having been written many years since by a King of famous memory in that work of his which he set forth on behalf of the English Church could I foresee that the Dean of London a Minister of the same English Church when the Question was about Patriarchs would deny the Western Patriarchate It may be he will say that all Catholies do not agree in the thing as appears from the Book of a late Author de Disciplinâ Ecclesiae But I ask again could I foresee that on the fourteenth day of November in this Year 1686 at which time I had not only finish'd this Discourse but had likewise printed the first sheet of it a Book lately publish'd would come to my hands in which the Author being tainted with the itch of novelty should deny the Roman Bishops Patriarchate over the West which all France even till that time had undertaken to defend against Schismatics and Heretics which Perron Sirmondus de Marca and other Writers of the Gallican Church had defended against the Heretic Salmasius and against his ringleaders or followers besides whom no body in those times denied the Popes Patriarchate over the West Against these therefore I employ'd my Pen not using the former but another way of Proof and demonstrated the Roman Patriarchate to extend it self over all the West For besides the Question against Catholics concerning the exercise of Patriarchal Jurisdiction I stated another against Heretics concerning the Patriarchal Right it self which belongs to the Bishop of Rome over all the West and that I prov'd by the perpetual Tradition of the Ancients which was so well known to the whole Christian Church before the rise of modern Heresy that the Schismatic Greeks themselves maintain'd this truth insomuch that not only Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica hath written Nilus Thessalonicensis Romano Episcopo hoc datum esse ut Occidentalibus praesit Barlaam Monachus Occidentales Eâ—clesias Papae Gabernationi à Sauctis Patribus fuisse commendatas That it was granted to the Roman Bishop to Preside over the West but also Barlaam the Monk cap. 2. libri de Primatu Papae hath openly profest that the Western Churches were by the Holy Fathers commended to the Government of the Pope I have alledged many of those Authorities in Dissert 2. Antiq. Illustratae which Barlaam commends without the recital of the Names of those Holy men that wrote them I am not at leasure now to repeat them all I shall only cite two of them at present one of Augustine the other of Pope Innocent who at the same time though in different Regions adorn'd the Church with their Sanctity and Learning 4. Augustines Testimony is lib. 1. contra Julianum cap. 2. where having cited the Testimony of some of the Fathers viz Cyprians of Africa those of Ireneus Hilarius and others of France and St. Ambrose's of Italy he thus expostulates with Julian the Disciple of Pelagius the Britain D. Augustinus An ideo contemnendos putaes quia Occidentaiis Ecclesie sâ—mt â—nnes nec nâ—â—ut in eis oft commemoratus Ortentis Episcopus Quid ergo faciemus cum the Greâ—â— sint nes Latini puto tihi cam partem Orbis sufficeâ—â— dehere in qua primâ—m Apâ—â—oloâ—um sâ—orum vâ—â—uit Dâ—minus glâ—riâ—sissimo Marâ—â—rio câ—â—nari chi Eâ—â—â—â—â—a prâ—â—sidenteâ—â— B. Luâ—ceâ—â—ium si â—â—dire volâ—â—â—es sam ture poâ—â—â—uiâ—â—am â—â—ventutern tuam Pelagianis laqueis exâ—â—â—â—es do you therefore think that they are to be contemn'd because they are all of the Wesiern Church and no Eastern Bishop is mention'd amongst them What therefore shall we do saith Augustine since they are Greeks and we Latines I think that part of the World ought to suffice you in which our Lord was pleas'd to have the chief of his Apostles crown'd with a most glorious Martyrdom if you would have heard St. Innocent the President of this Church even then your dangerous Youth might have avoided the Snares of Pelagius Thus speaks Augustine of Innocent the first whose Presidence as special Head of the Western Church could not have been exprest in more clear words For although our Author would have it Author p. 131. That Augustine only thereby shews the Order and Dignity of the Roman See but doth not own any Subjection of the Western Churches to his Power since no Church did more vehemently withstand the Bishop of Romes Incroachments than the Churches of Africa did in St. Augustine's time Yet there is no body but may see that this subterfuge was invented meerly to elude the force of this Testimony for it is false that the African Church was exempted from