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
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
Bishops were of the Western Bishops meddling in their matters ever since the Council of Sardica of which afterwards but they tell them it was no new thing for the Western Bishops to be concerned when things were out of order among them Non Praerogativam say they vindicamus examinis sed Consortium tamen debuit esse communis arbitrii They did not challenge a Power of calling them to account but they thought there ought to be a mutual Correspondence for the general good and therefore they received Maximus his Complaint of his hard usage at Constantinople Will any hence infer that this Council or St. Ambrose had a Superiour Authority over the Patriarch of Constantinople So that neither Consultations Advices References nor any other Act which depends upon the Will of the Parties and are designed onely for a common good can prove any true Patriarchal Power Which being premised let us now see what Evidence is produced from hence for the Pope's patriarchal Power over the Western Churches And the main thing insisted upon is The Bishop of Rome 's appointing Legates in the Western Churches to hear and examine Causes and to report them And of this the first Instance is produced of the several Epistles of Popes to the Bishops of Thessalonica in the Roman Collection Of which a large account hath been already given And the first beginning of this was after the Council of Sardica had out of a Pique to the Eastern Bishops and Jealousie of the Emperour allow'd the Bishop of Rome the Liberty of granting a re-hearing of Causes in the several Provinces which was the pretence of sending Legates into them And this was the first considerable step that was made towards the advancing the Pope's power over the Western Churches For a present Doctour of the Sorbon confesseth that in the space of 347 years i. e. to the Sardican Council No one Instance can be produced of any Cause wherein Bishops were concerned that was ever brought to Rome by the Bishops that were the Iudges of it But if the Pope's Patriarchal Power had been known before it had been a regular way of proceeding from the Bishops in Provincial Synods to the Patriarch And withall he saith before that Council no instance can be produced of any Iudges Delegates for the review of Iudgment passed in provincial Synods And whatever Privilege or Authority was granted by the Council of Sardica to the Bishop of Rome was wholly new and had no Tradition of the Church to justifie it And was not then received either in the Eastern or Western Churches So that all the Pleas of a Patriarchal Power as to the Bishop of Rome with respect to greater Causes must fall very much short of the Council of Nice As to the Instance of Marcianus of Arles that hath been answered already And as to the Deposition of Bishops in England by the Pope's authority in later times it is of no importance since we do not deny the matter of Fact as to the Pope's Vsurpations But we say they can never justifie the exercise of a Patriarchal Power over these Churches by the Rules established in the Council of Nice But it is said That the Council of Arles before that of Nice attributes to the Bishop of Rome Majores Dioceses i. e. according to De Marca all the Western Churches But in answer to this I have already shew'd how far the Western Bishops at Arles were from owning the Pope's Patriarchal Power over them because they do not so much as desire his Confirmation of what had passed in Council But onely send the Canons to him to publish them But our Authour and Christianus Lupus say that such is the Patriarch's Authority That all Acts of Bishops in Council are in themselves invalid without his Sentence which onely gives Life and Vigour to them As they prove by the Patriarch of Alexandria But if the Bishop of Rome were then owned to be Patriarch over seven or eight Dioceses of the West according to De Marca's exposition how came they to sit and make Canons without the least mention of his Authority So that either they must deny him to be Patriarch or they must say he was affronted in the highest manner by the Western Bishops there assembled But as to the expression of Majores Dioceses it is very questionable whether in the time of the Council of Arles the distribution of the Empire by Constantine into Dioceses were then made and it seems probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice Dioceses not being mentioned there but onely Provinces And if so this Place must be corrupt in that expression as it is most certain it is in others And it is hard to lay so great weight on a place that makes no entire sense But allowing the expression genuine it implies no more than that the Bishop of Rome had then more Extensive Dioceses than other Western Bishops Which is not denied since even then he had several Provinces under his immediate Government which no other Western Bishop had St. Basil's calling the Bishop of Rome Chief of the Western Bishops implies nothing but the dignity of his See and not any Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches It must be a degree of more than usual subtilty to infer Damasus his Patriarchal Power over the West because St. Jerome joins Damasus and the West together as he doth Peter and Egypt Therefore Damasus had the same Power over the West which Peter had over Egypt It seems St. Jerome's language about the different Hypostases did not agree with what was used in the Syrian Churches and therefore some charged him with false Doctrine he pleads for himself that the Churches of Egypt and the West spake as he did and they were known then neither to favour Arianism nor Sabellianism And to make his Allegation more particular he mentions the names of the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome But a Cause extremely wants Arguments which must be supported by such as these If St. Augustine makes Innocent to preside in the Western Church he onely thereby shews the Order and Dignity of the Roman See but he doth not own any Subjection of the Western Churches to his Power since no Church did more vehemently withstand the Bishoâ— of Rome's Incroachments than the Churches of Africa did in St. Augustine's time As is notorious in the business of Appeals which transaction is a demonstration against his Patriarchal Power over the African Churches And the Bishop of Rome never insisted on a Patriarchal Right but on the Nicene Canons wherein they were shamefully baffled It cannot be denied that Pope Innocent in his Epistle to Decentius Eugubinus would bring the Western Churches to follow the Roman Traditions upon this pretence That the Churches of Italy Gaul Spain Africa Sicily and the Islands lying between were first instituted either by such as were sent by St. Peter or his
