the extent of his Authority and a Metropolitan only as to the administration of it 5. If the Reader will not believe me let him consult the Authors own words which are these In this Canon there are three things principally design'd 1. To confirm the ancient Privileges of some of the greater Sees as Rome Alexandria and Antioch 2. To secure the Privileges of other Churches against the Encroachments upon them 3. To provide for the quiet establishment of Metropolitan Churches which last is so plain that it will need no farther discourse But the other two are of great consequence to our design Thus the Author first of all confessing that the Nicene Fathers did confirm the ancient privileges of some of the principal Sees in which they had gain'd to themselves a more ample Power than that of a Metropolitan only by which means the Bishop of Alexandria had Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis under his jurisdiction over which he exercised the Patriarchal Authority of Consecrating Bishops calling Synods and judging in the greater Ecclesiastical causes Now least any one should from hence infer that the Bishop of Alexandria had obtain'd a greater Power then that of a Metropolitan he asserts that he had then no Metropolitans under him in those Provinces and that the rite of Patriarchal administration was co-incident with the Metropolitical at the time of the Council of Nice and so different from that which was afterwards introduc'd Therefore he confesses that there was something that was singular in the case of the Bishop of Alexandria For saith he all the Provinces of Egypt were under his immediate care which was Patriarchal as to Extent but Metropolitical in the Administration And so was the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome at that time which is the true reason of bringing the custom of Rome to justifie that of Alexandria For as it is well observ'd by Christianus Lupus the Bishop of Rome had then no Metropolitans under him within the Provinces subject to his jurisdiction and so all Appeals lay immediately from the several Bishops to him And therein lay the exact parallel between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria 6. Therefore our Author asserts that the Patriarch of Alexandria had no Metropolitans under him and that in this lay its likeness to the Roman Patriarchate But before we come to enquire whether it be true that the Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria had no Metropolitans under them let us first see briefly whether no Metropolitans were subject to the Patriarch of Antioch before the Nicene Council For our Author confesses that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice does reach him also The Church of Antioch was the principal Church of all the East and had under it fifteen Provinces which the Notitia Imperii reckons to be comprised under the Eastern Diocese and since the East was first enlightened with the Christian Faith and the name of Christians as St. Luke testifies was first heard at Antioch it is very probable that that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy first took place there which is describ'd in the 35th of those Canons which are attributed to the Apostles to wit that there were Bishops constituted in the Cities and that a chief Bishop was placed in the Metropolis of every Province to the end that the Bishops of every Nation might know who was their Chief So that Tarsus being the Metropolis of the chief part of Cylicia the Bishop of this City might as Metropolitan subscribe in the first place to those Letters which the second Synod of Antioch set forth against Paulus Samosatenus So was also Caesarea the Metropolis of the cheif part of Palestine in which it so manifestly appears that there was a Metropolitan Bishop long before the time of the Council of Nice that there can be no doubt made of the thing For when Pope Victor had writ to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea to call a Council for the determining of Easter day Fragmentum Synodi Caesariensis apud Bedum the Bishop having receiv'd this Order as the Acts of this Council recorded in Venerable Bede inform us summon'd all the Bishops not only from his own Province but also from diverse other Regions What is more clear then this There is a distinct Province assigned to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea as Metropolitan out of which he summon'd the Bishops to Council therefore he had his own proper Province over the Bishop whereof he presided This is farther evidenced from the fact of John Bishop of Jerusalem who had referred the Debate concerning the Error of Origen to the Patriarch of Alexandria and is for this cause reprehended by St. Jerom in these Words You who seek for Ecclesiastical rules and make use of the Canons of the Nicene Council tell me D. Hieronimus Epist ad Pamachium Vid. num XXXVII what hath Palestine to do with the Bishop of Alexandria If I mistake not this is what that Council hath determin'd viz. that Caesarea should be the Metropolis of Palestine and Antioch the Metropolis of the whole East therefore you should either have brought your cause before the Bishop of Caesarea or if you were to go far for a determination you should rather have directed your Letters to Antioch you chose to be troublesome to one who had his head full of business already rather then to pay to your Metropolitan that honour which was due to him Thus saith S. Jerom in his 61. Epistle to Pammachius plainly asserting that according to the Nicene Canons the Bishop of Jerusalem was to submit to the Bishop of Caesarea as his Metropolitan and to the Bishop of Antioch as his Patriarch whence it manifestly appears that the Patriarch of Antioch had at the time of the Council of Nice the Metropolitan of Caesarea under his Jurisdiction even in Palestine it self 7. This being so what answer can our Author make what can he invent what can he dream of to elude this verity Will he say that he did not speak concerning the Patriarch of Antioch but only concerning the Alexandrian and Roman Patriarchs that the Nicene Canon only declares there was a likeness between these two In Prudence he will never answer thus for he hath interpreted the Nicene Canon so as to make it comprise the rights of the three principal Sees and therefore those of Antioch amongst the rest Since therefore it is manifest from what hath been said that the See of Antioch had under it more Metropolitan Bishops then one is not that apparently false which our Author imitating Beverage hath feigned viz. that the Council of Nice in its Sixth Canon hath acknowledg'd no Authority superior to that of a Metropolitan Is it not manifestly prov'd that he imposes an Error upon the English Nation when to defend the Metropolitan Power as Supream he asserts that all other Jurisdiction superior to this was unknown to the Nicene Council I judge that what hath been said ought to besufficient to make the English open their Eyes and forsake and
