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
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
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
a remarkable Precedent to prove a Patriarchal power And there a Canon was passed That the Metropolitanes of those three Dioceses should be consecrated by the Bishop of Constantinople which was the establishment of his Patriarchal authority over them Upon this Pope Leo insisted on the Council of Nice and the Canons there made and pleaded strongly That this was an unjust Invasion of the Rights of those Churches which ought to be inviolably preserved And we desire no better Arguments against the Pope's pretended Patriarchal power over these Western Churches than what Leo insisted on for the Dioceses of Asia Pontus and Thrace against the Patriarchal power of the Bishop of Constantinople For we plead the very same things That all Churches ought to enjoy the Rights of Provincial Synods And that no Person can be excused in violating the Nicene Canons But if it be pretended That the Bishop of Rome had always a Patriarchal power over the British Churches Let any one Instance be given of it Let them tell us when he consecrated the Metropolitanes or Bishops of the three Provinces of Britain or summon'd them to his Councils or heard their Causes or received Appeals from hence or so much as sent any one Legate to exercise Authority in his Name And if they can produce nothing of this kind there is not then the least appearance of his Patriarchal power We do not deny that the Bishop of Rome had any Patriarchal power in those times But we say It was confined within the Roman Diocese As that did comprehend the Churches within the Suburbicary Provinces And within these he exercised the same Authority that the Eastern Patriarchs did i. e. He consecrated Bishops called Synods and received Appeals which are the main Patriarchal rights But if we go beyond these Provinces Petrus de Marca himself is extremely put to it to prove the exercise of a Patriarchal power He confesses the matter is not clear either as to Consecrations or Councils but he runs to References Consultations and Appeals in greater causes And yet he confesses as to Appeals which onely do imply a just Authority There is no one certain evidence of them before the Council of Sardica So that by the confession of the most learned and judicious of those who plead for the Pope's being Patriarch of the West No proper Acts of Patriarchal power can be proved beyond the Roman Diocese before the Council of Nice And the same learned Archbishop doth grant that the Bishop of Rome did not consecrate even in Italy out of the Roman Diocese as appears by the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia Nor in Africa nor in Spain nor in Gaul And after these Concessions it is impossible to prove the Bishop of Rome Patriarch of the Western Churches Which some late Writers of that Church have been much concerned at and have endeavour'd to shew the contrary Christianus Lupus hath written a Dissertation on purpose But the greatest thing he saith to prove it is That to affirm that the Bishop of Rome had no such authority is an Eusebian and Schismatical Errour and came first from the Council of Philippopolis yet he grants That in the Western Provinces the Metropolitanes did consecrate their Suffragans and they their Metropolitanes But all this he saith was done by special privilege But where is any such privilege to be seen It is evident by the Nicene Canons every Province had its own just Rights for these things And if there were any privilege it must be produced on the other side He doth not deny That Leo disown'd having any thing to doe in the Consecration of the Gallican Bishops in his Epistle to the Bishops of Vienna or that Hincmarus saith The Transalpine Bishops did not belong to the Consecration or Councils of the Bishop of Rome And therefore Ecclesiastical Causes were to be heard and determin'd by Provincial Synods But he thinks to bring off all at last by saying That these were privileges indulged because of distance from Rome Which is a mere Shuffle without any colour for it unless such privileges could be produced for otherwise it will appear to be common Right And yet this is the main which a late Authour Emanuel à Schelstraet hath to say about this matter But this hath been the common Artifice of Rome Where any Bishops insisted on their own Rights and ancient Customs and Canons of Councils to pretend that all came from privileges allow'd by the See of Rome And the Defenders of it are now shamefully driven to these Arts having nothing else left to plead for the Pope's Usurpation But this last Authour the present Keeper of the Vatican Library which makes so great a noise in the World for Church Records having endeavour'd in a set Discourse to assert the Pope's Patriarchal power over the Western Churches I shall here