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
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
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
since Athanasius his Synodicon hath been so long lost wherein all their Names were set down who were then present And that Catalogue of them if it were distinct which Epiphanius had seen There being then so much reason to believe the British Bishops present in the Council of Nice we have the more cause to look into the Constitution of the Ecclesiastical Government there settled that so we may better understand the just Rights and Privileges of the British Churches After the Points of Faith and the Time of Easter were determined The Bishops there assembled made twenty Canons for the Government and Discipline of the Church in which they partly re-inforced the Canons of the Council of Arles and partly added new Those that were re-inforced were 1. Against Clergy-mens taking the customary Vsury then allow'd Can. 17. 2. Against their removing from their own Diocese Can. 15. which is here extended to Bishops and such removal is declared null 3. Against Deacons giving the Eucharist to Presbyters and in the presence of Bishops Can. 18. 2. As to Lay Communion The Canon against re-baptizing is re-inforced by Can. 19. wherein those onely who renounced the Trinity are required to be re-baptized and the Canon against being excommunicated in one Church and received into Communion in another Can. 5. whether they be of the Laity of Clergy For the New Canons about Lay Communion they chiefly concerned the Lapsed in times of Persecution As 1. If they were onely Catechumens that for three years they should remain in the lowest Form not being admitted to join in any Prayers of the Church but onely to hear the Lessons read and the Instructions that were there given Can. 14. 2. For those that were baptized and fell voluntarily in the late Persecution of Licinius They were for three years to remain among those who were admitted onely to hear for seven years to continue in the state of Penitents and for two years to join onely with the People in Prayers without being admitted to the Eucharist Can. 11. 3. For those Souldiers who in that Persecution when Licinius made it necessary for them to sacrifice to Heathen Gods if they would continue in their Places first renounced their Employments and after by Bribery or other means got into them again for three years they were to be without joining in the Prayers of the Church and for ten years to remain in the state of Penitents But so as to leave it to the Bishop's Discretion to judge of the sincerity of their Repentance and accordingly to remit some part of the Discipline Can. 12. 4. If persons happen'd to be in danger of Death before they had passed through all the methods of the Churches Discipline they were not to be denyed the Eucharist But if they recover they were to be reduced to the state of Penitents Can. 13. But there was one Canon added of another nature which concerned Vniformity and that is the last of the Genuine Canons It had been an ancient Custome in the Christian Church to forbear kneeling in the publick Devotion on the Lord's days and between Easter and Whitsontide but there were some who refused to observe it And therefore this Canon was made to bring all to an Vniformity in that Practice Can. 20. But there are other Canons which relate more especially to Ecclesiastical Persons and those either concern the Discipline of the Clergy or the Government of the Church 1. For the Discipline of the Clergy they are these 1. None who had voluntarily castrated themselves were to be admitted into Orders Can. 1. For it seems Origen's Fact however condemned by some was as much admired by others and Christianus Lupus thinks the Sect of the Valesii who castrated all came from him But I do not find that Origen did propagate any Sect of this kind And Epiphanius makes one Valens the Authour of it However this great Council thought fit to exclude all such from any Capacity of Church Employments But it is generally supposed and not without reason that the Fact of Leontius a Presbyter of Antioch castrating himself because of his suspicious Conversation with Eustolia gave the particular Occasion to the making this Canon 2. None who were lately Catechumens were to be consecrated Bishops or ordained Presbyters Can. 2. For however it had happen'd well in some extraordinary Cases as of St. Cyprian before and others after this Council as St. Ambrose Nectarius c. yet there was great reason to make a standing Rule against it 3. None of the Clergy were to have any Women to live in the House with them except very near Relations as Mother or Sister c. Can. 3. For some pretending greater Sanctity and therefore declining Marriage yet affected the familiar Conversation of Women who made the same pretence For Budaeus hath well observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Companion of Celibacy So that when two Persons were resolved to continue unmarried and agreed to live together one of these was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the other And Tertullian writing against second Marriages seems to advise this Practice Habe aliquam Vxorem spiritualem adsume de Viduis Ecclesiae c. And it soon grew into a Custome in Africa as appears by St. Cyprian who writes vehemently against it and shews the Danger and Scandal of it And that this Conversation was under a Pretence of Sanctity appears by St. Jerom's words speaking of such persons Sub nominibus pietatis quaerentium suspecta consortia and again Sub nomine Religionis umbra Continentiae But elsewhere he calls it Pestis Agapetarum for it spread like the Plague and was restrained with great Difficulty And at last Laws were added to Canons these being found ineffectual 4. If any persons were admitted loosely and without due Examination into Orders or upon Confession of lawfull Impediments had Hands notwithstanding laid upon them such Ordinations were not to be allowed as Canonical Can. 9. which is more fully expressed in the next Canon as to one Case viz. That if any lapsed persons were ordained whether the Ordainers did it ignorantly or knowingly they were to be deprived Can. 10. 5. If any among the Novatians returned to the Church and subscribed their Consent to the Doctrine and Practice of it their Ordination seems to be allowed Justellus and some others think a new Imposition of hands was required by this Canon If any of the Novatian Clergy were admitted into the Church And so Dionysius Exiguus and the old Latin Interpreter do render it But Balsamon Zonaras and others understand it so as that the former Imposition of hands whereby they were admitted into the Clergy were hereby allow'd If the words of the Canon seem to be ambiguous and their Sense to be taken from the Practice of the Nicene Fathers in a parallel Case then they are rather to be understood of a new Imposition of hands For in the Case of the Meletians