the Patriarchal Authority over the whole West and of the Papal Authority over the whole World. For it is evident from Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers which none that is prudent will despise that the Roman Bishop did prescribe the day whereon Easter was to be observ'd to the Primates and Metropolitans in the West and by these to the Suffragan Bishops as Leo Magnus testifies and he exercised the supream Authority of the Apostolic See over the Eastern Churches whilst he defin'd that the day for the Celebration of Easter which the Bishop of Alexandria us'd every year to compute Cyrillus Alexandrinus Vid. num XXXI should be observ'd by all the Oriental Bishops whence Cyril saith by Apostolic Authority he knew the determinate day of Easter throughout the whole World without any further dispute CHAP. V. Whether the Nicene Canons establish the Metropolitan Dignity as Supream and what is decreed in the Sixth of these Canons concerning the Patriarchal Authority 1. Our Author is of Opinion that the fourth and fifth of the Nicene Canons favour his Cause and interprets them to establish a Supreme Authority in Provincial Synods 2. The Nicene Canons do not decree what the Author would have them The Aegyptians acknowledg'd an Authority Superior to that of Metropolitans before the time of the Nicene Council when they brought the Cause of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria before the Tribunal of Dionysius Bishop of Rome And Eusebius rightly affirms that the Cause of Paulus Samosatenus was brought before the Bishop of Rome by Aurelianus the Emperor 3. And that the Eusebians acknowledged a Superior Authority in Julius the First before they grew Schismatical is apparent from the Embassie they sent to Julius the First and from the Testimonies of Pope Julius himself whence 't is manifest that according to the ancient Custom which was confirm'd by the Nicene Canons a Cause that had been defined in Provincial Synods might be refer'd to the Judgment of the Bishop of Rome 4. The Author says that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice which attributes a Power to the Bishop of Alexandria over Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the like Right belong'd to the Bishop of Rome is to be so understood as if the likeness consisted in this that both of them indeed did preside over several Provinces but that neither of them had Metropolitans under him 5. Our Author therefore thinks that before the time of the Nicene Council the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria were only Metropolitans though over several Provinces as is shewn from his Words 6. It is shewn how false it is that there was no Bishop in the Church Superior to a Metropolitan at the time of the Council of Nice from the Example of the Bishop of Antioch who had under him the Metropolitan of Caesarea as is manifestly prov'd from Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea and from the Case of John Bishop of Jerusalem of which S. Jerom makes mention 7. The Sixth Canon of the Council of Nice likewise makes mention of the Bishop of Antioch so that it is certain that a Patriarchal Authority as that is Superior to the Metropolitical was acknowledg'd by the Nicene Fathers 8. That the Bishop of Alexandria exercised an Authority over all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is clear from the Testimonies of St. Athanasius and Epiphanius concerning Dionysius Alexandrinus and Peter who was Bishop of the same City 9. St. Epiphanius saith that Miletius having the Preheminence above other Bishops of Aegypt yet was inferior to Peter Bishop of Alexandria by which words he acknowledges Meletius to have been a Metropolitan as he in another place expresly terms him as he is also termed in St. Athanasius's Breviary of Bishops by John Bishop of Memphus 10. Since therefore Meletius was an Arch-Bishop and even before the time of the Council of Nice ordain'd Bishops in one of the Provinces of Aegypt over which he presided it appears to be false that the Parity between the Bishop of Rome and Alexandria consisted in this that neither of them had Metropolitans under him 1. OUR Author having in his second Chapter mis-interpreted the Council of Arles endeavours afterwards in his third Chapter to wrest that Sense from the Nicene Canons which the Fathers of that Council were wholly Strangers to He therefore takes upon him to interpret three of the Canons which he believ'd most favourable to his Cause the first of which is the fourth in the Order of the Council which shews that there was a Metropolitan in every Province and determins that the confirmation of those things that are done in each Province Concilium Nicenum Can. A. Confirmatio autem corum quae in unaquà que Provinciâ geruntur tribuatur Metropolitano must be reserved to the Metropolitan So that as our Author saith Page 95. the Rights of Metropolitans as to the Supream Ecclesiastical Government of the several Provinces are hereby secured The second Canon is the fifth in the Order of the Council in which it is provided that no Person either of the Clergy or Laity excommunicated by one Bishop should be received into Communion by another But if any one complain'd that he was unjustly excommunicated his Cause was to be heard in the Provincial Synod which was to be held twice a year before Lent and about the time of Autumn which saith our Author