Subjection to the Roman neither do the contests of the African Church for a short time about the exercise of some particular Jurisdictions which were ended after they had own'd the Canons of the Council of Sardica evince this St. Augustine gives his Testimony for the Patriarchal Right by which the Roman Bishop especially presides over the Western Church neither can it be said that Africa was not reckon'd by him amongst the Western Churches For Cyprian accounts the Primate of all Africa to be of the number of those Bishops which he affirms to be Western Bishops and discinguishes them from the Eastern Therefore Africa appertaind to the Western Church over which Churches Innocent Presided and that the President of it when he not by virtue of his Order and Dignity but by his Authority condemn'd the Pelagian Heresy ought to have been heard by Julian is here signified by Augustine as also the whole African Church had heard him after they had referred the matter of that Heresy to him as their Head. For when aster the referring of the cause they had received Rescripts back from the Apostolic See Now concerning this matter saith Augustine de verbis Apostoli Serm. D. Augustinus Jam de hac causa due Concilia miâ—sa sunt ad sedem Apostolicam inde etram rescripta venerunt causa si nita est error utinam finiatur 2. two Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See from thence also Rescripts have been sent back the Cause is determin'd would to God the Error were extinguished Thus Augustine shews that to be false and erroneous which a late Author de Disciplina Ecclesiae hath rashly utter'd viz. that the Africans did acknowledge no Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop over their Province and that nothing further could be collected from Augustine then that the Roman Bishop had a Primacy amongst the Western Bishops 5. We have heard Augustin now let us hear Innocent himself whom Augustine extols For that most holy Man doth not only claim to himself as Bishop of the Universal Church a Power to determine in the Cause of the Pelagians but also challenges this as of special Right too belonging to him as he was the Head of the African and the other Occidental Churches in his Epistle ad Decentium Eugubinum Episcopum in these Words Inoncentius I. vid. in p. 24. Vidnum VIII For
this p. 48 Which were the greater and which the lesser Dioceses p. 60 61 The name of Diocese was known in the time of the Nicene Council p. 62 E. The Bishop of Rome publisht Easter day after the time of the Nicene Council p. 69 71 The charge of computing Easter day was imposed upon the Patriarch of Alexandria by the Nicene Synod p. 71 Pope Eleutherius receiv'd an Epistle from King Lucius 13. Britain was Converted to the Faith under him p. 12 The Epistles of the Bishops of Rome concerning the Roman Patriarchal Power over Illyricum p. 40 41 42. The Testimony of Eusebius shewing where the Gospel was Preach'd by the Apostles p. 7 The Eusebians vainly attempted to draw Julius the first to their party 80. they were the first in the World that ever dreamt that the judgment of the Eastern Council was supreme p. 80 81 F. France vid. Gaul Frumentius Bishop of Aethiopia had his Mission from Athanasius p. 32 G. Gaul when converted to the Faith. p. 10 The Catholic Writers of Gaul defended the Roman Bishops Patriarchal Authority over the West against the Hereticks p. 21 Germanus Bishop of Auxerre came as Vicar of Pope Celestine into Britain p. 99 The Testimony of Gildas the Wise concerning the Preaching of the Gospel in the time of Tiberius 2 his Testimony concerning Peter See in Britain p. 4 The Schismatic Greeks acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be Patriarch of the West p. 21 H. A very clear Testimony of Henry the Eighth concerning the Popes Primacy 111. he was the first King of England that fell into Schism p. 111 The Epistle of Honorius the Emperor to Theodosius concerning the preserving the priviledges of the Apostolic See. p. 51 I. What Iames King of England believ'd concerning the Institution of Patriarchs and concerning the Roman Patriarchate in particular p. 20 The testimony of Ierome concerning Paul's preaching the Gospel from Ocean to Ocean 8. his testimony concerning the Authority of the Patriarch of Antioch over the Metropolitan of Cesarea p. 86 Illyricum though converted to the Faith by Paul the Apostle was notwithstanding Subject to the Roman Patriarchate as appears from many Epistles of ancient P. P. p. 38 c. The testimony of Ireneus concerning the more powerfull Principality of the Roman Church p. 14 Iuiius the first reprehends the Eusebians for declining the judgment of the Apâ—stolic See. p. 81 Iustinian the Emperor acknowledges the Roman Bishops Patriarchate over the West p. 55 L. Launoy opposes the authority of Clements Epistle to the Romans without any ground 10. he gave occasion to the Ministers of the English Church to defend their Schism with the greater obstinacy See Preface Lucius was the first King of England that was Converted to the Faith. 