Council of Nice So that all foreign Jurisdiction is excluded by this Canon And the British Churches had a full Power within themselves to end all Causes that did arise within their own Provinces And it was mere usurpation in any Foreign Bishop to interpose in any differences in the British Churches Because the Council of Nice had circumscribed the Liberty of Appeals to Provincial Synods And this was it which made the African Fathers so stout in defence of their just Rights against the manifest incroachments of the Bishop of Rome and the British Churches had as great Privileges and as just Rights in these matters as the African Churches 3. About settling the ancient Bounds of Jurisdiction as to Patriarchal Churches in the famous sixth Canon Which hath been the occasion of so many warm Debates In the former Canon the Nicene Fathers fixed the general Right of Appeals And in this Canon they settle the particular Bounds of Patriarchal Jurisdiction according to ancient Custome So that none ought to violate the Privileges which Churches had hitherto enjoy'd The Words are Let ancient Customs prevail for the Bishop of Alexandria to have Jurisdiction over Egypt Libya and Pentapolis Because the Bishop of Rome hath a like Custome Likewise in Antioch and other Provinces let the Privileges of Churches be preserved Let no man be made a Bishop without the consent of his Metropolitane If Differences arise let the Majority of Votes determine 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 their encroachments upon them 3. To provide for the quiet establishment of Metropolitane Churches which last is so plain that it will need no farther discourse But the other two are of great consequence to our design 1. To confirm the ancient Privileges of some of the greater Sees which had gotten the extent of more than a bare Metropolitane Power to themselves as is plain in the case of Alexandria which seems to have been the occasion of this Canon Not merely from the Schism of Meletius as is commonly thought which the Council took care of another way in the Synodical Epistle to the Churches of Egypt But because so large a Jurisdiction as had been exercised by the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome and Antioch seem'd repugnant to the foregoing Canon about Provincial Synods It is true that Meletius after the Schism did consecrate Bishops in Egypt in opposition to the Bishop of Alexandria But the question between them was not concerning the Bounds of Jurisdiction but about the Validity of Meletius his deposition by Peter of Alexandria Which Meletius not regarding fell into a Schism and to maintain this Schism he consecrated near Thirty Bishops as appear'd by the list he gave in to Alexander after the Council of Nice extant in Athanasius Whereby it is evident That Meletius his Schism could not be the Occasion of this Canon For that Schism did not at all relate to the several Provinceâ— of Egypt here mention'd which would have continued if the Bishop of Alexandria's Authority had been confined to a single Province and what stop could it put to the Schism to say his Authority extended over all the Roman Provinces in Egypt For the question was Who had the Authority not How far it extended But upon the former Canon about Provincial Synods there was a very just occasion to add this concerning the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome For if no Salvo had been made for them as to the largeness of their Jurisdiction the next thing had been for all the Provincial Synods to have immediately cast off all respect to them except onely those of their own Province Now in Egypt here are three distinct Provinces mention'd as subject to the Bishop of Alexandria viz. Egypt Libya and Pentapolis And so the Nicene Fathers reckon them in their Epistle to the Churches of Egypt and in these Athanasius mentions an hundred Bishops But sometimes he names onely Egypt and Libya as in his Epistle to the African Bishops sometimes Egypt and the two Libya's and in both comprehending Thebais under Egypt sometimes he names Thebais and several times as it is here onely Egypt Libya and Pentapolis Which as Justellus saith comprehend the whole Egyptian Diocese But Ammianus Marcellinus reckons them otherwise viz. Egypt Thebais and Libya to which Posterity he saith added Augustamnica and Pentapolis But Pentapolis was not comprehended under Libya being always a distinct Province and by the Division of Augustus was under the Proconsul of Crete by the Name of Cyrenaica However Epiphanius takes in Libya Pentapolis Thebais Ammoniaca and Mareotis And saith plainly That all the Provinces of Egypt were under the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria And this he saith was the Custome before the Council of Nice For he speaks of the quarrel between Peter Bishop of Alexandria and Meletius then Bishop of Thebais of whom he saith That he was next to the Bishop of Alexandria but in subjection to him all Ecclesiastical matters being referred to him For it is the Custome for the Bishop of Alexandria to have the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over all Egypt By which it is plain that the Bishop of Alexandria had then a true Patriarchal power by ancient Custome i. e. an Ecclesiastical Authority over the Bishops in several Provinces answering to the Power which the Praefectus Augustalis had over them in the Civil Government It is not at all material whether the name of Patriarch or Diocese in that sense as it takes in the extent of Patriarchal Jurisdiction were then in use for it is the thing we enquire after and not the use of words And if the Bishop of Alexandria had at that time the Power of Consecration of Bishops of calling Councils of receiving Appeals throughout all Egypt no men of Sense can deny that he had a true Patriarchal power I grant he had no Metropolitanes then under him in the several Provinces But what then the manner of Administration of the Patriarchal power might be different then from following times but the extent of the power is the thing in question Either then the Bishop of Alexandria had a barely Metropolitical power or Patriarchal If barely Metropolitical then it could not reach beyond one Province If it extended to more Provinces with full Jurisdiction then it was Patriarchal And it is a wonder to me some learned men in their warm Debates about this Canon could not discern so plain a Truth But it is often said That there were no such things as Patriarchs at this time in the Church nor any Dioceses here taken notice of as they imply an Vnion of several Provinces under a Patriarchal Jurisdiction Suppose there were not under those Names but a Jurisdiction over several Provinces there was in the Bishop of Alexandria which is a true Patriarchal power and Appeals were
