to whom St. Cyprian himself owed subjection as such For when the Bishops of Rome began to challenge a patriarchal Power over the Churches of Thessaly they expected Application to be made to them in a Style suitable to that Dignity as is very remarkable in the Roman Collection As in the Petition of Stephanus Bishop of Larissa the Metropolis of Thessaly Domino meo sancto ac beatissimo revera venerando Patri Patrum Archiepiscopo atque Patriarchae Bonifacio data supplicatio à Stephano exiguo And in the very same style Elpidius Stephanus and Timotheus These write like men that knew their distance and what Authority the Bishop of Rome then challenged But the meek and humble St. Cyprian seems to stand upon equal Terms with the Bishop of Rome or rather as if he were upon the higher Ground he takes upon him to tell him his duty and rather checks him for his neglect in it than owns any Authority in him superiour to his So that if any patriarchal Power be to be inferr'd from this Epistle it would be much rather that St. Cyprian was Patriarch of the West than the Bishop of Rome since he is rather superiour who directs what another should doe than he who doeth what is directed And if from hence it follows That the execution of the Canons was in the Bishop of Rome it will likewise follow that the directing that execution was in the Bishop of Carthage But we are told that even in Africa no Consecrations were allow'd without the consent of the Bishop of Rome This is great News indeed of which the African Code gives us no information But Holstenius finds it in an Epistle of Siricius or of Innocentius which he pleases for the same Rules are in both onely in the Canon Law it is taken from Innocentius and the true Sense is given of it Extra conscientiam Metropolitani Episcopi nullus audeat ordinare Episcopum But what is this to the Roman Patriarchate And our Authour doth not seem to rely upon it But he alledges a Passage in Optatus that Eunomius and Olympius two Bishops were sent to Carthage to consecrate a Bishop in the place both of Cecilian and Donatus And Albaspinaeus saith they were sent by the Pope's Authority But this Observation of his he hath not from Optatus by whom it rather appears that they were sent by the Emperour who stopt Cecilian at Brixia And no one that reads the Passages about Milthiades at that time and how Constantine joined Marinus Maternus and Rheticius in Commission with him can ever imagine that the Bishop of Rome was then esteemed the Patriarch of the West and as such to have had Jurisdiction over the Bishops of Africa The last Attempt to prove the Pope's patriarchal Power as to Consecrations in the Western Churches is from his Authority of giving Palls to the Metropolitanes Which he proves from Gregory's Epistles as to the Bishops of Arles and London And from an Epistle of Boniface Bishop of Mentz wherein he saith it was agreed in France That the Metropolitanes should receive Palls from the Roman See But how far are we now gone from the Council of Nice and the Rules of Church-politie then established We do not deny that
the Bishops of Rome did assume to themselves in following Ages a more than patriarchal Power over the Western Churches But we say there are no footsteps of it in the time of the Council of Nice And that what Power they gained was by Vsurpation upon the Rights of Metropolitanes and provincial Synods then settled by general consent of the Bishops of the Christian Church But this Vsurpation was not made in an Instant but by several Steps and Degrees by great Artifice and Subtilty drawing the Metropolitanes themselves under a Pretence of advancing their Authority to betray their Rights And among the Artifices of the Court of Rome this of the Pall was none of the least For by it the Popes pretended to confirm and inlarge the privileges of Metropolitanes which hereby they did effectually overthrow as though they received them merely from the Favour of the Bishop of Rome which did undoubtedly belong to them by ancient Right But that this was a mere Device to bring the Metropolitanes into dependence on the Court of Rome appears by the most ancient Form of sending the Pall in the Diurnus Romanus where it is finely called the shewing their unanimity with St. Peter But what the Nature and Design and Antiquity of the Pall was is so fully set forth by Petrus de Marca and Garnerius that I shall say no more of it Onely that from hence the ancient Rights of the Metropolitane Churches do more fully appear because it was so long before this Badge of Subjection was received in these Western Churches For the Synod which Boniface mentions wherein the Metropolitanes consented to receive Palls from Rome was not till the middle of the 8 th Century And great Arts and Endeavours were used in all the Western Churches before they could be brought to yield to this real Badge of the Pope's patriarchal Power over them Which is particularly true of the British Churches which preserved their Metropolitane Rights as long as their Churches were in any tolerable condition And that without suffering any diminution of them from the Pope's patriarchal Power As will farther appear in this Discourse 2. The next Patriarchal Right to be examined is that of calling Bishops within their Jurisdiction to Councils It is truly observed by de Marca That those who received Consecration from another were bound by the ancient Discipline of the Church attend to his Councils And in the Sense of the old Canon Law those two Expressions To belong to the Consecration or to the Council were all one And so every Metropolitane had a Right to summon the Bishops of his Province and the Primates or Patriarchs as many as received Consecrations from them Thus the Bishop of Rome's patriarchal Council consisted of those within his own Diocese or the Suburbicary Churches Where there being no Metropolitanes the Roman Council did much exceed others in the number of Bishops belonging to it thence Galla Placidia relates how she found the Bishop of Rome compassed about with a great number of Bishops which he had gather'd out of innumerable Cities of Italy by reason of the Dignity of his Place It seems then no Bishops of other Western Churches were summon'd to the Roman Councils But the Bishops of Sicily were then under the Italian Government and reckon'd with the Italian Bishops It may be question'd whether in Ruffinus his time they were comprehended within the Suburbicary Churches But in Leo's time the Bishops of Rome had inlarged their Jurisdiction so far as to summon the Bishops of Sicily to their Councils This is evident from Leo's Epistle to all the Bishops of Sicily where he charges them every year to send three of their Number to a Council in Rome And this he requires in pursuance of the Nicene Canons From whence it seems probable That the Bishop of Rome did by degrees gain all the Churches within the Jurisdiction of the Vicarius Vrbis as his patriarchal Diocese For Sicily was one of the ten Provinces belonging thereto But our Authour saith That the Council of Nice speaks there onely of provincial Councils and not of patriarchal What then Was Sicily within the Roman Province considering the Bishop of Rome merely as a Metropolitane That is very absurd since Sicily was a Province of it self and as such ought to have had a Metropolitane of its own And so all the other neighbour Provinces to Rome whereas we reade of none there but as far as the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction extended it was immediate and swallow'd up all Metropolitane Rights I know Petrus de Marca thinks there were Metropolitanes within the Suburbicary Churches But I see no Authority he brings for it besides the Nicene Canon and the Decrees of Innocentius and Leo which relate to other Churches But any one that carefully reads the Epistles of Leo to the Bishops within those Provinces and compares them with those written to the Bishops without them will as Quesnel hath well observed find so different a strain in them that from thence he may justly infer that there were no Metropolitanes in the former but there were in the latter When he writes to the Bishop of Aquileia he takes notice of his provincial Synod and directs the Epistles of general concernment to the Metropolitane as he doth not onely to him but to the Bishop of Ravenna too And when Eusebius Bishop of Milan wrote to him he gives an account of the provincial Council which he held But there is nothing like this in the Epistles sent to the Bishops within the ten Provinces no mention is therein made of Metropolitanes or of any provincial Synods But here we find the Bishops of Sicily in common summon'd to send three of their number to an annual Council at Rome From whence I conclude That the Pope's Patriarchal Council lay within the compass of these Suburbicary Churches I do not deny but upon occasion there might be more Bishops summon'd to meet at a Council in Rome As when Aurelian gave the Bishops of Italy leave to meet at Rome in the Case of Paulus Samosatenus And when they met with Julius in the Case of Athanasius and such like Instances of an extraordinary Nature and very different from the fixed canonical Councils which were provincial elsewhere but in the Roman Diocese they were Patriarchal yet they extended no farther than to the Bishops within the Suburbicary Churches And whosoever considers the Councils of Italy in Saint Ambrose's time published by Sirmondus will find that the Bishops of the Italick Diocese did not think themselves obliged to resort to Rome for a Patriarchal Council And which is more observable the latter of them extremely differs from Damasus about the same matter which was the Consecration of Maximus to be Bishop of Constantinople For Damasus in his Epistle to Acholius c. bitterly exclaims against the setting up Maximus as though all Religion lay at stake and admonished them at
the next Council at Constantinople to take care that a fitter Person be chosen in his room And the same he re-inforces in another Epistle to Acholius alone But St. Ambrose and the Bishops of Italy with him in a Conciliar Address to Theodosius justifie the Consecration of Maximus and dislike that of Gregory and Nectarius Now in this Case I desire to know whether this Council own'd the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchal Power For Em. Ã Schelstraet following Christianus Lupus saith That in the Pope's patriarchal Power is implied that the Bishops are onely to consult and advise but the determination doth wholly belong to the Pope as Patriarch And that the Bishop of Alexandria had the same power appears by the Bishops of Egypt declaring they could not doe any thing without the Bishop of Alexandria Let us then grant That the Bishop of Rome had the same Authority within his Patriarchal Diocese doth not this unavoidably exclude the Bishops of the Italick Diocese from being under his Patriarchate For if they had been under it would they have not barely met and consulted and sent to the Emperour without him but in flat opposition to him And when afterwards the Western Bishops met in Council at Capua in order to the composing the Differences in the Church of Antioch although it were within the Roman Patriarchate yet it being a Council of Bishops assembled out of the Italick Diocese as well as the Roman the Bishop of Rome did not preside therein but St. Ambrose as appears by St. Ambrose his Epistle to Theophilus about the proceedings of this Council For he saith He hopes what Theophilus and the Bishops of Egypt should determine in that Cause about Flavianus would not be displeasing to their Holy Brother the Bishop of Rome And there follows another Epistle in St. Ambrose which overthrows the Pope's Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches by the confession of the Pope himself For that which had passed under the name of St. Ambrose is now found by Holstenius to be written by Siricius and is so published in the Roman Collection and since in the Collection of Councils at Paris This Epistle was written by Siricius to Anysius and other Bishops of Illyricum concerning the Case of Bonosus which had been