12 he sends Embassadors to Pope Eleutherius 13. Whether leaving his Kingdom he went into Germany and converted Bavaria to the Faith. p. 31 M. The English Manuscript set forth by Spelman is of no credit or authority p. 102 Meletius was Second in dignity to the Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt 87. he was a Metropolitan under Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria p. 88 The Metropolitical Authority was instituted by the Apostles Preface It is not suprem p. 78 The Metropolitan of Cesarea was in ancient time subject to the Patriarch of Antioch 85. the Institution of Metropolitans in Britain in the time of Gregory the Great p. 34 It is necessary that those who plant Churches should have a true Mission p. 29 N. The 6. Canon of the Council of Nice 82. it doth not treat of the authority of Metropolitans as Supreme p. 86 O. The Testimony of Optatus Milevitanus concerning the Roman Church p. 110 How the Ordination of Metropolitans belonged to the Patriarchs p. 33 P. The Pall when first received and by whom p. 33 There were Patriarchs in the Primitive Church p. 20 They had their Original from Apostolical institution 53. there are three Patriarchal rights p. 18 The Patriarchal right over Illyricum p. 50 S. Patrick Legate to Celestine I. p. 100. Where Paul the Apostle preach't the Gospel 8. he was not the firft Planter of the Roman Church 25. whether he Preach't in Britain p. 6 It was most just that the cause of Paulus Samosatenus should be remov'd to the tribunal of the Bishop of Rome p. 80 Pelagius consented that his cause should be brought before Innocent the first after it had bin heard in the Eastern Synod 96. how his Heresy was condemn'd by Zosimus and the censure that Zosimus passed against it was approv'd by every Church under Heaven p. 98. Who determin'd in the cause of Perigenes and when p. 48 c. The cause of Perrevius different from that of Perigenes p. 47 Peter head of the Apostles 109 110. his memory to be honour'd 81. he instituted three Patriarchal Sees 30. he and his Successors instituted all the Churches in the West 24. he had instituted the Roman Church before Paul came to Rome 26. his See in Britain p. 4 c. R. The Roman Church hath the more powerful Principality for which cause it is necessary that every Church should have resort unto it 14 15. the whole World hath intercourse with it by communicatory Letters 110. the Principality of the Apostolic See always prevail'd in it 1â— as the imperial Seat had its Principality so likewise had Priesthood its Principle in it ibid. The Roman Bishop is Patriarch of the West 89. he had Metropolitans under him 89. he is the Head of the Institutions in the West 30. Britain appertains to his Patriarchate 38. the Roman Bishop had always the right of promulgating Easter day 72. his Authority is shew'd from those things which happened concerning Easter in the time of Victor 73 74. all Provinces are to refer their Causes to him as Head of the Church p. 95. S. The Testimonies of the Council of Sardica for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome p. 95 The Authority of Severus Sulpitius for the preaching the Gospel in Gaul in the third Age. p. 12 Divers Errors of Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls set down Prolegom p. 7. 9. 11. 14. 19. 20. 27. 43. 45. 46. 48. 60. 61. 64. 68. 77. 78. 79. 82. 83. 84. 