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
thought that Athanasius had meant the Bishops of Britain when he reckons up onely the Provinces of Gaul But he declared that they were present with the Gallican Bishops But it hath been urged with great appearance of Reason that since the British Bishops were present at the Council of Sardica The British Churches were bound to observe the Canons of it and Appeals to the Bishop of Rome being there established they were then brought under his Jurisdiction as Patriarch of the Western Churches To give a clear account of this we must examine the Design and Proceedings of that Council The occasion whereof was this Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria being deposed for some pretended misdemeanours by two Synods of Eastern Bishops and finding no redress there by the prevalency of the Arian Faction makes Application to the Western Bishops and to Julius Bishop of Rome as the chief of them and earnestly desires that his Cause might be heard over again bringing great Evidence from the Bishops of Egypt and other places that he never had a fair Hearing but was run down by the Violence of the Eusebian party at Tyre and Antioch The Bishop of Rome communicating this with the Western Bishops as at large appears by Julius his Epistle in Athanasius he in their name as well as his own sends to the Eastern Bishops That this Cause might be heard before indifferent Judges And to that end that they would come into these Parts and bring their Evidences with them This they decline Upon which and a fuller Examination of the matter they receive Athanasius Marcellus and others into Communion with them This gives a mighty distaste to the Eastern Bishops at last the two Brothers Constantius and Constans agree there should be a general Council called at Sardica to hear and determine this matter The Bishops meet But the Western Bishops would have the restored Bishops admitted to Communion and sit in Council This the Eastern Bishops utterly refuse and upon that withdrew to Philippopolis And declare against their Proceedings at Sardica as repugnant to the Nicene Canons The Western Bishops continued sitting and made new Canons to justifie their own Proceedings This is the true state of the matter of Fact as far as I can gather it out of the authentick Writings on both Sides For the one side insists upon the Justice of re-hearing a Cause wherein there was so great suspicion of soul dealing And the other that the matters which concerned their Bishops were not to be tried over again by others at a distance And that this was the Way to overthrow the Discipline of the Church as it had been settled by the Council of Nice and the ancient Canons of the Church It is apparent by the Synodical Epistle of the Greek Bishops who withdrew to Philippopolis That this was the main Point insisted on by them That it was the bringing a new Law into the Church For the Eastern Bishops to be judged by the Western The ancient Custome and Rule of the Church being That they should stand or fall by their own Bishops The Western Bishops on the other side pleaded That this was a Cause of common concernment to the whole Church That there had been notorious partiality in the management of it That Athanasius was condemned not for any pretended miscarriages so much as for his Zeal against Arianism That the Cause was not heard in Egypt where he was charged but at a great distance and therefore in common Justice it ought to have a new hearing by the Eastern and Western Bishops together But the Eastern Bishops finding that the Western would not forsake the Communion of Athanasius and the rest they look'd on the Cause as prejudged and so went away However the other proceeded to the clearing the Bishops accused which they did by a Synodical Epistle and then made several Canons as against Translations from mean Bishopricks to better Can. 1. and using Arts to procure them Can. 2. Against placing Bishops in such places where a single Presbyter would serve and the absence of Bishops at Consecrations Can. 6. Against their unseasonable Applications to the Court Can. 7 8 9 20. Against being made Bishops per Saltum Can. 10. Against their Non-residence Can. 11 12. Against receiving those who were excommunicated by others Can. 13. About the Appeal of Presbyters Can. 14. Against taking Presbyters out of anothers Diocese Can. 15. Against their Non-residence Can. 16. About the Reception of banished Bishops Can. 17. About Eutychianus and Musaeus and the persons ordained by them Can. 18 19. But the main Canons of this Council are the third fourth and fifth which concern the re-hearing of the Causes of Bishops And the interest the Bishop of Rome was to have therein For the right understanding whereof we are to consider the several steps and methods of Proceeding therein established 1. That the Causes of Bishops in the first Instance were still to be heard and determin'd by the Bishops of the Province That is plain by the first part of Can. 3. Which forbids any Bishop in case of difference with another to call Bishops out of a neighbour Province to hear it This was agreeable to the Nicene Can. 5. Herein it is supposed that they reflect on the Council of Antioch's Proceedings against Athanasius But the Council of Antioch did not proceed upon St. Athanasius in the first Instance but upon this ground viz. That being deposed in the Council of Tyre he afterwards returned to the Bishoprick of Alexandria without being first restored by a greater Synod But this seems to have been very hard usage of so great a man For they first made the Canons themselves Can. 4 12. and out of them they framed an Article by virtue whereof they deprived Athanasius And herein lay the Art of the Eusebian party for if they had framed the Canon so as it is extant in Palladius it would never have passed the Council For it was not a Council of mere Arians as is commonly thought but of many Orthodox Bishops together with them who in some things were overreached by the Artifices of the Eusebian party And they did not meet purposely against Athanasius But 97 Bishops were summon'd by the Emperour to meet at the solemn Dedication of the great Church at Antioch called Dominicum Aureum as they had done before on the like occasion at Jerusalem And Eusebius saith Such Assemblies of Bishops were frequent at such times These being met together framed several Canons for the better Ordering and Government of the Churches out of which being passed by general Consent the Eusebians who hated Athanasius framed sufficient Articles against him For by the fourth Canon if a Bishop being deposed by a Synod doth officiate he is never to be restored By the twelfth If a Bishop deposed makes Application to the Emperour and not to a greater Council of Bishops he is not to be restored But now Athanasius being deposed by the Tyrian Synod