examine the strength of all that he produceth to that purpose He agrees with us in determining the Patriarchal Rights which he saith lie in these three things 1. In the right of Consecration of Bishops and Metropolitanes 2. In the right of summoning them to Councils 3. In the right of Appeals All which he proves to be the just and true Patriarchal Rights from the seventeenth Canon of the eighth General Council And by these we are contented to stand or fall 1. As to the Right of Consecration of Bishops and Metropolitanes throughout the Western Churches He confesses That such a Right was not exercised Because the Metropolitanes in the several Provinces were allow'd to consecrate the Bishops belonging to them upon the Summons of the Provincial Synod And for this he produces the 4 th Canon of the Council of Nice Here then is a plain allowance of the Metropolitane Rights by this General Council But how doth this prove the Patriarchal Or rather is it not a plain derogation from them No saith he The Patriarchal Rights are preserved by the sixth Canon I grant it But then it must be proved That the Patriarchal Rights of the Bishop of Rome did at the time of the Council of Nice extend to all the Western Churches which I utterly deny Yet I grant farther That the Bishop of Rome had all the Patriarchal Rights within the Provinces which were then under his Jurisdiction and were therefore called the Suburbicary Churches But these were so far from taking in all the Western Churches that they did not comprehend the Provinces of Italy properly so called But he offers to prove out of Gratian and from the Testimony of Pelagius Bishop of Rome That by reason of the length of the way the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia did consecrate each other But is such Authority sufficient to prove that the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia were of old subject to the Roman Patriarchate We have nothing to prove this but the bare word of one who was too much concerned to be a competent Witness and too much alone to
find three Bishops subscribing to it Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of London and Adelsius de Civitate Colonia Londinensium So it is in Sirmondus his best Copy And although Mr. Selden seems to question the Antiquity of it yet the other vouches it to be very good and ancient But what then is the Civitas Colonia Londinensium The Learned Primate thinks it to be Colchester that being called in Antoninus Colonia Mr. Selden takes it to be Camalodunum and so written Camalodon which the ignorant Scribes made Col. Londinensium Sir H. Spelman likewise supposes it to be the old Colony of Camalodunum But I think a far more probable sense may be given of it if we consider the way of summoning Bishops to Councils at that time For it is unreasonable to imagine that every Roman Colony or City sent a Bishop For then every Council would have been as full as the Arabick Writers say the Council of Nice was of which Mr. Selden hath discoursed at large or at least as Cummianus and Ado thought this Council of Arles was which they made to consist of 600 Bishops An unreasonable number to be called together on such an occasion as the giving way to the restless importunity of the Donatists to have their Cause heard over again It is not to be presumed that Constantine would summon so great a number to make up a Court Episcopale Iudicium St. Augustine often calls it wherein the main thing to be done was to hear the Parties and to give Judgment And in the former Judgment but 19 Bishops were summoned It is said That St. Augustine makes the number of Bishops at Arles to be 200. But I see no sufficient ground to understand those words of this particular Council but of all the Bishops which had condemned them in several Councils among whom he reckons the Italian Spanish and Gallick Bishops who met at Arles But when I compare the Subscriptions to that Council published out of the most ancient MS. with a Passage in Hilary I am apt to believe that excepting those that were very near about Arles there were no more than a Bishop out of a Province with one or two Presbyters So it is expresly in the Summons to Chrestus Bishop of Syracuse in Sicily the onely one remaining and which Baronius thinks was the same that was to the rest wherein he is required to come out of that Province and to bring two Presbyters with him as Valesius shews against Baronius and Sirmondus the words are to be understood And Hilary speaking of the Councils of his time saith That one or two Bishops were sent for out of a Province and he instanceth in the Council of Ancyra and the great Council at Ariminum So here we meet with Chrestus out of the Province of Sicily Quintasius out of the Province of Sardinia and so in most of the rest the distinct Provinces are set down out of which they came And at that time there were 18 Provinces of Gaul