referr'd to them by the Council of Capua as being the neighbour Bishops and therefore according to the Rules of the Church fittest to give Judgement in it But they either out of a complement or in earnest desired to know the Pope's opinion about it So his Epistle begins Accepi literas vestras de Bonoso Episcopo quibus vel pro veritate vel pro modestia nostram sententiam sciscitari voluistis And are these the Expressions of one with Patriarchal Power giving answer to a Case of difficulty which canonically lies before him But he afterwards declares he had nothing to doe in it since the Council of Capua had referr'd it to them and therefore they were bound to give Judgment in it Sed cum hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Capuensis judicium advertimus quod nobis judicandi forma competere non possit If the Bishop of Rome had then patriarchal Power over all the Western Churches how came he to be excluded from judging this Cause by the Proceedings of the Council of Capua Would Pope Siricius have born this so patiently and submissively and declined meddling in it if he had thought that it did of Right belong to him to determine it If the Execution of the Canons belongs to the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Patriarch how comes the Council of Capua not to refer this matter immediately to him who was so near them But without so much as asking his Judgment to appoint the hearing and determining it to the Bishops of Macedonia We have no reason to question the sincerity of this Epistle which Card. Barberine published as it lay with others in Holstenius his Papers taken out of the Vatican and other Roman MSS. by the express Order of Alexander VII And although a late Advocate for the Pope's Power in France against De Marca hath offer'd several Reasons to prove this Epistle counterfeit yet they are all answer'd by a Doctour of the Sorbon So that this Epistle of Siricius is a standing Monument not onely against the Pope's absolute and unlimited Power but his patriarchal out of his own Diocese But to justifie the Pope's patriarchal Power in calling the Western Bishops to his Council at Rome we have several Instances brought As of some Gallican Bishops present at the Council under Damasus Wilfrid an English Bishop under Agatho a Legate from the Council held in Britain with Felix of Arles and others and some others of later times But what do extraordinary Councils meeting at Rome prove as to the Bishop of Rome's being Patriarch of the Western Churches Do the Western Councils meeting at Milan Arles Ariminum Sardica or such Places prove the Bishops of them to be all Patriarchs These things are not worth mentioning unless there be some circumstance to shew that the Bishop of Rome called the Western Bishops together by his patriarchal Power for which there is no evidence brought But there is a very great difference between Councils assembled for Vnity of Faith or Discipline from several Dioceses and provincial Synods and patriarchal Councils called at certain times to attend the patriarchal See as is to be seen in the Diurnus Romanus where the Bishops within the Roman Patriarchate oblige themselves to obey the Summons to a Council at Rome at certain fixed times as Garnerius shews which he saith was three times in the year But he adds this extended no farther than to the Bishops within the Suburbicary Churches who had no Primate but the Bishop of Rome and so this was a true patriarchal Council 3. But the last Right contested for is that of Appeals in greater Causes By which we understand such Application of the Parties concerned as doth imply a Superiour Jurisdiction in him they make their resort to whereby he hath full Authority to determine the matters in difference For otherwise Appeals may be no more than voluntary Acts in the Parties and then the Person appealed to hath no more Power than their Consent gives him Now in the Christian Church for preservation of Peace and Unity it was usual to advise in greater Cases with the Bishops of other Churches and chiefly with those of the greatest Reputation who were wont to give their Judgment not by way of Authority but of Friendly correspondence not to shew their Dominion but their Care of preserving the Unity of the Church Of this we have a remarkable Instance in the Italick Council of which St. Ambrose was President who did interpose in the Affairs of the Eastern Church not with any pretence of Authority over them but merely out of Zeal to keep up and restore Unity among them They knew very well how suspicious the Eastern
was restored upon his Application to the Emperour without any Synod called to that end and did execute his Office as Bishop of Alexandria and for this reason the Council of Antioch confirmed his Deposition A late Authour goes about to prove That the Canon against Athanasius did not pass the Council of Antioch but that it passed an Assembly of 40 Eusebians when the rest were gone But this is incredible as Baronius his Conceit is ridiculous who takes the 36 Mansions that Antioch was distant from Alexandria for 36 Arian Bishops and there is no Testimony of Antiquity to prove it But there is no reason to imagine any other Canon against Athanasius besides these two for they effectually did his business That which Palladius saith That in the Canon it was said whether the Bishop were deposed justly or unjustly is very improbable But that which gave occasion for him to say so was because the ancient Canon called Apostolical 28. had in it the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justly which they left out the better to effect their Design That so the merits of the Cause might not be enquired into But there was an Errour in the first Instance committed not by the Council of Antioch but by that of Tyre unless the extraordinary Summons of that Council by the Emperour's Command as Eusebius saith be a dispensation as to the regular Proceedings in common Cases But there was scarce any thing regular in the Proceeding of that Council For according to the Rules of the Church this Cause ought to have been heard in Egypt by the Bishops there And they justly complain of the Neglect of this in their Synodical Epistle And Liberius made a reasonable Proposition to Constantius That a Council might be summoned at Alexandria That this Cause which had given so much disturbance should be heard upon the Place all Parties being present Which was the best Expedient at last But the most natural way was to have begun there And therefore the Sardican Council did very well to reduce the Nicene Canon about proceeding within the Province in the first Instance 2. If the Party be grieved at the Sentence passed against him then that there be a re-hearing of it granted Can. 2. This the Council of Antioch allow'd Can. 12. by a greater Synod of Bishops but takes away all hopes of Restitution from him that made his Appeal to the Emperour The meaning of the Canon is not to exclude an Address for a greater Synod but an Appeal to have the Emperour reverse the Sentence without any farther hearing by another Assembly of Bishops So that the final resort was hereby settled in a greater Council from which no Appeal should lie This Canon is supposed to be particularly design'd against Athanasius But I do not find that he made Application to the Emperour to be restored with a Non-obstante to the Sentence of the Tyrian Council But to have a more indifferent hearing by another Council So the Bishops of Egypt testify in their Synodical Epistle extant in Athanasius But their Proceeding against him at Antioch was because after this he took Possession of his See without another Sentence of a greater Synod But the great difficulty is to reconcile this Canon with the fifteenth of the same Council which takes away all Liberty of Appeal from the unanimous Sentence of a provincial Synod Petrus de Marca a Man of more than ordinary Sagacity in these matters was sensible of this appearance of Contradiction and he solves it thus That no Appeal is allow'd from a provincial Synod Can. 15. But notwithstanding by Can. 12. there is a Liberty of proceeding by way of Petition to the Emperour for a re-hearing the Cause by a greater Synod And in this Case the Emperour was to be Judge whether it were fit to grant another hearing or not and although by this Canon in the case of a general Consent no neighbour Bishop could be called in as they might in case of Difference by Can. 14. Yet if the Emperour thought they proceeded partially he might either join Bishops of another Province with them or call a more general Council out of the Province as Constantine did at Tyre This was the undoubted Right of the Emperours to call together Assemblies of Bishops for what Causes they thought expedient But Socrates expresly saith That no Appeal was allow'd by the Canons of the Church For speaking of Cyrill of Jerusalem's being deposed he saith he appealed to a greater Court of Judicature which Appeal Constantius allow'd but then he adds That he was the first and onely person who contrary to the Custome and Canons of the Church made such an Appeal H. Valesius contradicts Socrates because of the Appeal of the Donatists to Constantine from the Council of Arles But this is nothing to the purpose for the actions of the Donatists were not regarded And besides their Appeal was to Constantine to hear the Cause himself But here Cyrill appealed to a greater number of Bishops according to the Canon of Antioch And then appear'd at the Council of Seleucia to have his Cause heard Baronius is much puzzled with this Expression of Socrates because it would take away Appeals to the Pope But the Eastern Bishops never understood any such thing And Cyrill made his Appeal to a greater Synod The Canons of Sardica which Baronius quotes were not received and scarce known in the Eastern Church Athanasius fled to the Western Bishops because he was so ill used in the East not because of any Authority in the Bishop of Rome to receive Appeals But Cyrill went according to the Canons of Antioch making application to Constantius to be heard by a greater Synod Sozomen saith that Constantius recommended the Cause of Cyrill to the Council of Ariminum But that cannot be since he expresly forbad the Western Bishops in that Council to meddle with the Causes of the Eastern Bishops And declares whatever they did in that matter should have no effect Therefore the Council to which Constantius referred this Cause must be that of Seleucia which was assembled at the same time Which seeming to take off from the Right of Provincial Synods established in the Council of Nice Socrates condemns as uncanonical and saith He was the first that proceeded in this method of seeking to the Emperour for a greater Council But then 3. The Council of Sardica made an Innovation in this matter For although it allows the liberty of a re-hearing yet it seems to take away the Power of granting it from the Emperour as far as in them lay and gives it to Julius Bishop of Rome for the honour of St. Peter And if he thought sit he was to appoint the Neighbour Bishops of the Province to hear it and such Assessours as the Emperour was wont to send To which was added Can. 4. That no Bishop should enter into the vacant Bishoprick upon a deposition and application for a new hearing