Pag. 99. Page 99. was confirm'd 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 repeal'd 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 Metropolitan 2. Thus this Author wresting the Nicene Canons to a Sense not that which he learn'd from the Fathers of that Council or receiv'd from the Masters of Venerable Antiquity but which the Itch of Novelty hath invented and he thought most proper for upholding of the English Schism That the Metropolitans govern'd their Provinces with supream Authority and that there was no Power Superior to that of a Metropolitan in the Church before the Council of Nice savors of Novelty which the Aegyptians under Dionysius Alexandrinus were ignorant of when they accused him of Heresie before the Bishop of Rome Some Ecclesiastical Brethren saith St. Athanasius Athanasius de Sententia Dionysii Vid. num XXXII concerning the Opinion which Dionysius held against the Africans being Orthodox indeed themselves yet not having inquir'd of him what was the meaning of his Writings came to Rome and there accused him before Dionysius the Roman Prelate that bore the same Name with him Would therefore the Aegyptian Bishops whom Athanasius calls Orthodox Brethren have brought the Cause of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria to Rome before Pope Dionysius if they had judg'd that the
Authority of a Provincial Synod had been Supream Would not Dionysius Alexandrinus himself have answer'd to his Adversaries that his Cause ought to have been heard before the Bishops of the Province if he had believ'd that every Province was to be govern'd by its own Synod as the Supream Authority Dionysius Alexandrinus was so far from thinking this that having heard he was accused he made it his Request to the Roman Prelate that they might give him a Copy of his Accusation which having receiv'd he published a Treatise Entitled Elenchus Apologia as St. Athanasius testifies in the Place before cited Why should I call to mind what was done in the Cause of Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch in the time of Aurelianus the Emperoror Eusebius Lib. 7. Cap. 30. tells us that he after Sentence past in a former Synod at Antioch was in a second deposed and that Domnus who was chosen in his stead would have taken upon him the Government of the Church of Antioch But saith Eusebius Eusebius Caesariensis lib. 7. cap. 30. Vid. num XXXIV when Paul would by no means depart out of the body of the Church Aurelianus the Emperor being appeal'd to rightly determin'd the matter commanding the Church to be deliver'd to those to whom the Italian Prelates of the Christian Religion and the Roman Bishops should write Aurelianus the Emperor would never have sent the cause of Domnus and Paulus Samosatenus to have been tried by the Bishop of Rome after it had been adjudged in the Synod of Antioch if he had not learn'd of the Catholic Bishops how Controversies ought to be determin'd in the Church neither would Eusebius himself who was present at the Council of Nice and subscrib'd to its Canons have commended this act of Aurelianus as most right if he had believ'd the judgment of the Synod of Antioch to have been Supream 3. But if it appears by what hath been said that before the Council of Nice the Oriental Synods that were celebrated not by the Metropolitans of one Province only but of many had not Supream Authority in the Church what shall we say concerning the Authority of simple Provincial Synods The Eusebians themselves in their Conventicle at Philippopolis did not defend the Authority of these as Supream For when the Great Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria being condemn'd by Eusebius of Nicomedia in the Tyrian Council fled to Julius Bishop of Rome the Eusebians submitted their cause to the judgment of the same Pope but observing that they were like to be condemn'd they began to impugn the Authority of the Pope whom they could not gain to their party and were the first that ever contended not that the Sentence of one single Province was of so great Authority that from it no Appeal could be made to a higher Judicatory as the Author of the Book de antiqua Ecclesiae disciplina dissertation 2. hath lately feigned but that the Eastern Church was distinct from the Western as in Name so also in Jurisdiction and that the Bishop of Rome was not to judge in that matter concerning which an Eastern Synod had given sentence For which cause Julius the first accuses them of rashness and innovation making answer in his Epistle to the Eusebians Julius Primus Epist ad Orientales Antiochiae congregatos Vid. num XXXV that the Western Bishops who were with him being struck with astonishment could hardly be induc'd to believe that such things could proceed from them and says that the Apostolical Canons were to be followed and that the Decrees of the Nicene Bishops which permitted that the acts of a former Synod might be revised in a latter ought to be attended For saith he if there was of old such a custom and the memory of it be renew'd and committed to writing in the great Synod and yet you will not suffer it to prevail amongst you you do indeed a thing that is very unseemly for it is very unjust that a custom which hath once obtain'd in the Church and been confirm'd by a Synod should be abrogated by some few persons This was the judgment of Julius the first a most moderate Prelate and of all the Bishops of Italy who assembled at Rome in Athanasius's cause which three hundred Western Bishops in the Council of Sardica judg'd to be so true that they excommunicated the Eusebians and determin'd against them Canon 3. that the memory of Peter the Apostle was to be honour'd and declar'd Canon 4. 