and Britain and so many Bishops appeared at Arles besides Marinus the Bishop of the Place But to supply the defect of some other Provinces there were more out of that Province wherein Arles stood than out of any other In Britain there were then three Provinces according to the MS. Copy of Sextus Rufus saith Mr. Camden therefore in all probability since the other two Bishops were out of the other two Provinces Maxima Caesariensis and Britannia Prima The third Bishop was out of the third Province of Britannia Secunda wherein there were two noted Colonies the one called Colonia Divana in the Coin of Septimius Geta and Civitas Legionum in Beda now Chester the other Civitas Legionis ad Yscam where was a Colony of the 11. Legion which Province is sometimes called Britannica Secunda And therefore this Bishop Adelphius came ex Civit. Col. Leg. 11. which the ignorant Transcribers might easily turn to ex Civit. Col. Londin The onely Objection is that which is suggested by the Learned Primate of Armagh viz. That there were four Provinces of Britain at that time and that Flavia Caesariensis was one of them having its name from Constantine who assumed the name of Flavius But Goltzius his Copy deserves not to be so much preferr'd before Camden's And the name of Flavia Caesariensis might either be taken from Flavius Valentinianus as Berterius thinks or from Fl. Theodosius before whose time Camden saith we never met with Britannia Flavia. There being then but three Bishops present at the Council of Arles is so far from being an Argument that there were no more in Britain that it is rather an Argument to the contrary since it was the Custome to send but one or two out of a Province where they were most numerous And I see no reason to question a Succession of Bishops here from the first founding of a Christian Church To prove this I shall not rely on the Testimony of the Anonymous Greek Authour of the Martyrdoms of Peter and Paul who saith Saint Peter here ordained Bishops Priests and Deacons But upon the Reason of the thing there being no other Church in the Christian World which derived from the Apostles which had not a Succession of Bishops from them too And we cannot trace the History of other Churches farther than we can do that of their Bishops As for instance The first Conversion of the Churches of Africa is much in the dark but as soon as we reade any thing considerable of them we meet with a Council of Bishops viz. of Agrippinus and his Brethren out of the Provinces of Africa Numidia and Mauritania and he was not the immediate Predecessour of St. Cyprian who suffer'd in the Persecution of Valerian Anno Dom. 258. And Tertullian puts the proof of Apostolical Churches upon the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles which were a sensless way of proceeding unless it were taken for granted that whereever the Apostles planted Churches they appointed Bishops to take care of them Although therefore by the loss of Records of the British Churches we cannot draw down the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time for that of the Bishops of London by Jocelin of Furnes is not worth mentioning yet we have great reason to presume such a Succession When upon the first summoning a Council by Constantine three British Bishops appear'd one out of every Province as they did in other Parts But some pretend to give a more punctual and exact account of the settling of our Church Government here viz. That there were twenty eight Cities among the old Britains That in these there were twenty five Flamins and three Archiflamins in whose places upon the Conversion of the Nation by King Lucius there was the like number of Bishops and Archbishops here appointed And for this besides the Rabble of our Monkish Historians who swallow Geffrey of Monmouth whole without
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
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
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
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
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
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
which being once effected it would be an easie matter to set up Arianism which was the thing they designed This Intrigue was not discovered fully till after the Council of Ariminum but was certainly carried on all along by the Eusebian Party who without these Artifices could never have deceived the Eastern Bishops who joined with them till they more openly declared themselves in the Council of Seleucia and then the difference was not between the Acacians and Eusebians as some have weakly conjectured but between the old Eusebians who now appear'd to be Arians under the Name of Acacius and the Followers of Basilius of Ancyra who stuck chiefly at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom Athanasius speaks before Now to draw in these Men