92. T. Theodosius junior being circumvented by the Bishop of Constantinople withdraws Illiricum from the Roman Patriarchate 48 49. he repeals the Law that he made concerning this matter p. 52 Thule an Island in Iceland p. 9 V. Pope Victor judg'd that the Question concerning the Feast of Easter was to be decided by him 72. he terrifies the Astatic Churches that withdrew their Obedience with the censure of Excommunication p. 73 FINIS Post-script SInce this Dissertation which the Author not being acquainted with the English Tongue was obliged to write in Latin is an Answer to what the Dean of Paul's hath Written in English 't was thought convenient it should be Translated that both Writers might appear in the same Language And it was the part of the Interpreter to render the true Sence of the Latin Treatise which he hath carefully endeavour'd to do Leaving it now to the Reader to Judge of the Works of these two Authors and Intreating him either to Excuse or Correct some Errata of this Impression in the manner following Some Errors Corrected REad Venantius pag. 9. Pausianus p. 36. Nectarius p. 48. ad Theodosium p. 5 in margine Anastasium p. 54 in marg Dieceses p. 60. Praefecti Pretorio p. 61. Chap. V. p. 89. Britain instead of Great Britain 112. c. BY HIS MAJESTY's Letters Patents under His Great Seal of England dated the tenth day of November in the 3d. Year of his Majesties Reign there is Granted to Matthew Turner of Holborn Bookseller and his Assigns only full and sole Power Licence Priviledge and Authority to Print and Reprint either in Latin or English and also to Vtter and Sell at any Place within His Majesties Kingdom of England Dominion of Wales and Town of Berwick upon Tweed the several Books Following viz. I. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent II. The Works of Lewis de Granada III. The Works of S. Francis de Sales IV. The Devotional Treatises of St. Augustin V. The Works of Thomas of Kempis VI. The Devotional Treatises of St. Bonaventure VII Father Person 's Christian Directory or Book of Resolution VIII Father Person 's Treatises of the Three Conversions of England IX A Journal of Meditations for each day in the Year By N. B. X. Meditations used at Lisbon Colledge XI The Christians Daily Exercise by T.V. XII Paradisus Animae Christianae XIII The Key of Paradise XIV Stella's Contempt of the World. XV. The Works of Hieremias Drexelius XVI The Devotional Treatises of Cardinal Bona. XVII Beda's Ecclesiastical History of England XVIII Turbervil's Manual of Controversies XIX Vane's Lost Sheep Returned XX. The true Portraicture of the Church XXI The Catholic Scripturist XXII Historical Collections of the Reigns of Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth Queen Mary Queen Elizabeth and King James XXIII The Devotional Treatises of Cardinal Bellarmin XXIV The Question of Questions XXV The Works of Lewis de Puente XXVI The Works of Alphonsus Roderiguez XXVII The Poor Man's Devotion As by the said Letters patents doth more fully appear
Persons by whose means Lucius desired of Eleutherius to be instructed in the Faith and by whose aid Eleutherius did not only convert Lucius but also most of the Britains to the Faith and instituted a Church in that Country Our Author admits that Eluanus and Medroinus were sent by Lucius and he gives this Account of the Embassie Eluanus and Edwinus were British Christians themselves and therefore sent to Eleutherius Pag. 68. having been probably the Persons employ'd to convince King Lucius but he knowing the great Fame of Rome and it being told him not only that there were Christians there but a Bishop in that City the twelfth from the Apostles had a desire to understand how far the British Christians and those of Rome agreed and he might reasonably then presume that the Christian Doctrine was there truly taught at so little distance from the Apostles and in a place whither as Irenaeus argues in this Case a resort was made from all Places because of its being the Imperial City These were reasonable considerations which might move King Lucius and not any Opinion of St Peter's having appointed the Head of the Church there of which there was no imagination then 9. But since our Author confesses that Ambassadors were therefore sent by Lucius to Rome that they might perform that which the Faithful from all parts as Irenaeus testifies were then used to perform I would know this one thing of him where he finds that they observ'd this by reason of the Principality of the Roman City Certainly he could not find this in the Words of Ireneus Ireneus Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam inquit propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam which he mentions and which are taken out of his third Book Chap. 3. where this Holy Bishop of Lions directs all the Faithful to the Roman Church For to this Church saith he it is necessary that all Churches resort by reason of its more powerful Principality But where in that place doth Ireneus say that there must be resort made to Rome because of its being the Imperial City The Author here find that in the Words of Ireneus which that Father never