7. that Appeals might be made from the Eastern Councils to the Bishop of Rome What hath been alledged is sufficient if I mistake not to confute the Forgeries of the Conventicle of Philippopolis although not only the English Writer approves them but also a late French Author maintains them to be so true that he is not ashamed in Dissert 2. c. 1. Sect. 2. to endeavour to fasten them upon St. Ambrose For having cited a certain place out of Ambrose he says that this Father supposes that the affairs of the East ought to be administred by the Eastern Bishops and that it did not belong to the Western Bishops to judg the Eastern which Constantius says in his Epistle to the Council of Ariminum as also the Eusebians in the Council of Philippopolis Thus this Author not scrupling to affix the new whimsies of an Arian Emperor and the dreams of the Conventicle of Philippopolis upon St. Ambrose But I must not insist upon these things since they do not deserve an Answer 4. Let us therefore proceed to our Authors Commentaries upon the Third Canon which is the Sixth in order among the Nicene Canons for the things which he relates here are new and scarce ever heard of The Canon Canon 6. Nicaenus Vid. num XXXVI of which we treat runs thus according to the Version of Dionysius Exiguus Let the ancient Custom be kept through Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction over all these because the Bishop of Rome hath a like custom Likewise in Antioch and other Provinces let the priviledges of their Churches be preserved But this is generally clear that if any one be made Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan the great Synod hath defined that he ought not to be a Bishop c. There is one thing in this Canon which our Author because it destroys his design interprets after a strange manner He follows the opinion of those that acknowledge no Authority superior to that of a Metropolitan now because the Nicene Canon ascribes an Authority to the Patriarch of Alexandria over all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and hath expresly declared that the like custom had obtained at Rome and Antioch that their Bishops presided over many Provinces our Author following the Error of Beverage hath asserted that there was no Metropolitan in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis in the time of the Nicene Council and so he would make the Bishop of Alexandria to be a Patriarch as to
indeed could not have been urged by him to any purpose though he had been sure that King Lucius had Preach'd to Bavaria and Rhetia unless he could first have proved that Lucius his Mission was by the Authority of the British Church and that his Episcopacy ow'd its Original to the British and not to the Roman Church which he will never be able to prove it being as easy to contradict this as to assert it 11. But the better to clear this matter we are to take notice that for the subjecting a Province to any certain Patriarchate it is not required that its Bishops should be always ordained by the Patriarch but it sufficeth that they owe their Original institution to him that is that the first Bishop of such Region by whom others were afterwards ordain'd Ruffinus was instituted by this Patriarch So as we have seen above Aethiopia was â—ddâ—d to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in the time 〈◊〉 â—â—stantine the Great because as Ruffinus 〈…〉 Frumentius was ordain'd first as 〈…〉 dom by St. Athanasius For 〈…〉 of Aethiopia from that time did not go to Alexandria for Ordination Nicolaus 1. num 73. epist ad Bulgar Vid. num IX yet they all remain'd Subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria to whom they owe the Original of their Episcopacy and so Nicolaus the first answer'd the Bulgarians when it was put to him num 73. this order is to be observ'd by you you are now to have a Bishop consecrated for you by the Prelate of the Apolic See who if the number of Christians are increased through his industry may receive from us the Priviledge of being an Archbishop and so at length may constitute Bishops himself who may choose a Successor to the Archbishoprick when it shall become void by his death and he which is new elected needs not come hither to be consecrated because the journey would be long but let the Bishops which were consecrated by the late Archbishop assemble together and constitute him who notwithstanding is not to be inthronised neither to consecrate any thing but the body of Christ before he receive the Pall from the See of Rome as it is prov'd to be the practice of all he Archbishops of France Germany and other Regions Nicolaus the first speaks here of the Bulgarians newly to be converted to the Faith who he was assured ought to be subject to his Patriarchate Now he did not think that it was requisite in order to this that their Bishops should be perpetually ordain'd by the Roman Prelates but reserv'd to himself only the Ordination of their first Archbishop and required that his Successors as an acknowledgment of the Patriarchal Authority should as in duty bound only receive the Pall from the Roman See as he testifies it to have been the custom not only of the Archbishops of France and Germany but also of other Countries Amongst which Countries Britain was so to be reckon'd Venerabilis Beda as Venerable Bede confirms lib. 1. Ecclesiast Histor Gentis Anglorum cap. 29. where he recites the Epistle of Gregory the Great to Augustine Legate of the Apostolic See in Britain Gregorius Magnus Epistiad Augustinum Monachum Londinensis Episcopus semper in posterum à Synodo propria debet consecrari atque honoris pallium à Sede Apostolica accipere Honorius 1. Epist ad Edwinum Vid. num X. to whom that most Holy Bishop gave Power to ordain the Archbishop of London and his twelve Suffragans so notwithstanding that ever for the future the Bishop of London was to be consecrated by his own Synod and to receive the honorary Pall from the Apostolic See. He writes that the Archboship of York was to be instituted after the same manner if so be that the Catholic Religion should at any time be further propagated which having come to pass in the time of Honorius the first this Pope being sent to by Edwin King of England wrote back in this manner We have directed two Palls to Honorius and Paulinus Metropolitan Bishops that when either of them shall be called out of this World to his Creator the other may by vertue of this our Authority substitute another Bishop in his place which as well by reason of your affectionate Charity as because of the length of the journey lying through so many large Provinces as are known to be between you and us we are invited to grant that we may concur with your Devotion