and to hold them fast who had great sway in the Eastern Churches the Eusebians were forced to comply in words with them and in all probability to suffer them to draw up these Creeds provided onely that they left out the Nicene Decree and Anathema's which would doe their business at last So that the Eusebians were forced to the utmost Dissimulation and Hypocrisie to be able to carry on the Arian Design in the Eastern and Western Churches But whatever their Words and Pretences were their Actions sufficiently manifested their Intentions For they set themselves with the utmost violence against all who constantly adhered to the Council of Nice and openly favoured and preferr'd all the declared or secret Friends to Arianism They caused Athanasius to be banished a second time from Alexandria and appointed Gregory in his Place who continued there saith Theodoret with great Cruelty for six years and then was murthered himself by the Alexandrians but that seems to have been a mistake for George of Cappadocia who succeeded him For Athanasius saith he died a natural death but he at large describes the horrible Persecution both of the Clergy and Laity then in Egypt who would not comply with the Arians for his business was to set up Arianism as Athanasius saith After his Death Constantius finding so little success in those violent courses sends for Athanasius with great earnestness to come to him and gives him free Liberty to return to Alexandria and solemnly swears to him he would never more receive any Calumnies against him and writes several Letters on his behalf and one very kind one to himself after the death of his Brother Constans who was a true Friend to Athanasius and then his greatest Enemies courted him and begg'd his Pardon for what they had done being forced to it by the violence of the Torrent against him and even Vrsacius and Valens two warm Men of the Eusebian Party publickly recanted what they had done against him without his seeking and then anathematized the Arian Heresie But this was done while Constans was alive and so great a Number appeared in the Western Churches on his side but Constans being dead the Eusebian Party persuade Constantius to take heart once more and to try what he could doe to restore Arianism then Valens and Vrsacius recant their recantation and lay it all on the Fear of Constans and now to shew the Emperour's zeal for Arianism the publick allowance is taken from Athanasius and his Party and given to the Arians and the Magistrates threatned if they did not communicate with them and not onely the People banished that refused but the Bishops were summoned to appear in the Courts and were there told they must immediately subscribe or lose their Places But all this while Toleration was granted to all but to the followers of the Council of Nice And thus all Places were fill'd with Tumult and Disorder and the People forced their Bishops to the Tribunals for fear of being punished themselves And the Reason of this Violence was because the Arian Heresie was so much hated by the People and they hoped by this means to bring them to own it Heraclius the Emperour's Lieutenant declared in his Name that Athanasius was to be cast out and the Churches given to the Arians and required the People to receive such a Bishop as he should send viz. George of Cappadocia a violent Arian But the tragical Account of all the Persecutions which the orthodox Christians then underwent in Egypt from these Men of Prudence and Moderation is at large set down by Athanasius himself and in the concurrent Testimony of the People of Alexandria so that nothing seems to have been more violent and cruel in the Heathen Persecutions than was acted then under Syrianus and Heraclius in Egypt And that it was wholly for the sake of Arianism Athanasius evidently proves by this Argument That if a Man were guilty of never so great Crimes if he professed himself an Arian he escaped but if he were an Opposer of Arianism the greatest Innocency could not protect him But this was not the Case of Egypt alone but in other Places The best Qualification for a Bishop was to stand well inclined to Arianism as Athanasius affirms But otherwise though the Persons were never so well deserving one fault or other was found with them to cast them out So saith he it was with Eustathius Bishop of Antioch a Man famous for his Piety and Zeal yet because he appeared against Arianism feigned Accusations are brought against him and he is ejected with his Clergy and none but favourers of Arianism placed in their room and the like Examples he brings at Laodicea Tripolis Germanicia Sebustea Hadrianople and many other places insomuch that a considerable Bishop scarce any where appear'd against Arianism but they found some pretence or other to put him out and where they could alledge no other Cause they said It was the Pleasure of Constantius But their dealing with