in the least meant by them For Ireneus writes not that the City but the Church of Rome which was consecrated by the Blood of Peter and Paul was to be consulted in Controversies of Faith and that all the Faithful under Heaven ought to agree with the Roman Church because of its more powerful Principality not because of the Principality of the Imperial City its necessary saith Ireneus that resort be made to this Church by all other Churches that is by the Faithful from all parts because of its more powerful Principality Therefore the Supremacy of the Ecclesiastical Principality at Rome was the cause of Lucius's sending an Embassie thither not the Principality of the Imperial City For in the City of Rome that I may use the Words of Honorius the Emperor not only the Imperial Seat was planted but the Principle of the Priesthood And there also as * Honorius Imperator Epist ad Theodosium Augustum In urbe Roma non solum Romanum Principatum Domus Augusta obtinuit sed Principium quoque Sacerdotium accepit Augustine Epist 162. affirms The Principality of the Apostolic See ever prevail'd This Principality over the Church Christ gave to Peter and Peter left it to his Successors in the Roman See which when our Author denies he opposeth a Truth which Peron the Glory of France in his Answer to James King of England Chap. 23. proves from very many Canons of the Church and Testimonies of the Councils and Ancient Fathers I should cite more of them were not the present Question chiefly concerning the Roman Bishops Patriarchal Authority over the West not his Supremacy over the Catholic Church Divus Augustinus Epist 162. therefore that we may keep close to that which we have undertaken to treat of let us conclude with our Author that Lucius sent Embassadors to Eleutherius that they might be inform'd of him in Matters of Faith and let us acknowledg with Ireneus that the Britains no less than the Faithful in other parts of the World ought to agree with the Roman Church because of its greater Principality to which let us add with English Writers that Eleutherius the Roman Bishop made use of his Authority when he ordain'd those Legats who being sent into Britain baptised Lucius setled Churches and consecrated Bishops and from hence we may conclude that to be true which I have in the Title of this Chapter taken upon me to prove viz. That the British Church was instituted either by St. Peter or by those whom his Successors ordained Priests CHAP. II. That the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the West and therein even of England and that this follows from the British Church's having receiv'd her Institution either from him or from his Priests as is prov'd by the Testimony of Innocent 1. The Roman Patriarchate over the whole Western Church which is asserted in the 17th Canon of the Eight General Council our Author likes not His words are recited 2. He saith that the way of proving the Patriarchal right from the exercise of it and the exercise fromthe right is ridiculous although he confesses that it is of force against de Marca and other Catholics who admit that the Pope is Patriarch over the whole West against whom only I have used that way of proof so that it cannot be ridiculeus as I use it 3. Against such Heretics who deny the Bishop of Rome to be Patriarch over the West I have not used that but another way of proof viz. the perpetual Tradition of the Ancients which the very Schismatic Greeks themselves have not been so bold as to deny 4. One of the ancient Testimonies which I have brought for that Tradition is out of S. Augustine who hath plainly deliver'd that Innocent the First had not only a Supremacy of order and dignity over the Western Church but also of Jurisdiction 5. Another of them is that of Innocent the First himself who relates that Churches were Instituted through all France Spain Africa Sicily Italy and the interjacent Islands by Peter only or his Successors or else by those whom they ordain'd Priests and affirms that all these Countries ought to acknowledge the Apostolic See as the Head of their Institutions 6. How Paul having preacht at Rome and it may be in other of the Western parts proves nothing against this is shewed from Paul himself who reckons only such Churches amongst those which were instituted by his Preaching whom himself first taught the Faith of which sort the Roman is not as having been planted by Peter before Pauls coming into Italy the same may be said of other Western Churches supposing that Paul Preach'd in them 7. Two things are objected by our Author the first in relation to matter