in all things according to your desire Venerable Bede cap. 18. commenting upon these words tells us that therefore a power was indulged to one of the British Archbishops to consecrate the other that they might not be always under a necessity of taking toylsom journey 's to the City of Rome through so long spaces both of Land and Sea for the Ordaining of an Archbishop So that from these times it hath been sufficient to acknowledge the Authority of the Patriarchal See by receiving the Pall neither did the eighth General Council require any more Venerab Beda Vid. num XI decreeing Canon 17. according to the version of Anastasius Bibliothecarius that the ancient custom was to be observ'd both in old and new Rome Canon 17. Sonodi Generalis 8. Vid. num XII that their Prelates should have power over all the Metropolitans which are promoted by them and that receive confirmation of their Episcopal dignity either by imposition of hands or by delivery of the Pall viz. to call them to a Synod if need require as also to restrain and correct them if it happen that fame accuses them of any offences According to which Canon the Metropolitans of Britain who receiv'd confirmation of their Episcopal Dignity by vertue of the Pall sent from the Patriarch of old Rome are declar'd to be subject to his Power and that according to the judgment of the Nicene Fathers who in their Sixth Canon have acknowledg'd the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Bishop for so the Eighth Synod hath interpreted that Power as believing it to be ownd by the Susception of the Pall from thence whence it is plain that our Author if he will understand the Nicene Canon according to the interpretation of the Eighth General Synod hath lost the cause and that he hath nothing to produce whereby he can prove that Britain is exempted from the Roman Patriarchate CHAP. III. Although the British Church had not receiv'd its Institution from the Roman yet it is shew'd from the Example of the Illyrican Church that by ancient Custom time out of mind it might be subject to it and moreover that it ought to be so 1. The Distribution of Churches under Patriarchs had not its Original only from the Ordination of their Bishops but also from ancient Custom the beginning of which not being known is believ'd to have been from the time of the Apostles from which Principle De Marca shews that although Innocent doth not mention the Illyrican Churches as instituted by Peter yet that
Bulgarians called Bulgaria Nicholaus the First gives us the Names of those Roman Bishops which the Lagates sent by Adrian the Second to Constantinople makes mention of without reciting their Names Epist 2 Nicholaus primus Epist ad Michaclem Imperatâ—râ—m Vid. â—um XIV when he wrote to Michael the Emperor concerning the Illyrican Diocess Which was in the time of our Ancestors enlarged by the Sacred Dispositions of the Holy Popes Damasus Siriciuâ— Innocentius Bonifacius Coelestinus Sixtus Leo Hilarius Simplicius Faelix Hormisda Whose Institutions sign'd by them in those Parts we have taken care to direct to your Imperial Majesty by our Legates to the intent that you may know the truth of this Matter And the Decretal Epistles of these Popes which were extant in the times of Adrian the Second and Nicholaus the First are those which De Marca never saw and which the learned Men of his Time lamented the loss of as a great Damage to Ecclesiastical Learning the Apostolic See it self not being able to produce them Because it had lost those Decretals formerly kept in its Registry as either burnt or torn upon the Incursion of Enemies or spoil'd by the Injury of Time. Wherefore they were to be fetch'd from some other place were they any where to be found as Lucas Holstenius really did near thirty years since who having made search amongst the Manuscripts of divers Countries found the Acts of the Roman Synod under Boniface the Second in which it is related that Theodosius Bishop of Ecchinus cited many of the Epistles of the foresaid Popes which manifestly demonstrated the Roman Patriarchal Power over Illyricum 3. I omit the Epistles of Damasus and Siricius and begin with those of Innocent the First whom I before mention'd in that which is fourth in order according to Holstenius he makes mention of his Predecessors in these Words To you saith he speaking to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica Innocentius primus Epistola inter Holstenianas 4. Vid. num XV. Vicar of the Apostolic See in Illyricum Such and so great Men my Predecessors heretofore in this See that is to say Damasus Siricius and the above mention'd viz. Anastasius of blessed Memory have shew'd so much deference that they have given your Holiness who are most just a Power to take cognisance of all things that were done in those Parts I give you again to understand that I the least of them am of the same Judgment and desire the same thing Which is also confirm'd by Innocent in his Epistle to Rufus Successor to Anysius and by Caelestinus who writing to Perigenes Reynatus Basilius and other Illyrican Bishops told them that he did not appoint any new thing Neither saith he Coâ—leâ—â—inus primus Epistola 13. meer Holsten Vid. num XVI is this Care new which the Apostolic See takes of you this Experiment we make use of has been often order'd by our Ancestors the watchful Superintendence over you was ever given in charge to the Church of Thessalonica And afterwards there are some Faults not of a light nature which being innate to those Provinces cannot come to us who are at so great a distance or all being now so remote they are not related unto us after some space of time as they were first acted All which by the Intercession of our Brother and Fellow-bishop Rufus whose Experience 't is clear has been approv'd in all Causes and Acts of his Life our Will is be rescinded To whom we have delegated our Authority over your Province that to him most dear Brethren all your Causes may be refer'd let none be ordain'd without his Advice let none enter upon his Province without consulting him let them not presume to call an Assembly of Bishops without his Consent if there be any thing to be refer'd to us let it be done by him Sixtus