Paulus the Bishop of Constantinople was very remarkable He being chosen by the Anti-Arian Party and standing in the Way of Eusebius of Nicomedia whose heart was set upon that Bishoprick being so near the Imperial Court he first procured Paulus his Banishment to Pontus then he was sent in Chains to Singara of Mesopotamia thence to Emesa thence to Pontus thence to Cucusus where he was at length strangled by the Eusebian Party as Athanasius saith he had it from the Persons there present But although Macedonius who succeeded at Constantinople were of a temper violent enough as Sozomen shews yet Theodoret observes that even he was expelled Constantinople because he would not hold the Son of God to be a Creature For although he denied Christ to be Consubstantial with the Father yet he asserted him to be like the Father in all things and made the Holy Ghost to be a Creature by which he seem'd to deny the Son to be so and therefore could not keep the Favour of the Arian Party which then governed all in the Eastern Churches but yet in such a manner as by no means yet to declare for Arianism And therefore
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
their meeting in Council on purpose and chusing and dispatching St. German and Lupus without any intimation of Celestine Baronius and Jansenius go about to reconcile these things by saying Either that the Pope approved him whom the Council chose Or that the Pope left it to the Council to chuse But neither of these will hold For Prosper saith That Celestine sent him Vice suâ in his own Name and stead Which is very different from appointing a Council to chuse one to be sent And Constantius saith That immediately they went Which shews they did not stay for the Pope's Approbation And withall the kindness was not so great at that time between Celestine and the Gallican Bishops That either he should send to them to appoint or they should wait for his direction in this matter For Prosper and Hilary had made great Complaints of them at Rome as favouring Pelagianism too much And among these Hilary Bishop of Arles was the chief For Prosper complains of him particularly in his Epistle to St. Augustine which was sent to him Anno Dom. 428 or 429. as the late Editors of St. Augustine's Epistles conclude So that Hilary was Bishop of Arles at that time before St. Augustine's death Anno Dom. 430. After his death the same Prosper and another Hilary join in a Complaint to Celestine and went to Rome on purpose as appears by his Answer who therein reproves the Bishops of Gaul for giving too much countenance to some Presbyters who vented new Doctrines viz. Cassian and his Followers and who reflected on the memory of St. Augustine It is not therefore any ways probable that the Gallican Bishops having been complained of so long before St. Augustine's death that he wrote a Book in answer to them before he died should be intrusted by Celestine to chuse Persons to go over into Britain to confute Pelagianism when he suspected them from Prosper's information to be too much inclined to it It seems therefore most likely that St. German and Lupus were sent by a Council of Gallican Bishops without the Pope's concurrence since Constantius who certainly knew all the circumstances of this matter saith nothing at all of it And this St. German was so great with Hilary Bishop of Arles that he joined with him in the deposing Chelidonius for which Pope Leo was so incensed against him as Honoratus affirms in his Life which was no new acquaintance but of so long standing that if Hilary of Arles were at that time suspected at Rome St. German would harldly have been pitched upon by Celestine for his Legate into Britain I wonder how Baronius and Vossius came to mistake the Hilary who joined with Prosper for Hilary Bishop of Arles Since this Hilary never was a Disciple of St. Augustine's as the other was And he was certainly Bishop of Arles after St. Augustine's death when Celestine mentions the other Hilary as present with Prosper at Rome when they informed against the Bishops of Gaul For Honoratus succeeded Patroclus in the See of Arles Prosper saith that Patroclus was killed Anno Dom. 426. Honoratus continued but two years in the See And so Hilary might well be newly Bishop of Arles when Prosper and the other Hilary sent to St. Augustine as plainly appears by their Epistle So that Semipelagianism did not as Archbishop Vsher supposes then begin in Gaul when St. Germanus and Lupus were here employ'd against Pelagianism but was begun before and embraced by those very Bishops who sent them hither Who for their own Vindication appear'd zealous against Pelagianism and were therefore willing to embrace this opportunity to send two of their Number into Britain And it is the more strange that so Learned a Person should fall into this mistake when he had so fully proved as Holstenius confesses That Hilary Bishop of Arles