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
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
judge whether by Scotia Bede understands the Northern parts of Britain or Ireland But after all doth not Bede say that the Island Hy did belong to Britain as a part of it And what then follows Doth not Bede in the same place say it was given by the Picts not by the Scots to the Scotish Monks who came from Ireland So that upon the whole matter that which Bede understands by Scotia seems to be Ireland although he affirms the Scots to have setled in the Northern parts of Britain and to have set up a Kingdom there From whence there appears no probability of Palladius's being sent to the Scots in Britain Bede saying nothing of their Conversion when he so punctually sets down the Conversion of the South Picts by Ninias a British Bishop and of the Northern Picts by Columba a Scotish or Irish Presbyter But if Palladius were sent to the Scots in Ireland how came St. Patrick to be sent so soon after him To this the Bishop of St. Asaph answers that Palladius might die so soon after his Mission that Pope Celestine might have time enough to send St. Patrick before his own death And this he makes out by laying the several circumstances of the Story together as they are reported by Authours which the Advocate calls a laborious Hypothesis and elaborate contrivance to divert all the unanswerable Authorities proving that Palladius was seâ—t to them in Scotland A. D. 431. What those unanswerable Authorities are which prove Palladius sent to the Scots in Britain I cannot find And for all that I see by this Answer the onely fault of the Bishop's Hypothesis is that it is too exact and doth too much clear the appearance of contradiction between the two Missions 3. As to Dr. Hammond's Testimony who is deservedly called by the Advocate a learned and Episcopal English Divine it is very easily answered For 1. He looks on the whole Story of the Scots Conversionfs as very uncertainly set down by Authours 2. He saith that Bozius applies the Conversion under Victor to Ireland then called Scotia for which he quotes Bede 3. That neither Marianus Scotus nor Bede do take the least notice of it 4. That if Prosper's Words be understood of the Scots in Britain yet they do not prove the thing designed by his Adversaries viz. that the Churches there were governed by Presbyters without Bishops for Prosper supposes that they remained barbarous still and therefore the Plantation was very imperfect and could not be understood of any formed Churches But the Advocate very wisely conceals one passage which overthrows his Hypothesis viz. that they could not be supposed to receive the first Rudiments of their Conversion from Rome viz. under Pope Victor since the Scots joined with the Britains in rejecting the Roman Customs From whence we see that Dr. Hammond was far from being of the Advocate 's mind in this matter and what he proposes as to some Rudiments of Christianity in Scotland before Palladius his coming thither was onely from an uncertain Tradition and for reconciling the seeming differences between Bede and Prosper or rather for reconciling Prosper to himself But I remember the Advocate 's observation in the case of their Predecessour's Apology against Edward I. viz. that they designed as most Pleaders do to gain their Point at any rate and how far this eloquent Advocate hath made good this observation through his Discourse I leave the Reader to determine Having thus gone through all the material parts of the Advocate 's Book I shall conclude with a serious Protestation that no Pique or Animosity led me to this Undertaking no ill Will to the Scotish Nation much less to the Royal Line which I do believe hath the Advantage in point of Antiquity above any other in Europe and as far as we know in the World But I thought it necessary for me to enquire more strictly into this Defence of such pretended Antiquities both because I owed so much service to so worthy and excellent a Friend as the Bishop of St. Asaph and because if the Advocate 's Arguments would hold good they would overthrow several things I had asserted in the following Book and withall I was willing to let the learned Nobility and Gentry of that Nation see how much they have been imposed upon by Hector Boethius and his followers and that the true Honour and Wisedom of their Nation is not concerned in defending such Antiquities which are universally disesteemed among all judicious and inquisitive Men. And it would far better become Persons of so much Ingenuity and Sagacity to follow the Examples of other European Nations in rejecting the Romantick Fables of the Monkish times and at last to settle their Antiquities on firm and solid Foundations As to the following Book it comes forth as a Specimen of a greater Design if God gives me Life and Opportunity which is to clear the most important Difficulties of Ecclesiastical History And because I look on a General Church-History as too heavy a Burthen to be undergone by any Man when he is fit for it by Age and Consideration I have therefore thought it the better way to undertake such particular Parts of it which may be most usefull and I have now begun with these Antiquities of the British Churches which may be followed by others as I see occasion But I hope none will have just cause to complain that I have not used diligence or faithfulness enough in this present Work or that I have set up Fancies and Chimaera's of my own instead of the true Antiquities of the British Churches I have neither neglected nor transcribed those who have written before me and if in some things I differ from them it was not out of the Humour of opposing any great Names but because I intended not to deliver other Mens judgements but my own ERRATA In the Preface PAge 6. line 35. for but he did it reade for doing it p. 23. l. 31. for And r. Surely p. 36. l. 32. for but r. yet p. 38. l. 10. for Cladroe r. Cadroe p. 41. l. 39. after had insert made p. 44. l. 33. for a Generation r. three Generations and for overdoe r. not doe p. 61. l. 37. for foelix r. Salix In the Book PAge 2. l. 10. dele and. p. 25. l. 19. for under floo r. understood p. 59. l. 20. for with r. and. p. 70. for Dioclesian r. Diocletian and so throughout p. 115. l. 14. for Alexander r. Alexander p. 137. l. 7. for put p. 179. l. 11. for Council r. Church p. 194. l. 11. for Frecalphus r. Freculphus p. 209. l. 39. instead of but r. whereas p. 241. l. 7 8. dele But now the Britains were p. 256. l. 26. for Edecus r. Ederus p. 266. l. 35. for Egypt r. Europe p. 276. l. 37. for Erimthon r. Erimhon p. 281. l. 23. for Eanus r. Edanus p. 285. l. 18. for Authemius r. Anthemius p. 306. l. 29.