till the Bishop of Rome had given Sentence in it But then Can. 5. it is said That if the Cause be thought fit to be re-heard Letters are to be sent from him to the neighbour Bishops to hear and examine it But if this do not satisfie he may doe as he sees cause Which I take to be the full meaning of Can. 5. And this is the whole Power which the Council of Sardica gives to the Bishop of Rome Concerning which we are to observe 1. That it was a new thing for if it had been known before that the supreme Judgment in Ecclesiastical Causes lay in the Bishop of Rome These Canons had been idle and impertinent And there is no colour in Antiquity for any such judicial Power in the Bishop of Rome as to re-hearing of causes of deposed Bishops before these Canons of Sardica So that Petrus de Marca was in the right when he made these the foundation of the Pope's Power And if the Right of Appeal be a necessary consequent from the Pope's Supremacy Then the non-usage of this practice before will overthrow the claim of Supremacy In extraordinary Cases the great Bishops of the Church were wont to be advised with as St. Cyprian as well as the Bishop of Rome in the Cases of Basilides and Marcianus But if such Instances prove a right of Appeals they will doe it as much for the Bishop of Carthage as of Rome But there was no standing Authority peculiar to the Bishop of Rome given or allow'd before this Council of Sardica And the learned Publisher of Leo's Works hath lately proved at large That no one Appeal was ever made from the Churches of Gaul from the beginning of Christianity there to the Controversie between Leo and Hilary of Arles long after the Council of Sardica But such an Authority being given by a particular Council upon present Circumstances as appears by mentioning Julius Bishop of Rome cannot be binding to posterity when that limited Authority is carried so much farther as to be challenged for an absolute and supreme Power founded upon a Divine Right and not upon the Act of the Council For herein the difference is so great that one can give no colour or pretence for the other 2. That this doth not place the Right of Appeals in the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church But onely transfers the Right of granting a re-hearing from the Emperour to the Bishop of Rome And whether they could doe that or not is a great Question But in all probability Constantius his openly favouring the Arian Party was the occasion of it 3. That this can never justifie the drawing of Causes to Rome by way of Appeal because the Cause is still to be heard in the Province by the neighbour Bishops who are to hear and examine all Parties and to give Iudgment therein 4. That the Council of Sardica it self took upon it to judge over again a Cause which had been judged by the Bishop of Rome viz. The Cause of Athanasius and his Brethren Which utterly overthrows any Opinion in them That the supreme Right of Judicature was lodged in the Bishop of Rome 5. That the Sardican Council cannot be justified by the Rules of the Church in receiving Marcellus into Communion For not onely the Eastern Bishops in their Synodical Epistle say That he was condemned for Heresie by the Council at Constantinople in Constantine 's time and that Protogenes of Sardica and others of the Council had subscribed to his Condemnation But Athanasius himself afterwards condemned him And St. Basil blames the Church of Rome for admitting him into Communion And Baronius confesses that this brought a great disreputation upon this Council viz. the absolving one condemned for Heresie both before and after that Absolution 6. That the Decrees of this Council were not universally received as is most evident by the known Contest between the Bishops of Rome and Africa about Appeals If these Canons had been then received in the Church it is incredible that they should be so soon forgotten in the African Churches For there were but two Bishops of Carthage Restitutus and Genethlius between Gratus and Aurelius Christianus Lupus professes he can give no account of it But the plain and true account is this There was a Design for a General Council But the Eastern and Western Bishops parting so soon there was no regard had by the whole Church to what was done by one side or the other And so little notice was taken of their Proceedings that St. Augustine knew of no other than the Council of the Eastern Bishops and even Hilary himself makes their Confession of Faith to be done by the Sardican Council And the calling of Councils was become so common then upon the Arian Controversies And the Deposition of Bishops of one side and the other were so frequent that the remoter Churches very little concerned themselves in what passed amongst them Thence the Acts of most of those Councils are wholly lost as at Milan Sirmium Arles Beziers c. onely what is preserved in the Fragments of Hilary and the Collections of Athanasius who gathered many things for his own vindication But as to these Canons they had been utterly forgotten if the See of Rome had not been concerned to preserve them But the Sardican Council having so little Reputation in the World The Bishops of that See endeavoured to obtrude them on the World as the Nicene Canons Which was so inexcusable a piece of Ignorance or Forgery that all the Tricks and Devices of the Advocates of that See have never been able to defend CHAP. IV. Of the Faith and Service of the British Churches THE Faith of the British Churches enquired into The Charge of Arianism considered The true State of the Arian Controversie from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum Some late Mistakes rectified Of several Arian Councils before that of Ariminum The British Churches cleared from Arianism after it The Number and Poverty of the British Bishops there present Of the ancient endowment of Churches before Constantine The Privileges granted to Churches by him The Charge of Pelagianism considered Pelagius and Celestius both born in these Islands When Aremorica first called Britain What sort of Monk Pelagius was No probability of his returning to Britain Of Agricola and others spreading the Pelagian Doctrine in the British Churches Germanus and Lupus sent by a Council of Gallican Bishops hither to stop it The Testimony of Prosper concerning their being sent by Coelestine consider'd Of Fastidius a British Bishop London the chief Metropolis in the Roman Government Of Faustus originally a Britain But a Bishop in Gaul The great esteem he was in Of the Semipelagians and Praedestinatians Of the Schools of Learning set up here by the means of Germanus and Lupus Dubricius and Iltutus the Disciples of St. German The number of their Scholars and places of their Schools Of the Monastery of
Banchor and the ancient Western Monasteries and their difference as to Learning from the Benedictine Institution Of Gildas his Iren whether an Vniversity in Britain Of the Schools of Learning in the Roman Cities chiefly at Rome Alexandria and Constantinople and the Professours of Arts and Sciences and the publick Libraries there Of the Schools of Learning in the Provinces and the Constitution of Gratian to that purpose extending to Britain Of the publick Service of the British Churches The Gallican Offices introduced by St. German The Nature of them at large explained and their Difference from the Roman Offices both as to the Morning and Communion Service The Conformity of the Liturgy of the Church of England to the ancient British Offices and not derived from the Church of Rome as our Dissenters affirm THE Succession of the British Churches being thus deduced from their original to the times of the Christian Emperours it will be necessary to give an account of the Faith and Service which were then received by them And it is so much the more necessary to enquire into the Faith of the British Churches because they are charged with two remarkable Heresies of those times viz. Arianism and Pelagianism and by no less Authority than that of Gildas and Bede The Charge of Arianism is grounded upon the universal spreading of that Heresie over the World as Bede expresses it and therefore to shew how far the British Churches were concerned we must search into the History of that Heresie from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum where the British Bishops were present It is confidently affirmed by a late Writer That the Arian Faction was wholly supprest by the Nicene Council and all the Troubles that were made after that were raised by the Eusebians who were as forward as any to anathematize the Arians and all the Persecutions were raised by them under a Pretence of Prudence and Moderation That they never in the least appear'd after the Council of Nice in behalf of the Arian Doctrine but their whole fury was bent against the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Athanasius That in the times of Constantius and Constans the Cause of Arius was wholly laid aside by both Parties and the onely Contest was about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Eusebian Cause was not to restore Arianism but to piece up the Peace of the Church by comprehending all in one Communion or by mutual forbearance But if it be made appear that the Arian Faction was still busie and active after the Nicene Council that the Contest about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was with a design to overthrow the Nicene Faith that the Eusebians great business was if possible to restore Arianism then it will follow that some Mens hatred of Prudence and Moderation is beyond their skill and judgment in the History of the Church and the making out of these things will clear the History of Arianism to the Council of Ariminum But before I come to the Evidence arising from the Authentick Records of the Church it will not be unpleasant to observe that this very Writer is so great an Enemy to the design of Reconcilers that it is hardly possible even in this matter to reconcile him to himself For he tells us that the most considerable Eusebians in the Western Churches viz. Valens Ursacius and their Associates had been secret Arians all along that the word Substance was left out of the third Sirmian Creed to please Valens and his Party who being emboldned by this Creed whereby they had at length shaken off all the Clogs that had been hitherto fasten'd on them to hinder their return to Arianism moved at the Council at Ariminum that all former Creeds might be abolished and the Sirmian Creed be established for ever Doth this consist with the Arian Factions being totally supprest by the Council of Nice and none ever appearing in behalf of the Arian Doctrine after and the Eusebians never moving for restoring Arianism but onely for a sort of Comprehension and Toleration In another place he saith the Eusebians endeavoured to supplant the Nicene Faith though they durst not disown it And was the Arian Faction then totally supprest while the Eusebians remained These are the Men whom he calls the old Eusebian Knaves And for the Acacians he saith when they had got the Mastery they put off all disguise and declared for Arianism Is it possible for the same person to say that after the Nicene Council they never appeared in behalf of the Arian Doctrine in the Eastern and Western Churches and yet When they put off their disguise they declared for Arianism What is this but appearing openly and plainly for the Arian Doctrine And if we believe so good an Authour as himself their Contest after the Council of Nice was so far from being merely about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he frequently saith that Controversie did take in the whole Merits of the Cause as will appear from his own words in several places As when he speaks of the Council of Nice he saith The whole Controversie was reduced to the word Consubstantial which the Eusebians at first refused to admit as being no Scripture word but without its admission nothing else would satisfie the Council and good reason they had for it because to part with that word after the Controversie was once raised would have been to give up the Cause for it was unavoidable that if the Son were not of the same substance with the Father he must have been made out of the same common and created substance with all other Creatures and therefore when the Scriptures give him a greater Dignity of Nature than to any created Being they thereby make him of the same uncreated Substance with the Father so that they plainly assert his Consubstantiality though they use not the word But when the Truth itself was denied by the Arian Hereticks and the Son of God thrust down into the rank of created Beings and defined to be a Creature made of nothing it was time for the Church to stop this Heresie by such a Test as would admit of no Prevarication which was effectually done by this word and as cunning and shuffling as the Arians were they were never able to swallow or chew it and therefore it was but a weak part of the Eusebians to shew so much zeal against the word when they professed to allow the thing For if our Saviour were not a mere Creature he must be of the same uncreated substance with the Father because there is no middle between created and uncreated Substance so that whoever denied the Consubstantiality could not avoid the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus which yet the Arians themselves professed to defie for if he were a mere Creature it is no matter how soon or how late he was created And therefore it is not be imagined that the