the Third in his Epistle to Perigenes confirms the same to Anastasius Successor to Rufus testifying that he knew of no new thing that was granted to him but that saith he Sixtus III. Epist ad Perigenem inter Holsten Vid. num XVII Ejusdem ad Episcopes Illyrici inter Holsten Epistola 17. Vid. ibid. which our Predecessors delegated to his Predecessors having regard to Ecclesiastical Discipline is now again constituted He confirms the same things in his Epistle to the Synod of Thessalonica as also in his Epistle to all the Bishops of Illyricum where he saith thus All the Illyrican Churches as we have receiv'd from our Ancestors and we our selves have confirm'd are now under the charge of the Archbishop of Thessalonica that by his care he may determine those Controversies which sometimes arise amongst his Brethren and that all things which are done by any particular Priests may be refer'd to him Let there be a Council call'd when it is needful and as often as he having regard to emergent necessities shall order it that the Apostolic See being inform'd by his Relation as in good reason it ought to be may confirm its Acts. And these things if I am not deceiv'd do plainly shew that Theodosius Bishop of Ecchinus did speak truth Synodus Romanus sub Bonifacio Vid. num XVIII when in the Roman Synod before Pope Boniface he said it was manifest that although the Apostolic See justly claims the principality over all Churches in the whole World it was necessary that to it alone Appeals should be made in Ecclesiastical Causes yet that the Venerable Bishops of the Roman See did in a more especial manner claim a Jurisdiction over the Illyrican Churches 4. That Illyricum was subject to the Roman Patriarchate is so manifest from the above cited Testimonies that no body can deny it seeing therefore that the Illyrican Churches had not their first institution from Peter or his Successors some may deduce from thence that it is not at all necessary for the asserting of the British Church's Subjection to the Roman Patriarchate that it should have been instituted by Peter or his Successors Our Author therefore foreseeing this since he could not deny the Testimonies of the Decretals above mentioned resolv'd to oppose them asserting that the Roman Bishops who wrote those Decretal Epistles were guilty of Innovation and Usurpation over the Rites of Metropolitans Let us hear his feigned Stories which since they abound with Errors are to be exposed to the end that they may be confuted Writing therefore concerning the Power of the Roman Patriarch over Illyricum as delegated to the Bishop of Thessalonica by the Decretal Epistles above mention'd He saith that Leo himself in his Epistle to Anastasius Author p. 115. derives this Authority no higher than from Siricius who gave it to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica certa tum primum ratione commisit ut per illam Provinciam positis quas ad disciplinam teneri voluit Ecclesiis subveniret Siricius immediately succeeded Damasus who died according to Holstenius 11. Dec. 384. three years after the Council of Constantinople had advanced
instead of Perrevius For Boniface in the Place above mention'd doth not speak of Perigenes the Metropolitan of Achaia whom the Bishops of Thessaly had no Power either to Ordain or Consecrate but of Perrevius Lucas Hoistenius in notis whom Lucas Holstenius in his Notes upon this Epistle hath concluded from the Subscriptions of the Council of Ephesus to have been Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I will prove from the very Acts themselves that he was of the Province of Thessaly For since Perrevius is supposed to have been lawfully elected and duly ordain'd and afterwards for some fictitious Crimes to have been deposed by his Fellow-bishops of the Province of Thessaly I cannot but think he belong'd to the Province of those Bishops who gave Judgment concerning him from which their Sentence Perrevius notwithstanding appeal'd to the Apostolic See. Boniface committed the Care of perusing the Heads of this Appeal to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica his Vicar in Illyricum which being duly examin'd by him and sent to Rome Boniface thought fit that Perrevius should be restored to his See and that the three Bishops above named who deposed Perrevius should be excommunicated and so he made use of that Authority which belong'd to him over Illyricum and confuted by the exercise of his Power all these fictions of our Author before they were fram'd 6. Now let us clear the cause of Perigenes in which our Author mixes falsehood with truth and explicates many things untruly without any testimony of the Ancients It is indeed true that in the year 352. Nectarious in the second General Synod Canon 3. obtain'd that the Church of Constantinople which heretofore was a Suffragan should have Priority of honour after the Roman Church because Constantine having translated the Imperial Throne to that City it became the See of new Rome It is also true that from this Canon unlawfully made the Bishops of Constantinople took occasion by degrees to extend the bounds of their Jurisdiction and that having taken in the three exarchates of Thrace Pontus and Asia they began to take upon them the hearing the causes of the Eastern part of Illyricum which then was divided from the Western part Let it also be granted true that the Bishop of Thessalonica had the Authority of the Apostolic See over Illyricum first delegated to him by Pope Damasus that he might the better withstand the Usurpations of the Bishop of Constantinople yet it cannot be denied but that it was upon the occasion of the Bishop of Constantinople's drawing the cause of Perigenes before his Tribunal that there arose a Controversie between the Bishops of Rome and those of Constantinople Lex Theodosii Junioris Vid. num XX. upon which Theodosius junior Successor to Arcadius being circumvented by the Bishop of Constantinople in the year 421 made a Law which is found in the Theodosian Code lib. 16. leg 45. tit de Episcopis and in the Justinian Code lib. 1. tit 2. de Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis leg 6. to run thus Lex Theodosii Junioris Vid. num XX. We