did favour the Semipelagians and it is certain that Prosper did complain of him to St. Augustine if the Copies be not corrupt as he shews they are not before St. German's voyage into Britain For St. Augustine received the Complaint time enough to write his two Books of Predestination and Perseverance in answer to it after his Book of Retractations and before his elaborate Work against Julian and therefore they are probably supposed to be written Anno Dom. 428. If we then yield that St. German's coming hither was when Prosper saith Anno Dom. 429. yet we find that Semipelagianism had prevailed among the Gallican Bishops before that time or else there was no cause at all for Prosper's Complaint And to make it appear yet more improbable that Celestine should send St. Germanus and St. Lupus We are to consider that Lupus was Brother to Vincentius Lirinensis and were both of the same Society Which Vincentius was a great Stickler in the Semipelagian Cause as all the Members of that Society that were considerable were engaged in it And when the Pope wrote so smartly against the Accusers of St. Augustine's Doctrine it is very unlikely he should pitch upon one of that Society most suspected for it and whose Brother appeared so early and so warmly in it Not onely by the Objections under his Name in Prosper But by the whole Design of his Commonitorium Which if I mistake not was levell'd against those who went about to broach a new Doctrine about Predestination as they said under St. Augustine's name And they who carefully reade over that Discourse and consider the drift of it will find I am not mistaken But Baronius is when he would clear the Authour of the Commonitorium from favouring those who impugned St. Augustine's Doctrine about Predestination Which was quite another thing from favouring Pelagianism which Cassianus Faustus and this Vincentius all professed to abhor But what shall be said to Prosper who affirms that Celestine sent St. German 1. Prosper in his undoubted Work against Cassian doth not affirm it For there he onely saith That Celestine took care to free Britain from Pelagianism Why is not the Mission of St. German here mention'd when it had been most seasonable against the chief of the Semipelagians No doubt Prosper would not have lost this Opportunity of magnifying Celestine's care by sending Bishops of so great Reputation Especially if these Bishops were not Semipelagians But if so why doth he not mention them in that Work as such when he complains how much Semipelagianism did prevail and even among their Bishops 2. The Prosper published by Pithaeus never mentions it which he thought to be the genuine Chronicon of Prosper Hadrianus Valescus concludes one or the other not to be genuine since they differ in point of time and it is not probable the same Man would write two several Books about the same matter with such Diversity Bucherins thinks it impossible the same Person should write both yet both pass under the Name of Tyro Prosper and so he saith the ancient MS. of it which he had which
them as the Natives being not trained up to Martial Discipline but depending wholly on the Roman Legions for their Defence and security thence whatever People had the Courage to invade did usually take possession of the Countrey where the Roman Legions were at a distance or otherwise engaged against each other Thus in France the Goths the Burgundians the Franks and the Britains took possession of the several parts they attempted and the Goths and Vandals in Spain So Goths and Lombards in Italy it self So that it is not to be wondred if the Saxons prevailed here at last but with as much difficulty and after as many Battels as were fought by any People of that time without foreign Assistence But to return to the Aremorican Britains whether they came over under Rioval in the beginning of the distractions here when the People were so Rebellious against their Princes as Gildas relates or whether they went over to assist Constantine and his Son and so remained there I shall not determin But that the Britains were well settled there before Sampson Archbishop of York and his Company passed the Seas appears by what Mat. Paris saith That they went to their fellow Citizens and Countrey Men hoping to live more quietly there And after the death of the Bishop of Dole he was by the consent of the Britains put into his Place and from thence forwards exercised his Archiepiscopal power there the Kings of that Province not suffering his Successours there to pay any Obedience to the Archbishop of Tours Which begot a Suit which held 300 years in the Court of Rome and was this year manfully decided by Innocent III. as Mat. Paris there relates Who states the Case very unskilfully laying the weight of it upon the Archbishop's bringing over his Pall from York which the Pope had given him there Suppose this were true although the Popes gave no