the same Mind with the Nicene Fathers onely leaving out the word Consubstantial But he would not undertake to determine himself whether he should be received into Communion upon this but he referr'd the whole matter to the Bishops then met a Jerusalem who faith Sozomen unanimously approved this Confession of Faith and wrote a Circular Letter upon it for receiving Arius and his Adherents into Communion notwithstanding the peremptory Decree of the Council of Nice to the contrary Which Epistle is extant in Athanasius who looks on it as the first Blow given to the Authority of the Council of Nice And he understands it of that Arius who was Author of the Heresie and not of the other Arius as some modern Writers do And here Athanasius saith they began to open their Design in favour of the Arian Heresie which till then they had concealed For they knew that Work was not to be done at once but this was a good step towards the lessning the Authority of the Nicene Council which being once removed the Faction did not question they should be able to set up Arianism speedily They were not so plain hearted to declare presently for what they aimed at nor to put it to the Vote whether the Nicene Faith should be destroyed or not For that having the great Advantage of so publick a Settlement and such a general Consent of the Christian World it was not to be overthrown at once nor by open violence but to be taken in pieces by degrees and the generality were to be cheated into Arianism under other pretences and insinuations And the first thing was to persuade the World that the Arians had been hitherto misunderstood and their Doctrine misrepresented by such factious and busie Men as Athanasius and a few others therefore it was absolutely necessary to weaken the Authority of the Council as being influenced by a small number of Men who overswayed the rest Neither was it safe to begin with the Matter of Faith for that would give too great an Alarm but it was a much more plausible way to bring the Arians into Communion as being much misrepresented and not owning the Doctrines which the Athanasian Party did charge them with and being once joined in Communion together it would be fit to lay aside all Terms of Discrimination as tending to Faction especially such as were lately set up to put a distinction between the Arians and others And when these things were done by other Councils the Authority of the Council of Nice would fall to the Gound and as they supposed the Nicene Faith together with it But such Dâ—signs could not be carried on so secretly and subtilly but the wiser sort suspected what was doing as Athanasius saith and therefore they soon called another Council at Antioch where they made vehement Protestations to the contrary We say they are no followers of Arius for being Bishops how can we follow a Presbyter As though the World could be deceived by such pitifull Reasonings But after they declare That they embraced none but the ancient Faith but withall confess they had received Arius to Communion and then make a Profession of their Faith very agreeable to that of Arius and Euzoius delivered to Constantine wherein they assert the Coeternity of the Son with the Father but leave out his being of the same Substance But fearing this would not give satisfaction they added another wherein they owned the Son to be God of God Lord of Lord the unchangeable Image of his Deity Substance Will Power and Glory but after they express themselves more fully when they say they believe three distinct hypostases and an unity of consent which overthrows the Nicene Faith it being built on the unity of Substance and not of Will It cannot be denied that the crude expressions of Arius in the first Heat of the Controversie were here rejected viz. that there was a time before the Son was or that he was a Creature like other Creatures for they knew these expressions would not then be born and therefore they were forced to refine Arianism to the utmost degree to make it pass down the better till the prejudice against it by the Council of Nice were wholly removed To which end they set forth several other Confessions of Faith to prevent the suspicion of what they aimed at but these were in the time of Constantius I return therefore to the Reign of Constantine which excellent Prince would suffer no alteration to be made in the Nicene Faith in his time and therefore the Secret Arians were forced to great dissimulation and hypocrisie and to carry on their design under other pretences So Theodoret saith That Eusebius and his Party outwardly complied in the Council of Nice out of fear and he applies to them the saying of the Prophet This People honoureth me with their lips but their heart is far from me And elsewhere he saith The Arians in the Council subscribed to the Nicene Faith that being in Sheeps clothing they might devour like ravening Wolves Sozomen saith It was reported that Eusebius and Theognis after their return from Banishment corrupted the Person to whom the Subscriptions of the Council of Nice were committed and rased out their own Names and then openly declared against the Son's being of the same Substance with the Father and that even to Constantine himself But that doth not seem credible to me It being much more probable which Socrates relates viz. That Eusebius and Theognis having recover'd the possession of their Churches upon their return from Banishment had frequent access to the Emperour who honoured them as his Converts and under that Pretext of embracing the Nicene Faith did more mischief than otherwise they could have done and so made a very great Disturbance in the Church which he imputes partly to their love of Arianism and partly to their hatred of Athanasius but the latter as Athanasius at large proves was on the account of the former For it being their Design to introduce Arianism without owning it next to their lessning the Authority of the Council of Nice the most effectual means they could think of was by all possible Arts to blacken and render odious those Persons who most vigorously defended the Nicene Faith And from hence began the great quarrel against Eustathius Bishop of Antioch and Athanasius As to the former he gives an Account in the Fragment of a Homily extant in Theodoret what shuffling the Arians used in the Council of Nice to preserve their Bishopricks and for that Reason subscribed to the Decree of Faith and so having escaped the Censures they deserved they did sometimes secretly sometimes openly propagate the Opinions there condemned One of their great Arts he faith was to decline such as well understood the Controversie and made it their business to oppose them And so Eustathius himself found to his sorrow For Eusebius of Nicomedia and his Party meeting together at Antioch
at Antioch he saith gave out that both Osius and Liberius had renounced the Nicene Faith and declared the Son to be unlike the Father but Liberius clear'd himself by rejecting the Doctrine of the Anomaeans i. e. the open and professed Arians and this Vrsacius Valens and Germinius then at Sirmium were willing to accept of having a farther Design to carry on in these Parts which was like to be spoiled by the Anomaeans appearing so openly and unseasonably in the East And for the same Reason they were willing to call in that which Hilary calls the Blasphemy of Osius and Potamius as being too open and giving Offence to the Followers of Basilius of Ancyra in the East For now the Emperour having banished so many Bishops and struck so much terrour into the rest thought it a convenient time to settle the Church-affairs to his mind in these Western Parts and to that end he summoned a General Council but justly fearing the Eastern and Western Bishops would no more agree now than they did before at Sardica he appoints the former to meet at Seleucia in Isauria and the latter at Ariminum whose Number saith Severus Sulpicius came to above four hundred and to the same purpose Sozomen When they were assembled Valens and Vrsacius acquainted them with the Emperour 's good Intentions in calling them together and as the onely Expedient for the Peace of the Church they proposed that all former Confessions of Faith should be laid aside as tending to dissension and this to be universally received which they had brought with them from Sirmium where it was drawn up by several Bishops and approved by the Emperour Upon the reading this New Confession of Faith wherein the Son is said to be like the Father according the Scriptures and the Name of Substance agreed to be wholly laid aside the Bishops at Ariminum appeared very much unsatisfied and declared they were for keeping to the Nicene Faith without alteration and required of the Arian Party there present to subscribe it before they proceeded any farther which they refusing to doe they forthwith excommunicated and deposed them and protested against all Innovations in matters of Faith And of these Proceedings of theirs they send an account by several Legates of their own wherein they express their Resolution to adhere to the Nicene Faith as the most effectual Bar against Arianism and other Heresies and they add that the removing of it would open the Breach for Heresie to enter into the Church They charge Vrsacius and Valens with having once been Partakers of the Arian Heresie and on that account thrown out of the Church but were received in again upon their Submission and recantation but now they say in this Council of Ariminum they had made a fresh Attempt on the Faith of the Church bringing in a Doctrine full of Blasphemies as it is in Socrates but in Hilary's Fragments it is onely that their Faith contained multa perversae Doctrinae which shews that they looked on the Sirmian Creed as dangerous and heretical And in the same Fragments it appears by the Acts of the Council that they proceeded against Valens Vrsacius Germinius and Caius as Hereticks and Introducers of Heresie and then made a solemn Protestation that they would never recede from the Nicene Faith Their ten Brethren whom they sent to Constantius to acquaint him with the Proceedings of the Council he would not admit to speak with him For he was informed beforehand by the Arian Party how things went in the Council at which he was extremely displeased and resolved to mortifie the Bishops so as to bring them to his Will at last He sends word to the Council how much his thoughts were then taken up with his Eastern Expedition and that these matters required greater freedom of Mind to examine them than he had at such a time and so commands the Legates to wait at Hadrianople till his Return The Council perceived by this Message that his Design was to weary them out hoping at last as Theodoret expresses it to bring them to consent to the demolishing that Bulwark which kept Heresie out of the Church i. e. the Authority of the Council of Nice To this smart Message the Council returned a resolute Reply That they would not recede from their former Decree but humbly beg leave to return to their Bishopricks before Winter being put to great hardships in that strait Place This was to let the Emperour know how he might deal with them and he sends a charge to his Lieutenant not to let them stir till they all consented And in the mean time effectual means were used with their Legates in the East to bring them to terms an account whereof we have in Hilary's Fragments which were to null all the former Proceedings and to receive those who were there deposed to Communion Which being done they were sent back to decoy the rest