command that all innovation being laid aside the ancient custom and the Ecclesiastical Canons which have been in former ages instituted and held in force till this very time be observed throughout all the Provinces of Illyricum and if there arise any doubtful cause that be reserv'd to the Sacerdotal Synod and Sacred judicatory not without the knowledge of the most Reverend the Prelate of the Sacred Law who holds his See in the City of Constantinople which enjoys the Prerogative of old Rome Dat. prid Idus Julii Eustathio Agricola Coss 7. Hitherto we have recounted those things which are true now let us proceed to shew what falshoods the Author has intermixt with them And in the first place it is false that the foremention'd Law was made against the invasion of the Roman Bishop for it was not made against the invasion of the Bishop of Rome but to further the unlawful Usurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople They had not here regard to the Authority of Provincial Synods for the determining certain and undoubtful causes but to doubtful cases such as was that of Perigenes which could not be determined by the Synod without the judgment of the Patriarch Now there was no Controversie about a Patriarchal Power over Illyricum in the time of Perigenes the only question that was mov'd was to which of the Patriarchs it belong'd Illyricum even to the time of Valentinian the Second had belong'd to the West but the Empire being divided between Arcadius and Honorius after the Death of Valentinian the Western part of Illyricum was distinguished from that of the East and the Eastern part fell to Arcadius the Emperor of the East from whence the Bishop of Constantinople took occasion to perswade Theodosius the Son of Arcadius who was of an easie nature that he would make the Churches of the Eastern Illyricum Subject to the Constantinopolitan See which Theodosius so effected by making a new Law as plainly to shew that there was no question concerning a Patriarchal Power over Illyricum but only a difficulty started viz. whether this power should for the future appertain to the Roman Bishop or to the Constantinopolitan Theodosius his words are to be observed Theodosius Imperator Then if there arise any doubtful case that must be reserved to the Sacerdotal Synod and Sacred Judicatory not without the knowledge of the most Reverend the Prelate of the Sacred Law who holds his See in the City of Constantinople which enjoys the Prerogative of Old Rome You hear that therefore the judgment in doubtful cases was reserv'd to the Bishop of Constantinople or New Rome as it was then called because it enjoy'd the Prerogative of Old Rome Therefore before the Prerogative was Translated to the Constantinopolitan See Bonifacius Epist ad Ru tum inter Holsten num 8. Old Rome enjoy'd the Prerogative of Superiority over Illyricum And this is the Authority which the Roman Bishops contended that the Roman See could not be deprived of according to what Bonifacius the first told Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica that new attempts which can be of no force ought not to lessen the Authority of the Roman See. And speaking against those who appealed to the Bishop of Constantinople for the determination of the causes of the Illyrican Diocese Restrain saith he the Violators of the Canons Vid. num XXI and the Enemies of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction through the assistance of God who always frustrates such mens wishes exercise also that Authority which is grantd you over the rest of the contumacious For you see we have left no stone unturn'd Which last words are therefore added by Boniface because he did not only exercise his Apostolical Authority but made use of the assistance of Honorius the Western Emperor for the obtaining of Theodosius that the Law might be revoked 8. There is extant in Lucas Holstenius a transcript of the Epistle which
as it was again restored by Augustine the Monk under Gregory the Great 1. Our Author hath conjectur'd from a certain Answer made by the British Bishops and the Monks of Banchor to Augustine Gregory 's Legate that Britain did acknowledge no Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan till such time as Gregory the Great was Pope which he endeavors to prove from Bede and Spelman from an ancient English Manuscript 2. The Manuscript set forth by Spelman and approv'd of by our Author is suppositious and lately invented The English Church from the time of its first planting hath acknowledg'd an Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan in the Roman Bishop as is shew'd from the first Council of Arles wherein three British Bishops were present 3. The same thing is prov'd from the Canons and Epistle of the Council of Sardica wherein St. Athanasius mentions the British Bishops to have been present 4. Pelagius a Britain discover'd this when after his Heresie was condemn'd in an Eastern Synod he would not only have his Cause brought before the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop but sent also a Book wherein he gave an Account of his Faith together with an Epistle to Innocent the First as appears from the Testimony of Augustin and Osorius 5. Celestius the Disciple of Pelagius being of the British Nation also acknowledg'd this more clearly whilst being condemn'd for his Heresie in the Council of Carthage he thought fit to appeal from the Sentence of the Synod to the Tribunal of the Bishop of Rome as Marius Mercator testifies For 't was his Duty to prosecute that Appeal as Paulinus Deacon to St. Ambrose asserts 6. The Mission of Bishops into Britain from the Apostolic See and their Reception there confirms this same thing as St. Prosper tells us from Germanus Antisiodorensis whose Testimony in this case ought not to be contemn'd 7. Venerable Bede testifies the same thing concerning Palladius the Apostle of the Scots and Mattheus Westmonasteriensis of St. Patrick the Apostle of Ireland 8. This is likewise manifestly prov'd from what Gregory the Great did for the Restauration of the Catholic Religion in Britain For he sent Augustine as Legate of the Apostolic See that he might institute Churches ordain Metropolitans and