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
two Reasons which seem to me to have weight in them 1. Because it refers to other ancient Charters of that Church as to the Exemption of the Monastery And the Benedictin Monks have a long time lain under so great a Suspicion among those of their Religion as to this matter of forging Charters of Exemption that no prudent Persons will think those a sufficient Foundation to build their Faith upon as to any ancient History which must depend upon their Credibility I shall not here mention what Gallonius Launoy Naude and others abroad have said upon this Subject nor what insufficient Answers Mabillon hath lately made to their Objections but it is reasonable for us to consider how much they have been Charged here at home with this Crime by the Bishops of this Church and how ill they have been able to defend themselves It appears by the Epistle of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury to Alexander the Third in Petrus Blesensis that there was a general Suspicion of Forgery in the Charters of Exemptions which the Monasteries pretended to Vt falsitas in omnium ferè Monasteriorum exemptione praevaleat c. And he there particularly instanceth in the Bishop of Salisbury charging the Abbat of Malmsbury with producing false Charters for his Exemption from the Bishop's Right of Election But which is yet more considerable in the time of Gregory the ninth when St. Edmond was Archbishop of Canterbury some Monks of Canterbury were Convicted of Forging a certain Charter of Privileges But the Pope's Legate took up the business and procured a Dispensation from the Pope which put an end to the Cause Which Dispensation Dr. Casaubon declares to the World He read in an Old Manuscript belonging to the Church of Canterbury wherein it was Registred And wherein as both he and Sr. Henry Spelman tell us It is observ'd That that Church enjoy'd all its Lands and Privileges onely by Custome and Prescription sine Cartis vel Munimentis Regiis without any written Charters untill Anno Dom. 694. When Withred King of Kent caused the first to be written which was the same with the Council of Becanceld From hence Sr. Henry Spelman gives a prudent Caution concerning the most ancient Charters which the Monks pretended to that they be not easily believed There being so much Suspicion of Fraud in them And that not onely now but was so of Old as appears by what Gervase reports of the Monks of St. Augustin That they produced very Suspicious and rased Charters The Case was this the Monks of St. Augustine pretended an Exemption from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury as those of Glassenbury did from that of the Bishop of Wells upon an Appeal to Rome a Commission was granted to the Bishop of Durham and the Abbat of St. Albans to inspect their Charters and to let the Archbishop examine them But after great Tergiversation they at last produced two Writings which they called their Originals The first was ancient but rased and subscribed as if it were amended and without a Seal which they called King Ethelbert 's Charter The other was of much later Writing with a Leaden Bull hanging at it and the Figure of a Bishop upon it which they called St. Augustine 's Charter Against the First The Rasure was objected and the manner of Subscription and want of a Seal Against the Second The lateness of the Writing and the novelty of hanging Leaden Bulls to Charters especially by Bishops on this side of the Alpes And besides the Style was very different from the Roman Both these Charters are extant in the Monasticon and a third of Ethelbert with an Inspeximus of 36 Edw. III. But another Charter of Ethelbert is set down together with these in the MS. Chronicle of St. Augustin's the Authour whereof was certainly a Monk there being so zealously concern'd to defend these Charters and to answer some of the former Objections against them As to the want of a Seal to Ethelbert's Charter he answers truly That hanging Seals upon Wax were not then used but onely a Subscription of the Name of the person with a Sign of the Cross before it in token of their Conversion For Ingulphus a very competent Witness declares that the ancient English Charters to the time of Edward the Confessour were attested by Witnesses who set their Names with Golden Crosses or other Marks before them But the Normans brought in the use of Seals by Impressions upon Wax But that MS. Authour will not allow the use of such Seals till after the Conquest except in the time of Cnut who was a stranger Whereas in the Contest between the Bishop of Lincoln and the Abbat of St. Albans before Henry II. When the Saxon Charters were disputed for want of Seals the other Party knew not what to answer But the King insisted on their Confirmation by Henry I. And the Monk who writes the account of this Proceeding alledgeth the Seal of Edward the Confessour to the Church of Westminster But Edward brought in several Norman Customs as Ingulphus shews against the practice of his Predecessours And this the Normans borrow'd from the French whose Seals were generally affixed on the right side of the Charter and not pendent with Labels as they began to be about the Reign of Lewis VI. as Mabillon hath shewed at large And so some of our Learned Antiquaries have thought that pendent Seals were not brought into use here till the time of Edw. I. For in a Charter of Henry I. granted to Anselm the great Seal was affixed on the left side of the Parchment And Brian Twyne affirms that he saw a Charter of William the Conquerour so sealed in the Lumley Library But that this Observation is not certain appears by contrary Instances as of the Pendent Seal to the Charter of Battel Abbey printed by Mr. Selden and of the Charter of Henry II. to Glassenbury Abbey which Dr. Caius saith he saw with a Seal of green Wax hanging to it by a string of red and white Silk But from hence we may see how dangerous it is to make general Rules as to these matters from some particular Examples when the Custome might vary And notwithstanding the Testimony of Ingulphus there might be Seals sometimes used to Charters though not so frequently Mr. Selden hath produced some Instances to that purpose as in that of King Edgar to the Abbey of Persore which he saith had plain Signs of three-Labels by the places cut for their being hanged on which is attested in a Letter from Godfrey Archdeacon of Worcester to Alex. III. And among the Chartae antiquae There are some saith he cum Sigillo and one particularly cum Sigillo of King Cnout which very much confirms what this Historian observes concerning Canutus his using a Seal And our great Lawyer hath produced the Deeds of King Edwin Brother to King Edgar and of King Offa with