of the Council who at first were very stiff but by degrees they were so softned that they yielded at last to the Emperour 's own Terms The very Instrument of their Consent is extant in Hilary's Fragments wherein they declare their full Agreement to the laying aside the Terms of Substance and Consubstantial in the Creed i. e. to the voiding the Authority of the Council of Nice which was the thing all along aimed at by the Arian Party And Athanasius saith it was there declared unlawfull to use the word Substance or Hypostasis concerning God It is time now to consider how far those Churches can be charged with Arianism whose Bishops were there present and consented to the Decrees of this Council It is a noted Saying of St. Jerome on this Occasion that the World then groaned and wondered at its being become Arian Which a late Authour saith is a passage quite worn out by our Innovatours Whom doth he mean by these Innovatours The Divines of the Church of England who from time to time have made use of it Not to prove an Apostasie of the Catholick Church from the true Faith which no Man in his Wits ever dreamt of but from hence to overthrow the pretended Infallibility of General Councils or such as have been so called And notwithstanding the opprobrious Name of Innovatours which as we find in those of the Church of Rome often belongs to those who give it to others it is very easie to prove that this one Instance of the Council of Ariminum doth overthrow not onely the Pretence to the Infallibility of General Councils but the absolute binding Authority of any till after due examination of the Reasons and Motives of their Proceedings For it is apparent by the whole Series of the Story as I have faithfully deduced it that the whole Design of the Arian Party was to overthrow the Authority of the Council of Nice which they were never able to compass by a General Council till this of Ariminum agreeing as they
declared with the Eastern Bishops So that here was a Consent both of the Eastern and Western Churches the Council of Ariminum being approved by a Council at Constantinople the same year What is now to be said when the Bishops assembled in Council both in the Eastern and Western Churches did effectually as far as their Decrees went overthrow the Nicene Council If it be said that the Council of Ariminum decreed nothing positively against the Nicene Faith we are to consider that the reversing the Decree of the Nicene Council was in effect overthrowing the Faith thereby stablished And so St. Hierome saith Tunc Usiae Nomen abolitum est tunc Nicenae Fidei damnatio conclamata est And then these words follow Ingemuit totus Orbis Arianum se esse miratus est and if nothing would ever be able to stop out the Arian Heresie but the Nicene Faith as is confessed and this Council took away the Authority of that Council then it at least made way for the introducing Heresie and left all Men to be Hereticks that had a mind to be so And so St. Hierome saith Valens and Vrsacius after the Council boasted that they never denied the Son to be a Creature but to be like other Creatures from whence St. Ambrose takes it for granted that Christ's being a Creature did pass for good Doctrine in the Council of Ariminum But we are told that St. Jerome onely complains of the World's being cheated and trepan'd into Arianism by the Bishops being so weakly overreached and outwitted by an handfull of Arians Doth not St. Jerome plainly say the Name of Substance was there laid aside and the Council of Nice condemned And could this be a mere Cheat and Trepan to those who were so much aware of it as to declare at first they would never give way to it because they saw the Danger of it and to renew their Protestations against it after the Emperour 's severe Message to them about it So that whatever it was it could be no Cheat or Trepan in those who made such Decrees at first deposed the Arian Bishops sent such Messages to the Emperour as they did Which is a plain Demonstration that they saw and knew what they did and understood the Consequences of it But they were frighted into this Consent at last I grant they were so But what then becomes of the Infallibility of Councils if mere Fear can make so many Bishops in Council act and declare against their Consciences If in such Meetings the Persons were capable of being sway'd by any particular bias from asserting the Truth what Security can there be as to Mens Faith from their Authority any farther than we can be secure they were not influenced by any Temporal Hopes or Fears So that we are not barely to respect the Definitions of Councils but to examine the Motives by which they were acted in passing those Decrees and if it appear they did act freely and sincerely and deliver the general sense of the Christian Church from the beginning as it was in the Case of the Nicene Council then a mighty regard ought to be shewed to the Decrees of it but if Partiality Interest Fear or any other secular Motive be found to sway them in their Debates and Resolutions then every particular Church is at liberty to refuse their Decrees and to adhere to those of more free and indifferent Councils And this was the Case here as to the Council of Ariminum if the Church had been absolutely tied up to the Decrees of Councils however past there had been an utter Impossibility of restoring the true Christian Faith for there was no such Council assembled to reverse the Decrees of it but in every Church the banished Bishops being returned not long after upon the death of Constantius they took care to settle the true Faith in the Western Churches by lesser Assemblies of the several Bishops A remarkable Instance whereof appears in Hilary's Fragments where we find the Gallican Bishops met at Paris renouncing the Council of Ariminum and embracing the Nicene Faith The like we have Reason to believe was done in the British Churches because in Jovian's time Athanasius particularly takes notice of the Britannick Churches as adhering to the Nicene Faith and St. Jerome and St. Chrysostome several times mention their agreeing with other Churches in the true Faith Which is a sufficient Argument to clear them from the Imputation of Arianism which did no otherwise lie upon them than as they had Bishops present in the Council of Ariminum For Severus Sulpicius speaking of the Care Constantius took to provide Lodging and Entertainment for the Bishops at Ariminum out of the publick Charge he faith their Bishops refused to accept it onely three out of Britain not being able to maintain themselves made use of the publick allowance rather than be chargeable to their Brethren Which he saith he heard Gavidius their Bishop blame them for but he rather thinks it a commendation for them in the first place to have been so poor and next that they chose not to be burthensome to their Brethren but rather to live on the Emperour's charge This had been better said of any Place than at the Council of Ariminum where the Emperour's kindness was a Snare to their Consciences unless it be said That the Emperour took greater advantage by their bearing their own Charges to make them sooner grow weary of staying there and that if the rest had followed the Example of the Britains the Emperour might have been weary before them But how came the British Bishops to be so poor above the rest who were not onely able to live at their own Charges but to supply their Brethren Which shews as much the plenty of the rest as it doth the poverty of the Britains What became of all the Endowments of the British Churches by King Lucius The British History published by Geffrey of Monmouth saith That King Lucius gave not onely all the Lands which belonged to the Heathen Temples to the Churches built by him but added very much to them with many Privileges The same is said from him by most of our Monkish Historians whose Authority is no greater than Geffrey's from whom they derive their Information onely inlarging it as occasion serves As Thomas Rudburn doth very particularly for the Church of Winchester who makes the old Lands of the Flamins to be twelve miles compass about the Town And King Lucius added he saith to the New Church all the Suburbs of the City with the Privilege of Dunwallo Molmutius i. e. of a Sanctuary Methinks then the British Bishops might have been in as good a condition as the rest of their Brethren at Ariminum unless their Lands were taken away in the Persecution of Dioclesian as Rudburn seems to intimate which is all as true as that Monks continued there from Lucius to the second year of Dioclesian which was a long
Antiphonae to be made out of them and sung The Epistle was constantly taken out of St. Paul as Walafr Strabo proves out of the Pontifical Book But in process of time he saith other Lessons were taken out of the Old and New Testament agreeably to the time Which might be borrow'd from the Gallican Church as other Inlargements of their Offices by the Ritualists Confession were and in probability the Distribution of the Lessons was first begun by Musaeus which we have digested according to the Roman Custome in the Lectionarius published by Pamelius by some attributed to St. Jerome After the Lessons follow'd the Responsoria or Proper Hymns for so Isidore saith they were called because one singing the whole Choire did answer and Rhabanus Maurus calls such an Anthem Responsorius Cantus and these differ'd from the Antiphonae because in them the whole Choire sung each Verse alternatim But Rupertus thinks they had their Name because they answered to the Lessons being sung immediately after them for the refreshment of the Hearers mind saith Amalarius But besides the Lessons and Hymns he methodiz'd the Psalms so as to be read agreeably to the times and the Lessons and not in the Order wherein they stand which seems to have been peculiar to the Gallican Church The most ancient Custome of the Church as Menardus proves from Justin Martyr and others was to begin the publick Service with the Lessons And St. Ambrose in one Place seems to mention no more in his Church at Milan besides the Lessons and the Sermon before his expounding the Creed to the Competentes But in the same Epistle he speaks of the Psalms that were read in the Morning Service And elsewhere of the People's answering to the Psalms and it is generally said by the ancient Ritualists that St. Ambrose brought into the use of the Western Church the custome of Singing the Psalms Verse by Verse in turns by both sides of the Choire so Isidore Rabanus Walafridus Strabo and Radulphus Tungrensis And so Paulinus in his Life saith he brought up the use of Antiphonae in the Western Church And Sigebert adds that he took it from the Greeks And St. Augustine sets down the occasion of it viz. when the People at Milan were persecuted by the Arians and resolved to abide in the Church And therefore to keep them well employ'd he thought upon this Custome of the Eastern Churches Which not onely continued there but from thence spread into other Churches not without opposition in some Places as St. Augustine confesses it met with some at Carthage But withall he saith he wrote in Vindication of it In the Eastern Church it was of ancient use if Socrates say true for he saith it begun upon a Divine Vision to Ignatius at the Church of Antioch But Theodoret saith Flavianus and Diodorus brought it up there But the words of Theodorus Mopseustenus in Nicetas seem to intimate that they took this Custome from the Syriack Churches However Theodoret attributes the beginning of Singing the Psalms of David in that manner in the Greek Churches to them From whence he saith it spread into other Parts But we find by St. Basil it was very hardly received in the Church of Neocaesarea because it was not introduced by Gregory who first settled the Church there Neither saith he were the Litanies which they then used brought in by him And for that Custome of Singing he saith it was practised in the Churches of Egypt Palaestine and Syria as far as Euphrates But it came later into the Western Church Card. Bona saith That Damasus first commanded it to be used in all Churches by his Apostolical