Palls then nor a great while after yet this were no reason to contest it in the Court of Rome so long together But the difficulty of the Case lay upon another point viz. according to the Old Canon of the Church If a Province were divided into two each Province was to have a Metropolitan Now this Reason held much stronger when new Kingdoms were erected out of the Roman Provinces For what Reason was there why the Bishop of Dole in the Kingdom of Bretagn should yield subjection to the Bishop of Tours in a distinct Kingdom and there was the fairer Colour for this when one actually an Archbishop before came to be settled there and from hence they insisted on a Prescription of a very long time wherein no Subjection had been made to the Bishop of Tours as appears by the account given of this Cause by Innocent III. in his Epistles lately published by Baluzius On the other side it was pleaded that all Britanny was under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Tours but that the Britains conspiring against the King of France and setting up a Kingdom of their own they made use of Sampson Archbishop of York coming to establish a Metropolitan power within that Kingdom and upon Complaint made to Rome the Popes had put it upon this issue whether any of their Predecessors had granted the Pall to the Bishop of Dole which not being proved the Pope as it was easie to imagine gave Sentence against the Bishop of Dole But it is certain that they went upon a false suggestion viz. That the Kingdom of Bretagn was set up in Rebellion to the Kingdom of France For Childeric had not extended his Dominions in France as far as the Loir and before his time the Britains were in quiet possession of those parts of Aremorica and the best French Historians now grant that the Britains came thither in the time of Merovée who obtained but little in Gaul as Hadrianus Valesius confesseth And the Authour of the Life of Gildas observes That the Power of the Kings of France was very inconsiderable in the time of Childeric Son of Merovée at what time Gildas went over into Aremorica as his School-fellows under Iltutus Sampson and Paulus had done before him whereof one succeeded the other Sampson at Dole and the other was made Bishop of the Oxismii the most Northern People of Bretagn which Diocese is since divided into Three Treguier S. Pol de Leon and S. Brieu Here Gildas at the request of his Brethren who came out of Britain saith the Authour of his Life wrote his Epistle wherein he so sharply reproves the several Vices of the five Kings of Britain whom he calls by the Names of Constantine Aurelius Vortiporius Cuneglasus and Maglocunus and speaks to them all as then living The British History makes them to succeed each other Constantine according to that was killed in his third year by Aurelius Conanus He died in his second year and Vortiporius succeeding him Reigned four years After him he places Malgo and leaves Cuneglasus wholly out But that they Reigned at the same time in several parts of Britain is evident from Gildas because he saith He knew that Constantine was then living Now Constantine Reigning the first of these how could he speak to the four Kings that succeeded him if he were still living For there is no colour for imagining that Gildas still added his Reproof as one died and another succeeded for any one may discern it was written in one continued style and he writes to them all as then living without the least intimation that they succeeded each other Besides he calls Constantine the Issue of the impure Damnonian Lioness and at this time the Britains in the remote Western parts were separated from the other by the West Saxon Kingdom and therefore there is far less Probability that all the Britains at that time should be under one Monarch And where they had greatest freedom of living together they were divided into several Principalities For he whom Gildas calls Maglocunus is by the British Writers called Maelgun Guineth and Mailgunus mentioned by John of Tinmouth in the Life of St. Paternus and by Thaliessin in Sir John Price from whom it appears that he was King of North-Wales And as Gildas calls Vortiporius the Tyrant of the Demetae by whom the Inhabitants of South-Wales are understood Aurelius Conanus Archbishop Vsher thinks was King of Powisland which was sometime a third Kingdom And for Cuneglasus it seems probable he had the Command of the Northern Britains for it is plain from Bede they had a distinct Principality there All these Gildas doth very severely reprove for their several Vices and then taxes the Judges and Clergy to the Conclusion of his Epistle to the end they might repent of their Sins and acquit the just and wise Providence of God in the judgments he brought upon them which were very terrible and ended in the desolation of the Countrey and the ruine of the British Churches excepting onely those Remnants which were