seem to court the Peoples favour by pleading for popular Elections at this day from the Precedents of former times But I will not deny the People then had a farther Right of Exception against the Persons chosen but therein they were considered as Witnesses and not as Judges If their Exceptions were just and well proved the Bishops as Judges were to proceed canonically against them and then they went to a new Nomination but still the Judgment rested in the provincial Synod So in the 16 Canon in the Council of Antioch it is provided That although all the People chuse one actually a Bishop yet if he takes Possession of his See without a perfect Provincial Synod the Metropolitane being present he is to be cast out This Canon doth more fully explain the fourth Canon of the Council of Nice for here the Case is put of the Peoples choice which is there onely implied And here it is put concerning one actually a Bishop and so needing no new Consecration but being out of employment in his own See by some extraordinary accident is chosen into another by consent of the People Now if the People had there the Power of Election what hindred this Bishop from being fully possessed of his Bishoprick And yet this Canon determines that such a one was to be cast out if he did not come in by the full consent of the Metropolitane and a Provincial Synod And to shew the force of this Canon by virtue of it Bassianus was rejected from being Bishop of Ephesus by the general Council of Chalcedon where 630 Bishops are said to have been present The Case was this Bassianus was consecrated Bishop of Euaza by Memnon Bishop of Ephesus but it was against his Will and he never went thither Basilius who succeeded Memnon sends another Bishop to that City in a Provincial Synod but leaves Bassianus the dignity of a Bishop Basilius being dead Bassianus is chosen by the People of Ephesus and enthronized by Olympius without a Provincial Synod But after four years Stephanus is put in his room because he came not in canonically The Case was heard at large by the Council of Chalcedon and this Canon of Antioch was alledged against him and so he was thrown out by the Council From whence I infer 1. That the choice of the People at that time was not allowed but the main force of Election lay in the Provincial Synod And so Maximus Bishop of Antioch Julianus Coensis Diogenes Cyzicensis declared that it belonged to the Bishops of the Province to appoint a new Bishop as being most competent Judges and this was the way to prevent disorder in the City 2. That the Bishops appointing was not mere ordaining or consecrating as some say For this Canon of Antioch speaks of a Bishop already consecrated and so likewise the 12 Canon of Laodicea is to be understood The same case being supposed which is mention'd in the Canon of Antioch And if he were unconsecrated before the Laodicean Canon refers the whole matter as far as I can discern as to the Capacity and fitness of the Person to the Provincial Synod And if the following Canon 13. be understood of Bishops the Consequence will be that the People will be wholly excluded from their Election till it can be made appear that at that time the generality of the People were shut out and the Election restrained to the Common Council which is contrary to the Examples brought for Popular Elections as appears by the instance of Alexandria in the choice of Athanasius where the whole multitude is mention'd and the Suffrages of the whole People and afterwards the Plebis VulgÃque Iudicium in St. Jerom the Vota Civium in Leo is as much spoken of as the Honoratorum Arbitrium and by the same reason any of the People may be excluded the rest may or at least it shews that the People have no inherent and unalterable Right without which all other Pretences signifie nothing where Law and Customs have determined the contrary And that the Customs even then differ'd appears from St. Jerom ad Rusticum where he mentions either the People or the Bishop chusing 2. Another Canon is about the frequency of Provincial Synods For in the fifth Canon it is Provided That no person excommunicated by one Bishop should be received into Communion by another according to the Council of Arles but then no Provision was made for the Case of Appeals If any Person complain'd that he was unjustly excommunicated which it is natural for men to doe For this purpose the Nicene Council decrees That Provincial Synods be held twice a year in Lent and Autumn which was confirmed by many other Canons And at these all such Causes were to be heard and determined and Persons excommunicated were to be held so by all unless the Provincial Synod repealed the Sentence And although the case of Bishops be not here mention'd Yet the African Fathers with great reason said it ought to be understood Since Causes are to be heard within the Province and no Jurisdiction is mention'd by the Council of Nice beyond that of a Metropolitane those onely excepted whose Rights are secured according to the Prescription then in use in the following Canon For if any other superior Authority had then been known that was the proper place to have inserted it where the right of Appeal is determin'd that being the most plausible Pretence for removing Causes to a superiour Court And it is impossible that the Nicene Fathers should have stopt at Provincial Synods if they had known or believed that Christ had appointed a Vicar upon Earth who was to be Supreme Iudge in all Ecclesiastical Matters For it would have been as absurd as if our Judges should declare that all Causes are to be determin'd in the Countrey Courts when they know there are superior Courts of Iudicature appointed in Westminster-hall It hath been thought a matter of some difficulty to state the difference between the Rights of a Patriarch and a Metropolitane But there are two things chiefly wherein the distinction lies viz. a greater extent of Iurisdiction founded on the Consecration of Metropolitane Bishops in several Provinces and a Power of receiving Appeals or Judicium in majoribus causis even after Provincial Synods have determined them And since in matters of Appeal there must be a stop somewhere the onely question before us is Where the Council of Nice fixed it I say in a Provincial Synod by this Canon for I am certain it takes notice here of no Ecclesiastical Iudicatory beyond this In matters of Faith or upon extraordinary Occasions by the Summons of an Emperour or a general Concurrence of Christian Princes a general Council is the highest Court But in the standing and ordinary Method of Proceeding where there have been no. ancient Privileges to the contrary of which the following Canon is to be understood a Provincial Synod is the last Court of Appeal according to the