Authority But Card. Baronius saith It is a plain falshood which the Pontifical Book affirms of Damasus his appointing the Psalms to be sung in all Churches and he adds that the Epistles of St. Hierome and Damasus about it are counterfeit Yet those are the Authorities which as appears by Pamelius the ancient Ritualists rely upon All that Baronius will allow to be done in the time of Damasus was that St. Jerome 's Psalter was then introduced at Rome And yet we are told that to this day the old Translation of the Psalter is used in St. Peter 's and is called Psalterium Romanum in the Rule of St. Francis which he forbids to be used in Divine Service But the same is onely used in the Ambrosian Office And Card. Bona observes that St. Gregory composed the Antiphonae at the Introitus and at the Responsoria c. out of the old Version before St. Jerome's time Of which he gives this reason That the People at Rome were so accustom'd to it that they would not learn the New Testament of St. Jerome And the same Authour observes likewise That the old Italick Version was not onely used in Rome but in all the Suburbicary Churches and other Churches Gaul onely excepted And from thence St. Jerome's Translation was called Versio Gallicana because it was immediately received into the use of the Gallican Churches So that I see not how Baronius can make good his own Assertion That St. Jerome 's Translation of the Psalter was introduced by Damasus But the use of Alleluja by St. Jerome's means as St. Gregory saith was brought from the Church of Ierusalem Which Baronius thinks is rather to be understood of some particular manner of using it But how he can justifie the ancient use of the Singing Psalms at Rome either before or after Damasus his time till Celestine was Pope I cannot imagine if the Pontifical Book say true for that expresly affirms that Celestine appointed David 's Psalms to be sung Antiphonatim before the Sacrifice and that it was not done before but onely the Epistles of St. Paul and the holy Gospel were read Which words are repeated by Alcuinus Amalarius Rabanus Maurus Walafridus Strabo Berno Augiensis and several other Ritualists and Historians as may be seen in Pamelius his Collection and Cassander's besides the Authours themselves But Baronius saith the use of Singing the Psalms was from the beginning in the Roman Church which we are to take upon his Word for he brings no proof of it It is true that St. Augustine saith That we have the Precept and Example of Christ and his Apostles for singing in our Assemblies But he speaks not of David's Psalms nor of the Church of Rome And he saith The Customs of Churches were very different about this matter In the Churches of Africa he saith They confined themselves to the Prophetical Hymns for which they were upbraided by the Donatists as too grave and formal But he allows Singing to be one of the Solemn Parts of Divine Service with which he joins Reading the Lessons Preaching and Prayer either aloud by the Bishop or in common by the Deacon's giving notice Justin Martyr mentions the Hymns of the
nothing but mere force can make any Man to understand them of the Receivers Besides that Office concludes with a particular Prayer for the Benefit of those that had partaked of the Body of Christ wherein this Expression is remarkable Christe Domine qui tuo vesci corpore tuum corpus effici vis fideles fac nobis in remissionem Peccatorum esse quod sumpsimus i. e. O Christ our Lord who wouldest have thy People eat thy Body and become thy Body grant that we may be that which we have taken for the Remission of our Sins And it is certain the meaning of this Prayer was not that Christians might become the Natural Body of Christ And therefore it was not then believed That the Faithfull did in the Eucharist take the Natural Body of Christ But that which was the Body of Christ in such a mystical sense as the Church is But Transubstantiation was no part of the Faith of the Church at that time and therefore it is no wonder to meet with Expressions so disagreeing to it in their solemn Devotions And it is well observed by Card. Bona that the Custome of Elevation of the Host in Order to Adoration is found in none of the ancient Sacramentaries nor in the Ordo Romanus not in the Old Ritualists such as Alcuinus Amalarius Walafridus Micrologus and others The same had been ingenuously confessed before by Menardus in the same Words And although there may be Elevation where there is no belief of Transubstantiation yet since the Custome of Elevation was lately introduced into the Western Churches and in order to Adoration of the Body of Christ then present by Transubstantiation it seems very probable that Doctrine was not then received by the Church the Consequences whereof were not certainly in use For there was as much Reason for the Elevation and Adoration at that time as ever could be afterwards But my Business is now onely to shew wherein the Gallican and British Churches differ'd from the Roman and not wherein they agreed 4. The last difference was as to the Church Musick wherein the Romans were thought so far to excell other Western Churches That the goodness of their Musick proved the great occasion of introducing their Offices For Charles the Great saith That his Father Pepin brought the Roman way of Singing into the Gallican Churches and their Offices along with it And although he saith many Churches stood out then yet by his means they were brought to it And he caused some of the best Masters of Musick in Rome to be brought into France and there settled for the Instruction of the French Churches By which means the old Gallican Service was so soon forgotten That in Carolus Calvus his time he was forced to send as far as Toledo to have some to perform the Old Offices before him So great a Power had the Roman Musick and the Prince's Authority in changing the ancient Service of the Gallican Churches But thus much may suffice to have cleared the ancient Service of these Western Churches and to have shew'd their difference from the Roman Offices From which Discourse it will appear that our Church of England hath omitted none of those Offices wherein all the Ancient Churches agreed And that where the British or Gallican and Roman differ'd our Church hath not follow'd the Roman but the other And therefore our Dissenters do unreasonably charge us with taking our Offices from the Church of Rome CHAP. V. Of the Declension of the British Churches BRitain never totally subdued by the Romans That the Occasion of the Miseries of the Britains in the Province by the Incursions from beyond the Wall Of the Picts and Scots their mortal Enemies The true Original of the Picts from Scandinavia That Name not given to the Old Britains but to the New Colonies The Scotish Antiquities enquired into An Account of them from John Fordon compared with that given by Hector Boethius and Buchanan Of Hector's Authours Veremundus Cornelius Hibernicus and their ancient Annals An Account of the Antiquities of Ireland and of the Authority of their Traditions and Annals compared with the British Antiquities published by Geffrey of Monmouth in point of Credibility A true Account of the Fabulous Antiquities of the Northern Nations Of the first coming of the Scots into Britain The first Cause of the Declension and Ruine of the British Churches was the laying them open to the fury of the Scots and Picts Of Maximus his withdrawing the Roman Forces And the Emperour 's sending numbers of Picts to draw them back The miserable Condition of the Britains thus forsaken And supplies sent them for a time and then taken away Of the Walls then built for their Security and the Roman Legions then placed Of the great degeneracy of manners among the Britains Of Intestine Divisions and calling in of Foreign Assistence The Saxons first coming hither Who they were and whence they came Bede's Account examin'd and reconciled with the Circumstances of those times His fixing the time of their coming justified Of the Reasons of Vortigern's calling in the Saxons And the Dissatisfaction of the Britains upon their coming and Vortigern's League with them Of the Valour of Vortimer and Aurelius Ambrosius against the Saxons The different Account of the Battels between the Britains and Saxons among our Historians The sad condition of the British Churches at that time The imperfect Account given by the British History Of King Arthur's Story and Success Of Persons of greatest Reputation then in the British Churches and particularly of St. David Of the Britains passing over to Aremorica The beginning of that Colony stated Gildas there writes his Epistle The Scope and Design of it The Independency of the British Churches proved from their carriage towards Augustine the Monk The Particulars of that Story cleared And the whole concluded BEing now to give an Account of the fatal Declension of the British Churches it will be necessary to look back on the time when their Miseries first began For which we are to consider That the Romans having never made an entire Conquest of the whole Island but contenting themselves with the better part and excluding the rest by a Wall They still left a backdoor open for the poor Provincial Britains to be disturbed as often as the Roman Garrisons neglected their Duty or were overpowred by their Enemies Who were now very much increased in those remoter parts of Britain Which being abandon'd by the Romans they became an easie Prey to the Scots and Picts Who from different parts took Possession of those Coasts which lay nearest to the Place from whence they came Thus the Scots coming from Ireland entred upon the Southern and Western Parts as the Picts from Scandinavia had before done on the Northern Our Learned Antiquary was of Opinion That the Picts were no other than the ancient Britains partly settled in those Parts before the Roman Invasion and partly
confined to the Corners of the Land For our Historians say That the Saxons left not the Face of Christianity whereever they did prevail This is a very sad Subject which ought not to be passed over without that Reflexion which St. Paul made on the Church of the Jews and Gentiles Behold the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off It remains onely that we consider the Liberty or Independency of the British Churches of which we can have no greater Proof than from the Carriage of the British Bishops towards Augustin the Monk when he came with full power from the Pope to require Subjection from them And this material point relating to the British Churches I shall endeavour to clear from all the Objections which have been made against it In order thereto we are to understand That Augustin the Monk by virtue of the Pope's Authority did challenge a Superiority over the Bishops of the British Churches which appears not onely by Gregory's Answer to his Interrogations but by the Scheme of the Ecclesiastical Government here which Gregory sent to him after he had a fair prospect of the Conversion of the Saxons which was at the same time that he sent Mellitus Justus Paulinus and Rufinianus with the Archiepiscopal Pall to him There he declares that there were to be two Archbishops Sees one at London which out of honour to Ethelbert or Augustin was fixed at Canterbury or rather by Ethelbert's own Authority and the other at York which had been a Metropolitan See in the British times and both these Archbishops were to have twelve Suffragan Bishops under them The Bishop of London was to be consecrated by his own Synod and to receive the Pall from the Pope But Augustin was to appoint the first Bishop of York who was to yield Subjection to him for his time but afterwards the Sees were to be Independent on each other But by all this it should seem that he had Authority given him onely over those Bishops who were consecrated by him And the Archbishop of York what then becomes of those Bishops in Britain who were Consecrated by neither and such they knew there were Concerning these Gregory gives a plain Answer That they were all to be subject to the Authority of Augustine and to govern themselves in Life and Doctrine