the extent of his Authority and a Metropolitan only as to the administration of it 5. If the Reader will not believe me let him consult the Authors own words which are these In this Canon there are three things principally design'd 1. To confirm the ancient Privileges of some of the greater Sees as Rome Alexandria and Antioch 2. To secure the Privileges of other Churches against the Encroachments upon them 3. To provide for the quiet establishment of Metropolitan Churches which last is so plain that it will need no farther discourse But the other two are of great consequence to our design Thus the Author first of all confessing that the Nicene Fathers did confirm the ancient privileges of some of the principal Sees in which they had gain'd to themselves a more ample Power than that of a Metropolitan only by which means the Bishop of Alexandria had Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis under his jurisdiction over which he exercised the Patriarchal Authority of Consecrating Bishops calling Synods and judging in the greater Ecclesiastical causes Now least any one should from hence infer that the Bishop of Alexandria had obtain'd a greater Power then that of a Metropolitan he asserts that he had then no Metropolitans under him in those Provinces and that the rite of Patriarchal administration was co-incident with the Metropolitical at the time of the Council of Nice and so different from that which was afterwards introduc'd Therefore he confesses that there was something that was singular in the case of the Bishop of Alexandria For saith he 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 that time which is the true reason of bringing the custom of Rome to justifie that of Alexandria For as it is well observ'd by Christianus Lupus the Bishop of Rome had then no Metropolitans under him within the Provinces subject to his jurisdiction 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 6. Therefore our Author asserts that the Patriarch of Alexandria had no Metropolitans under him and that in this lay its likeness to the Roman Patriarchate But before we come to enquire whether it be true that the Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria had no Metropolitans under them let us first see briefly whether no Metropolitans were subject to the Patriarch of Antioch before the Nicene Council For our Author confesses that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice does reach him also The Church of Antioch was the principal Church of all the East and had under it fifteen Provinces which the Notitia Imperii reckons to be comprised under the Eastern Diocese and since the East was first enlightened with the Christian Faith and the name of Christians as St. Luke testifies was first heard at Antioch it is very probable that that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy first took place there which is describ'd in the 35th of those Canons which are attributed to the Apostles to wit that there were Bishops constituted in the Cities and that a chief Bishop was placed in the Metropolis of every Province to the end that the Bishops of every Nation might know who was their Chief So that Tarsus being the Metropolis of the chief part of Cylicia the Bishop of this City might as Metropolitan subscribe in the first place to those Letters which the second Synod of Antioch set forth against Paulus Samosatenus So was also Caesarea the Metropolis of the cheif part of Palestine in which it so manifestly appears that there was a Metropolitan Bishop long before the time of the Council of Nice that there can be no doubt made of the thing For when Pope Victor had writ to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea to call a Council for the determining of Easter day Fragmentum Synodi Caesariensis apud Bedum the Bishop having receiv'd this Order as the Acts of this Council recorded in Venerable Bede inform us summon'd all the Bishops not only from his own Province but also from diverse other Regions What is more clear then this There is a distinct Province assigned to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea as Metropolitan out of which he summon'd the Bishops to Council therefore he had his own proper Province over the Bishop whereof he presided This is farther evidenced from the fact of John Bishop of Jerusalem who had referred the Debate concerning the Error of Origen to the Patriarch of Alexandria and is for this