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
Facundus Hermianensis and St. Augustine And one of them blames the Pope for too great easiness and the other for too great hastiness and doth think that the business of Appeals then contested by the African Bishops stuck in the Pope's stomach which made him willing to take this Occasion to rebuke them But the African Fathers proceeding smartly against the Pelagians notwithstanding Zosimus his Letter made him to comply too in condemning both Coelestius and Pelagius notwithstanding his former Epistle So that upon the whole matter Pelagius and Coelestius by their own natural Wit had in all probability been too hard for a whole Succession of Popes Innocentius Zosimus and Xystus had not the African Fathers interposed and freely told them what the true Doctrine of the Church was For they offer'd to subscribe Innocentius his Epistles Zosimus was very well satisfied and thought them peevish and unreasonable that were not Xystus was their Patron at Rome before the African Bishops appear'd so resolute in the Cause And had it not been for them for all that I can see Pelagianism had spread with the Approbation of the Roman See But notwithstanding it was at last condemned at Rome and Imperial Constitutions published against it Yet it found a Way over into the British Churches by the means of one Agricola the Son of Severianus a Pelagian Bishop as Prosper informs us It appears by the Rescript of Valentinian III. Anno Dom. 425. There were several Pelagian Bishops in Gaul And the severe Execution of the Edict there was probably the occasion of this Agricola's coming over hither and spreading that Doctrine here Bale and Pits run into many Mistakes about this Agricola 1. They call him Leporius Agricola and then confound the two Stories of Leporius and Agricola together For after his Preaching Pelagianism they mention his Conversion and Recantation by St. Augustine's means Now there was one Leporius of whom Cassian and Gennadius speak that was a Disciple of Pelagius who was driven out of Gaul by Proculus Bishop of Marseilles and Cylinnius of Forum Julii and so went into Africa where being convinced by St. Augustine he published his Recantation extant in Sirmondus his Gallican Councils and elsewhere And Aurelius Augustinus and Florentius gave an account of it to the Bishops of Provence But there is no Pelagian errour there mention'd but something of Nestorianism And by Leontius succeeding Cylinnius in his See before Anno Dom. 420. It follows that Leporius recanted before the Pelagian Heresie was spread into these Parts And therefore this Leporius could have nothing to doe in it Besides it seems probable that this Leporius after his Recantation continued in Africa For one Leporius a Presbyter is mention'd in the Election of Eradius in the See of Hippo Anno Dom. 426. and St. Augustine saith he was a Stranger 2. Bale makes him the Son of Severus Sulpicius a Pelagian Priest in Britain But Prosper and Bede say he was the Son of Severianus a Bishop It is true Gennadius charges Severus Sulpicius with Pelagianism in his old Age But if he died as the Sammarthani say Anno Dom. 410. Pelagianism was not known to the World then And Guibertus Abbas frees him from the imputation of it But this Severus never was a Bishop and therefore could not be the Father of Agricola 3. They both make him a Monk of Banghor which had need to have been a large Place to receive all that they send thither 4. They say he did write against one Timotheus a British Heretick two Books saith Bale but one saith Pits Which arises from a Mistake of Sigebert's Copy where Britannia is put for Bithynia as our Learned Archbishop Vsher hath observed And Pits seemed to have some mistrust of this for he doth not affirm his spreading his Doctrine in Britain as the other doth But Pelagianism was not spread here by Agricola alone for Prosper speaking of Celestine's care to root it out of Britain he saith It had taken possession here by the Enemies of God's Grace Solum suae originis occupantes returning to the Soil from whence they sprang So that there were more than one and those Britains who being infected with that Heresie themselves did return hither to infect others From hence some have thought that Coelestius at least if not Pelagius did come hither being driven out of Italy by Celestine as Prosper relates which Jansenius thought not improbable But it now appears by the Commonitorium of Marius Mercator delivered to Theodosius in the Consulship of Dionysius and Florentius i. e. Anno Domini 429. That Coelestius did return into the East and was banished from Constantinople by the Emperour's Edict From whence it follows That Coelestius came not into these Parts nor do we reade what became of him after the Council of Ephesus wherein he was condemned by 275 Bishops as the same Marius Mercator shews Whose account of these things being a Person of that time and active in this Cause hath clear'd several things which were much in the dark before But whosoever they were who brought Pelagianism hither it appears by Prosper that they were Britains and had too great Success here by the spreading of Pelagianism But care was taken by the sounder part to get it out and therefore distrusting their own sufficiency to deal with such subtile Adversaries they send for help saith Bede to the Bishops of Gaul Who called a great Council and unanimously chose Germanus and Lupus two Bishops of great Reputation to come over on purpose They readily undertook the Employment and performed it with great Success as it is at large related by Constantius and Bede It is affirmed by a late Authour That the Acts of the Council which sent Germanus and Lupus are still in being with the Instructions given them at their coming hither If ever they come to light they will very much clear this intricate part of the History of the British Churches For there is now fifteen years difference among Writers about the time of their coming Prosper saith it was Anno Dom. 429. But Sigebert as Sirmondus observes places it Anno Dom. 446. To which he thinks Bede's Relation doth best agree And Sirmondus himself puts it that year Aetius III. and Symmachus were Consuls in the 21 of Valentinian III. and 5 of Leo I. If this Computation of the time be true then it is impossible that St. German should be sent hither by Celestine as Prosper affirms For Xystus was Pope after Celestine Anno Dom. 432. And it is incredible That if he had been sent hither by Commission from him Neither Constantius in his Life of St. German who lived so near that time Nor the Authour of the Life of St. Lupus Trecensis Nor Bede should take any notice of it But they all mention the particular Application made by the Britains to the Gallican Bishops for their Assistance and