and Church Offices according to his Direction Augustine being furnished with such full Powers as he thought desires a Meeting with the British Bishops at a place called Augustinsac as Bede saith in the Confines of the Wiccii and the West Saxons Where this place was is very uncertain and not at all material Camden could find nothing like it and the Conjectures of others since have no great probability either as to Austric or Haustake or Ossuntree but at this place the British Bishops gave Augustine a Meeting where the first thing proposed by him was That they would embrace the Vnity of the Catholick Church and then join with them in Preaching to the Gentiles for saith he they did many things repugnant to the Vnity of the Church Which was in plain terms to charge them with Schism and the Terms of Communion offer'd did imply Submission to the Church of Rome and by consequence to his Authority over them But the utmost that could be obtained from them was onely that they would take farther advice and give another Meeting with a greater Number And then were present Seven Bishops of the Britains and many Learned Men chiefly of the Monastery of Banchor where Dinoth was then Abbat And the Result of this Meeting was That they utterly refused Submission to the Church of Rome or to Augustine as Archbishop over them And for the Account of this we are beholding to Bede whose Authority is liable to no exception in this matter But against this plain Matter of Fact there have been three Objections made which must be removed 1. That Augustine did not require Subjection from the British Bishops but onely treated with them about other matters in difference between them 2. That their refusing Subjection to the Bishop of Rome depends upon the Credit of a Spurious British MS. lately invented and brought into light as the Answer of Dinoth 3. That if they did refuse Subjection to the Pope it was Schismatical Obstinacy in them and contrary to the former Sense of the British Church To all these I shall give a clear and full Answer 1. As to the matter of their Conference it cannot be denied that other things were started as about the Paschal Controversie and some Rites of Baptism c. but this was the main point which Augustine did not in plain Terms insist upon because it would look too invidiously to require Subjection to himself but he cunningly insinuates it under the Name of Ecclesiastical Vnity For I dare appeal to any Man 's common sense whether upon the Principles of the Church of Rome the British Bishops complying in other things and rejecting the Pope's Authority would have been thought sufficient If so then Submission to the Pope is no necessary term of Communion and Men may be in a very safe Condition without it But if it were necessary then Augustine must imply it within the terms of Catholick Peace and Ecclesiastical Vnity It is therefore ridiculous in Alford and Cressy and such Writers to say That Augustine did not insist upon it For it is to charge him with Ignorance or Stupidity that he should leave out so necessary an Article of Communion And yet Gregory had so great an opinion of him as to make him the Directour of the British Churches And therefore it cannot be supposed that he should offer terms of Communion without requiring Submission to the Pope's Authority if those were in a state of Schism who denied it But it is said That in the Conclusion of the second Meeting Augustine did not insist upon nor so much as mention any subjection to him from the British Churches but onely required Compliance in three Points viz. the time of the Paschal Solemnity agreeable with the Church of Rome following the Roman Customes in Baptism and joining with them in Preaching to the Saxons and upon these they brake up the Meeting To which I Answer That these things were required by Augustin not as Conditions of Brotherly Communion but as the Marks of Subjection to his Authority which appears from Bede's own Words Si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis c. Which Cressy very unfaithfully renders If they would conform in three points onely Whereas the meaning is If they would own his Authority in those three things and therefore the British Bishops answered very appositely when they said we will neither doe the things nor submit to you as Archbishop over us Why should they deny Subjection if it had not been required of them Which shews
they very well understood his meaning and gave Answer in short to the main point And upon this Account I suppose it was that the Anchoret's advice was followed about observing Whether he rose up to the British Bishops at their entrance Not that they were so offended for want of a Complement as Mr. Cressey suggests but this was look'd on by them as a Mark of that Superiority which he challenged over them And therefore they had reason to take so great notice of it and to infer harder usage from him when they should be under his Authority They could not be ignorant what Authority the Pope had given Augustin and that made them more Observant of his whole Behaviour and finding it so agreeing to the Character of an Archbishop over the British Churches They give him that Resolute Answer That they would not own any Authority he had as Archbishop over them Which is a sufficient proof that this was really the main point contested between them 2. As to the British MS. which contains Dinoth's Answer more at large I Answer 1. Leland observes That the British Writers give a more ample account of this Matter than is extant in Bede who is very sparing in what concerns the British Affairs But from them he saith That Dinoth did at large dispute with great Learning and Gravity against receiving the authority of the Pope or of Augustin and defended the Power of the Archbishop of St. Davids and affirmed it not to be for the British Interest to own either the Roman Pride or the Saxon Tyranny And he finds fault with Gregory for not admonishing the Saxons of their gross Vsurpations against their Solemn Oaths And adds that it was their duty if they would be good Christians to restore their unjust and Tyrannical Power to those from whom they had taken it For Dinoth out of his great Learning could not but know that the Pope under a pretence of bringing in the true Faith could not confirm them in their unjust Vsurpation For if that should be admitted no Princes could be safe in their Dominions And no doubt the British Bishops looked upon this attempt of Augustin upon them to be the adding one Vsurpation to another Which made them so adverse to any Communication with the Missionaries which otherwise had been inexcusable 2. The certainty of the British Churches rejecting the Pope's Authority and Augustin's jurisdiction doth not depend upon the Credit of this British MS. for this is sufficiently clear from Bede's own Words wherein they declare they would not own Augustin as Archbishop over them But if they had owned the Pope's Authority they ought to have Submitted to him who acted by virtue of his Commission And it was not possible for them at such a distance from Rome to express their disowning his Authority more effectually than by rejecting him whom he had sent to be Archbishop over them And Nich. Trivet in his MS. History cited by Sir H. Spelman saith expresly that Augustin did demand Subjection from the Britains to him as the Pope's Legate but they refused it So that if this MS. had never been heard of the Matter of Fact had been nevertheless fully attested 3. The Objections against this MS. are not sufficient to destroy the Authority of it Sir H. Spelman who sets it down at large in Welsh English and Latin tells from whom he had it and exactly transcribed it and that it appeared to him to have been an Old MS. taken out of an Older but without Date or Authour and believes it to be still in the Cotton Library Here is all the appearance of Ingenuity and faithfulness that can be expected and he was a Person of too great Judgment and Sagacity to be easily imposed upon by a modern Invention or a new found Schedule as Mr. Cressy Phrases it The substance of it is That the Abbat of Banchor in the Name of the British Churches declares That they owe the Subjection of Brotherly Kindness and Charity to the Church of God and to the Pope of Rome and to all Christians but other obedience than that they did not know to be due to him whom they called Pope And for their parts they were under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk who was under God their Spiritual Overseer and Directour But say the Objectors There was then no Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk and had not been since the time the Metropolitan Jurisdiction was by St. David transferr'd to Menevia I grant that from the time of Dubricius the See was transferr'd first to Landaff and then to St. Davids but this latter Translation was not agreed to by all the British Bishops And it appears by the foregoing Discourse That the Bishops of Landaff did at that time when Oudocëus lived challenge the Metropolitical Power of Caerleon to themselves and therefore would not be consecrated by the Bishop of St. Davids And Caerleon having been the ancient Metropolitical See it was no absurdity at all to mention that in a Dispute which depended upon ancient Right For the Authority over the British Churches was not upon the account of St. Davids or Landaff but the Metropolitan Right which belonged to the See of Caerleon As if in the British times the Metropolitan See had been removed from London to Canterbury what incongruity had it been in a dispute of Superiority to have alledged that the British Churches of these parts were under the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of London although at that time the See were removed to another place And if this be all to make it appear to be a Forgery as Mr. Cressy pretends for all that I can see it may be a very ancient and genuine MS. But Alford goes deeper for he disproves it because it contradicts the Sense of the British Churches before which professed subjection to the Roman See This is indeed to the purpose if it be well proved which in the last place comes to be considered 3. To this purpose he alledges 1. The Confirmation of St. David 's Synod by the Pope's Authority But from whence hath he this From no other Testimony than that of Giraldus Cambrensis cited by Bishop Vsher who in the same place confesses That there was no Monument of those Synods at all remaining nor of the Pope's Confirmation of them and the other MSS. and Legends of St. David's Life say not a Word of this How then came Giraldus to affirm it We are to remember that Giraldus had a Cause depending in the Court of Rome about the Bishoprick of St. David's and he knew well enough what Doctrine was pleasing there and therefore the Testimony of such a one having no concurrent Evidence to support it is of very little force in this matter 2. He mentions the Respect Kentigern shew'd to the Church of Rome going seven times thither and having at last his uncanonical Ordination purged or confirmed by the Pope as the Authour of his Legend relates But