cause reprehended by St. Jerom in these Words You who seek for Ecclesiastical rules and make use of the Canons of the Nicene Council tell me D. Hieronimus Epist ad Pamachium Vid. num XXXVII what hath Palestine to do with the Bishop of Alexandria If I mistake not this is what that Council hath determin'd viz. that Caesarea should be the Metropolis of Palestine and Antioch the Metropolis of the whole East therefore you should either have brought your cause before the Bishop of Caesarea or if you were to go far for a determination you should rather have directed your Letters to Antioch you chose to be troublesome to one who had his head full of business already rather then to pay to your Metropolitan that honour which was due to him Thus saith S. Jerom in his 61. Epistle to Pammachius plainly asserting that according to the Nicene Canons the Bishop of Jerusalem was to submit to the Bishop of Caesarea as his Metropolitan and to the Bishop of Antioch as his Patriarch whence it manifestly appears that the Patriarch of Antioch had at the time of the Council of Nice the Metropolitan of Caesarea under his Jurisdiction even in Palestine it self 7. This being so what answer can our Author make what can he invent what can he dream of to elude this verity Will he say that he did not speak concerning the Patriarch of Antioch but only concerning the Alexandrian and Roman Patriarchs that the Nicene Canon only declares there was a likeness between these two In Prudence he will never answer thus for he hath interpreted the Nicene Canon so as to make it comprise the rights of the three principal Sees and therefore those of Antioch amongst the rest Since therefore it is manifest from what hath been said that the See of Antioch had under it more Metropolitan Bishops then one is not that apparently false which our Author imitating Beverage hath feigned viz. that the Council of Nice in its Sixth Canon hath acknowledg'd no Authority superior to that of a Metropolitan Is it not manifestly prov'd that he imposes an Error upon the English Nation when to defend the Metropolitan Power as Supream he asserts that all other Jurisdiction superior to this was unknown to the Nicene Council I judge that what hath been said ought to besufficient to make the English open their Eyes and forsake and
Age the British Bishops who as St. Athanasius testifies were present at the Council of Sardica opposed the Eusebians and contended that Athanasius was rightly absolved by Julius the First that they permitted Appeals to be made to the Apostolic See from all Provinces of the Christian World and that they declared the Memory of Peter the Apostle was to be honour'd in the Roman Bishop For so the British Prelates who together with the three hundred Bishops assembled at the Council of Sardica Canon 3. have decreed Let us honour the Memory of St. Peter the Apostle Canon 3. Sardicensis Vid. num XL. that those who have examin'd the Cause may write to Julius the Bishop of Rome and if he judges it should be heard again let it be again heard and let him assign the Judges but if he upon trial find the cause to be such that it ought not to have a second hearing what he decrees in this kind shall stand firm Whereupon the same British Bishops after the Canons were established in their Synodical Epistles ex Cresconii collectione Hilarii fragmentis Tom. 2. Conciliorum apud Labbeum edita wrote to Julius the First Epistola Synodica Sardicensis Vid. num XLI that it seem'd best and most congruous that the Chief Priests out of every Province should refer their Causes to the Head that is to the See of Peter the Apostle What could the British Bishops have written more plainly than this that the Roman See was the Seat of Peter and the Head of the whole Church to which the Bishops throughout the whole World ought to refer Matters as in the Council of Sardica they refer'd the Condemnation of the Eusebians concerning whom they thus wrote to Pope Julius Vouchsafe to admonish all our Brethren Ibid. and Fellow-Bishops by your Letters that they do not receive their Epistles that is their Communicatory Letters In which thing the British Bishops agreed with St. Ambrose and the Italian Bishops who in the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Aquileia in this very same fourth Age Concilium Aquileiense Epist ad Gratianum Imperatorem Vid. num XLII wrote to Gratian the Emperor that the Roman Church was the Head of the whole Roman World from whence the Rights of venerable Admonition flow to all 4. There is an eminent Testimony of the Popes Primacy which is taken from the very Enemies of the Roman Faith born in Britain Pelagius a Britain being first accused of Heresie by Osorius a Spanish Priest at the Synod of Diospolis and afterwards by those of the West in an Eastern Synod under Theodotus Bishop of Antioch did not only suffer his Cause to be refer'd to Pope Innocent but he also directs Letters missive to to him wherein he gave an account of his Faith. Osorius gives Testimony of the Act of the former Synod in Apologia pro libertate arbitrii contra Pelagium telling us that John Bishop of Jerusalem did at least pronounce this Sentence in the Diospolitan Synod that the Brethren and their Epistles should be sent to St. Innocent the Pope of Rome Osorius Apologia prolibertate arbitrii Vid. num XLIII and that all were to stand to his Determination St. Augustine makes mention of the second Synod affirming Lib. 1. Contra Julianum Cap. 3. that Theodotus Bishop of Antioch presided in it and that he had the Letters by him which that Bishop and Praylus Bishop of Jerusalem sent to Innocent concerning this Matter D. Augustinus Lib. 2. de gratâ—a Christi Cap. 2.1 De Libro fidei quem Romanâ— ipsis litteris misit ad eundem Innocentium Lastly that Pelagius presented a Treatise containing his Faith to Innocent the First St. Augustine Lib. 2. de Gratia Christi Cap. 21. informs us in these Wâ—rds concerning the Treatise of his Faith which he sent to Rome together with Letters to the same Innocent Would â—elagius have suffered that his Cause should have been remov'd from the Synod of Eastern Bishops to the Tribunal of the Bishop of Rome and have been Solicitous to clear himself before Innocent in the Treatise of his Faith which he sent him if Innocent's Authority had not been at all valued in Britain the Place wherein Pelagius had his Birth and Education Would not he rather have declin'd the Sentence of the Apostolic See and rejected the Judgment of the Roman Church in this Point 5. It was so far from this that Celestius the Disciple of Pelagius and a Scotch-man being accused of the same Heresie in another part of the World by Paulinus Deacon to St. Ambrose and condemn'd in the Synod of Carthage in Africa thought fit to appeal to the Bishop of Rome for his Tryal This we find to be written by Marius Mercator in Commonitorio Marius Mercator in Commonitorio from which Sentence he thought fit to appeal to the Examen of the Bishop of Rome Could he judge him to be appeal'd to whom he thought to have no Authority to Judge Paulinus declar'd himself of another Opinion in the Libel he offer'd to Pope Zosimus speaking in this manner concerning Celestius he Paulinus in libello Zosimo Papae oblato that had made his Appeal to the Apostolic See was absent who ought to have maintained the Merits of his Appeal St. Ambrose's Deacon could not more evidently have asserted that the See Apostolic had a Right to receive Appeals and that Celestius ought to have pleaded the Points of his Appeal before the Roman Bishop as his Superior But although Celestius neglecting his first Appeal fled into Bsia and Thrace yet being driven thence Marius Mercator in Commonit he made all the hast he could to the City of Rome in the time of Pope Zosimus of blessed Memory as Mercator testifies and there after his Tergiversations and Errors were detected he and Pelagius were condemned by Pope Zosimus of blessed Memory concerning which Epistle of Zosimus sent throughout the whole World was confirm'd by the Subscriptions of the Holy Fathers as we are told in Commonitorio above mention'd with which St. Prosper agrees asserting that the Decrees which were made against â—elagius and Celestius were brought out of Africa to Pope Zosimus S. Prosper in Chronico which being approv'd of the Pelagian Heresie was condemn'd throughout the whole World. As far therefore as we can collect from the management of the whole Cause of Celestius and Pelagius it was so certain in the time of Innocent the First that it belong'd to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop as Superior that not only the Eastern and African Councils freely acknowledge this but Pelagius and Celestius the very Pests of Mankind durst not deny it Moreover when the Epistle of Zosimus which condemn'd the Pelagian Heresie being transmitted through every Church under Heaven came at last to Britain there is no doubt to be made but that Heresie was condemned by the Subscriptions of the British Fathers Whence Venerable Bede observes that the Pelagian