this seems to me a senseless and ridiculous Legend For as Bollandus observes if Kentigern went seven times to Rome how came he to put off the Errour of his Consecration to the last If it were good before why not then If naught before then all the Acts performed by him by virtue of his first Consecration were invalid But there is no more Errour supposed in the Consecration of Kentigern by one Bishop than there was in that of Seruanus by Palladius which as Joh. Major saith was good in case of necessity But the Writers of the Legends living long after the times of the Persons framed their Stories according to the Customs of their own times and because such a Consecration was not then held good therefore the Authour of his Legend takes care to have that defect supplied at Rome and to make amends he saith That Kentigern at his death recommended to his Disciples the Decrees of the Fathers and the Customs of the Roman Church But what is this to the necessity of Subjection to the Roman See from the general sense of the British Churches What if Kentigern having been often at Rome were pleased more with the Customs of that Church than of the Britains Doth it hence follow that those Britains who maintained Customs contrary to the Romans did think it necessary to conform to the Church of Rome when the plain Evidence of Fact is to the contrary and which hath far more authority than such Legends as these 3. Ninianus is said to have learnt the Christian Doctrine at Rome who converted the Southern Picts and founded the Church ad Candidam Casam being the first built of Stone But what follows from hence Because Ninianus was made a Christian at Rome therefore the British Churches always own'd the Pope's Supremacy They are indeed to seek for Arguments who make use of such as these 4. He offers to prove the constant Submission of the British Churches to the Roman See from Gildas himself and he makes use of two Arguments 1. From his calling the British Churches Sedem Petri the See of St. Peter I confess Gildas hath these words but quite in another Sense For in the beginning of his Invective against the Clergy among other things he charges them that they did Sedem Petri Apostoli immundis Pedibus usurpare Doth he mean that they defiled St. Peter 's Chair at Rome No certainly but he takes St. Peter's Chair for that which all the Clergy possessed and implies no more than their Ecclesiastical Function and so he opposes it to the Chair of Judas into which he saith such wicked Men fell But if they will carry St. Peter 's Chair to Rome they must carry the Chair of Judas thither too 2. Alford insists on this Passage in Gildas That they were more ambitious of Degrees in the Church than of the Kingdom of Heaven And after a bitter Invective against their Symoniacal Contracts he adds that where they were opposed they ran beyond Sea to compass their ends Now saith Alford whither should this be but to Rome For as Leland observes in the Case of Giraldus Cambrensis sunt enim omnia Venalia Romae all things are bought and sold there and therefore whither should such notorious Symoniacal Persons go but to Rome This is a very surprising Argument and is more wisely past over by Mr. Cressy than insisted on by Alford as being a horrible Reflexion on the Court of Rome in those days But to say Truth there is not one Word of Rome in Gildas but if they will apply it to Rome how can we help it To conclude this Discourse Alford is much displeased with Sir H. Spelman for paralleling the Case of the British Bishops and Augustine with that of the Cyprian Bishops against the Patriarch of Antioch But for what Reason Why saith he The Council of Ephesus did not permit the Cyprian Bishops to decline the Iudgment of their Patriarch but declared the Bishop of Antioch not to be their Patriarch Very well And is not this the very case here The Bishop of Rome challenged a Patriarchal Power over the British Churches and appoints an Archbishop over them but they deny that he had such Authority over them they being governed by their own Metropolitan as the Cyprian Bishops were and therefore by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus they were bound to preserve their own Rights and consequently to oppose that foreign Iurisdiction which Augustine endeavoured to set up over them THE END Ola Rudbeck Atlantic c. 7.23 Historical Account of ancient Church Government in Great Britain and Ireland Letter to Lord Chancellour p. 11. V. Gratian. Lucium in Cambr. Evers p. 248 249. A primo quidem hujus Regni Fergusio filio Ferchardi ad hunc Regem Fergusium filium Erch inclusive 45. Reges ejusdem gentis generis in hac Insula regnaverunt sed horum sigillatim distinguere tempora principatuum ad praesens omittimus nam ad plenum Scripta non reperimus Fordon Scotichr l. 4. c. 2. Defence of the Antiquity c. p. 29. l. 1. f. 6. f. 10.2 p. 6. l. 19. f. 10.2 f. 15. Leslae l. 2. p. 81. Buch. l. 4. p. 29. p. 245. Defence c. p. 110. Just Right of Monarchy p. 26. Leslae Hist. p. 77.79 p. 27. p. 26. p. 28. p. 27. Hect. Boeth Hist. l. 1. f. 62. Leslae Hist. Scot. p. 77. p. 29. (a) Hect. Boeth l. 3. f. 36. l. 40. Leslae p. 92. (b) Hect. Boeth l. 4. f. 59. Leslae p. 97. (c) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 75. Leslae p. 101. (d) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 79. Leslae p. 103. (e) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 81. Leslae p. 103. (f) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 90. Leslae p. 109. (g) Hect. Boeth l. 6. f. 90. Leslae p. 110. Leslae p. 392 396. p. 28. Scotichron l. 1. c. 36. Scotichron l. 10. c. 2. Scotichr l. 4. c. 38. Buchan l. 5. p. 45. Scotichr l. 4. c. 41. c. 45. Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line p. 20 21. p. 22. Scotich l. 5. c. 59. Leslae p. 250. Hect. Boeth Hist. l. 13. f. 295. Gratian. Luc. Cambr. Evers p. 248. Scotichr l. 2. c. 12. Hect. Boeth l. 1. f. 7. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. ◠174. Scotichron l. 1. c. 9. Chap. 5. Leslae Paraen ad Nobil Scot. p. 22. Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line p. 39. p. 32. p. 32. Prodrom Hist. Natur. Scot. p. 13. p. 15. Scotichr l. 3. c. 19. Suffr Petr. de Origine Frisiorum l. 3. c. 2. c. 3. p. 14. p. 13. p. 14. p. 2. * Hoc solum judicamus quae de Scotis corum Regibus ab anno 330. ante caput aerae Christianae cum Alexander Macedo rerum potiretur in Oriente usque ad Fergusium 2. Regem Scotiae quadragesimum cujus initium conjicitur à Scotis Scriptoribus in annum Christi 404. qui ejectos è Britannia Scotos dicitur reduxisse non
of the thing from the Circumstances of St. Peter as I did before from those of St. Paul and I shall endeavour to shew That his business lay quite another way and that there is no probable Evidence of his coming hither I take it for granted that the Apostles were employ'd according to the Tenour of their Commissions viz. That the Apostle of the Circumcision was to attend the Jews and of the Vncircumcision the Gentiles Now St. Paul saith That the Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter This Baronius saith was agreed at the Council at Jerusalem But he will not have it to be such a distribution of distinct Provinces as that the one upon no occasion should meddle with the Gentiles nor the other with the Jews But yet he grants that the Apostleship of the Gentiles was in a particular manner committed to St. Paul as of the Jews to St. Peter And whatever they might doe occasionally This as he proves from St. Jerome was the Principale Mandatum the Main of the Commission to either of them Which being supposed It necessarily follows that St. Peter's chief employment must be where the greatest numbers of Jews were And from hence Petrus de Marca infers That St. Peter having preached to the Jews in Judaea employed himself in converting the Jews abroad both of the first and second Dispersion The latter were chiefly in Aegypt at Alexandria where he settled Mark the Bishop over the converted Iews From thence he went to Antioch from thence to Babylon where the Head of the first Dispersion lived And in this City he saith he wrote his Epistle to those dispersed Jews over whose Synagogues the Patriarch of Babylon had Jurisdiction Clemens Romanus takes no notice at all of St. Peter's Preaching in the Western parts as he doth of St. Paul's But Eusebius from Origen saith That St. Peter preached to the dispersed Jews in Pontus Galatia Bithynia Cappadocia c. And Epiphanius even where he saith That St. Peter and St. Paul did both constitute Bishops at Rome upon their going thence to preach the Gospel in other places yet he adds That St. Paul went towards Spain but St. Peter frequently visited Pontus and Bithynia which was very agreeable to the design of his Commission there being so great a number of Jews in those parts And Pontus and Bithynia seem to have been reserved as the peculiar Province of St. Peter For when St. Paul attempted to go into Bithynia he was forbidden by the Spirit which then commanded him to come into Europe And so he made for Macedonia Baronius grants that St. Peter spent the greatest part of his time in the Eastern parts but about Anno Dom. LVIII he finds him employed in the West and particularly among the Britains But what ancient authority according to his own Rule doth he produce for it He names none but Metaphrastes and yet as it falls out unluckily when the same Metaphrastes his authority is produced for St. Paul 's preaching in the Western parts he is apparently slighted by him and for the very same Reason which holds against the former Testimony viz. for quoting things out of Eusebius which are not to be found in him And elsewhere he saith he is of no authority in these matters But Metaphrastes his Testimony serves to a good purpose in St. Peter's Case viz. to clear a considerable difficulty how St. Peter if then Bishop of Rome should not be taken notice of by St. Paul when he wrote his Epistle to the Romans To which he answers That Saint Peter came to Rome the second of Claudius but being banished thence with other Jews the ninth of Claudius he spent the time then in preaching the Gospel in other places and so very conveniently finds him in Britain when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans which he placeth in the second of Nero. But it is by no means probable saith Valesius That St. Peter should come to Rome before the death of Herod Agrippa And Baronius saith That after his being delivered out of prison he went to Caesarea Laodicea and Antioch according to his own Authour Metaphrastes and then into Cappadocia Pontus Galatia and Bithynia and so returned by Antioch to Jerusalem So that if Metaphrastes his authority be good for any thing St. Peter could hardly come to Rome the second of Claudius And if the death of Agrippa followed soon after the delivery of St. Peter as Valesius thinks and St. Luke seems to intimate then he could not be at Rome till the fourth of Claudius for all agree that Agrippa died that year So that there is no certainty of St. Peter's coming to Rome the second of Claudius Yet let that be supposed And that St. Peter went from Rome on the Edict of Claudius What makes him so long absent from thence as to the second of Nero when St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans salutes Aquila and Priscilla as then present at Rome who certainly left it before on the Account of that Edict So that this Edict could be no reason of his being absent from Rome at the time of this Epistle But it falls out unhappily That though St. Peter be made by Baronius and others Bishop of Rome for twenty five years yet he can never be found in his own Diocese in all that time before his Martyrdom But one excuse or other is still found for his absence when there were several remarkable Transactions which must have discovered him if he had been at Rome As not onely upon St. Paul's writing this Epistle to the Romans but upon St. Paul's coming to Rome upon his writing so many Epistles from thence upon the defence he made for himself when he saith that all forsook him What St. Peter too So that upon the whole matter the Opinion of Lactantius in his late published Book seems most agreeable to truth That St. Peter came not to Rome till the Reign of Nero and not long before his Martyrdom And this Baluzius confesses to have been the most ancient and received Opinion in the Church since Lactantius never disputes it And what he saith of the twenty five years wherein the Apostles planted Churches was in likelihood the Occasion of that mistaken Tradition concerning Saint Peter 's being twenty five years Bishop of Rome So much may suffice to shew the greater probability That the Christian Church in Britain was rather founded by St. Paul than by St. Peter or any other Apostle CHAP. II. Of the Succession of the British Churches to the first Council of Nice THE Testimony of Tertullian concerning them cleared It extends onely to Britains The National Conversion of the Scots under King Donald fabulous Of Dempster's old Annals Prosper speaks not of the Scots in Britain Tertullian to be understood of the Provincial Britains as well as others The Testimony of Sulpitius Severus