Consecrate Bishops in the Island who should be all bound to obey his Authority 9. Neither did the Monks of Banchor or the British Bishops oppose the Popes Authority at the time when Augustine was Legate there For the Manuscript containing the Answer of the Abbot of Banchor set forth by Spelman is supposititious and the Acts recorded by Bede only hint to us that a Question rose amongst them there concerning some particular Rites but not concerning the Primacy of the Pope 10. But supposing that the Monks of Banchor had contradicted the Popes Primacy this Opposition can be no Proof against it since Augustine shew'd that what they held was false by a Miracle which gave Divine Testimony to the Truth which he asserted 1. OUR Author in the Conclusion of his Book proposeth these things which are supposed to be spoken by the Monks of Banchor and the British Bishops upon the occasion of Augustine's being sent amongst them concerning which he hath these Words Pag. 357. Augustine being furnished with such full Powers as he thought desires a Meeting with the British Bishops at a Place called Augustinsac as Bede saith in the Confines of the Wiccii and the West Saxons but at this Place the British Bishops gave Augustine a Meeting where the first thing proposed by him was that they would embrace the Unity of the Catholic Church and then joyn with them in preaching to the Gentiles for saith he they did many things repugnant to the Unity of the Church which was in plain terms to charge them with Schism and the Terms of Communion offer'd did imply Submission to the Church of Rome and by consequence to his Authority over them But the utmost that could be obtain'd from them was only that they would take farther Advice and give another Meeting with a greater Number And then were present seven Bishops of the Britains and many learned Men chiefly of the Monastery of Banchor where Dinoth was then Abbot and the result of this Meeting was that they utterly refused Submission to the Church of Rome or to Augustine as Arch-bishop over them So far our Author observing that the Truth of this History did not only depend upon the Testimony of Bede but likewise upon the Authority of a Manuscript set forth by Spelman in which Dinoth the Abbot of Banchor is reported to have said that he knew not who that Pope was whom they called Father of Fathers Patrem Patrum to whom Augustine would have the British Bishops pay Obedience And although he confesses that this Manuscript was by some judg'd to be supposititious yet he brings Spelman's Authority for it Pag. 360. Ex Tomo 1. Conciliorum Spelmanni who saith he sets it down at large in Welch English and Latine tells from whom he had it and exactly transcribed it and that it appeared to him to have been an old Manuscript taken out of an older but without Date or Author and believes it to be still in the Cotton Library Here is all the appearance of Ingenuity and Faithfulness that can be expected and he was a Person of too great Judgment and Sagacity to be easily imposed upon by a Modern Invention or a new found Schedule as Mr. Cressy phrases it 2. It may be easily collected from these Words of the Author that although he makes use of Bede's Authority as the chief support of his Cause yet he doth not deny the Authority of the Manuscript set forth by Spelman which ought to be rejected as a modern Invention as may easily be shewn For it is not at all probable that Dinoth Abbot of Banchor should speak those things concerning the Power of the Bishop of Rome which he is reported to have done in that Manuscript For the Pope's Authority was no News to the British Islands Neither was the Roman Bishops Patriarchal Authority over the British Churches any modern Invention Whoever shall peruse the ancient Records of the English Church will as I suppose easily find these things are not to be denied For if they had been new and lately invented why then should Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of London Adelphus Bishop of the * Coloniae Londinensium London Colony and others of the British Clergy being present in the Council of Arles at the beginning of the fourth Age have sent the Acts of that Council to Sylvester that he might publish them to all Patres Arelatenses epist Synodica How could they have acknowledged that he held the greater Diocesses How could they have written that the Apostles daily sate in the Roman See if they had not believed an Apostolical Authority had still remained in that See 3. It is manifest that about the middle of the same
Age the British Bishops who as St. Athanasius testifies were present at the Council of Sardica opposed the Eusebians and contended that Athanasius was rightly absolved by Julius the First that they permitted Appeals to be made to the Apostolic See from all Provinces of the Christian World and that they declared the Memory of Peter the Apostle was to be honour'd in the Roman Bishop For so the British Prelates who together with the three hundred Bishops assembled at the Council of Sardica Canon 3. have decreed Let us honour the Memory of St. Peter the Apostle Canon 3. Sardicensis Vid. num XL. that those who have examin'd the Cause may write to Julius the Bishop of Rome and if he judges it should be heard again let it be again heard and let him assign the Judges but if he upon trial find the cause to be such that it ought not to have a second hearing what he decrees in this kind shall stand firm Whereupon the same British Bishops after the Canons were established in their Synodical Epistles ex Cresconii collectione Hilarii fragmentis Tom. 2. Conciliorum apud Labbeum edita wrote to Julius the First Epistola Synodica Sardicensis Vid. num XLI that it seem'd best and most congruous that the Chief Priests out of every Province should refer their Causes to the Head that is to the See of Peter the Apostle What could the British Bishops have written more plainly than this that the Roman See was the Seat of Peter and the Head of the whole Church to which the Bishops throughout the whole World ought to refer Matters as in the Council of Sardica they refer'd the Condemnation of the Eusebians concerning whom they thus wrote to Pope Julius Vouchsafe to admonish all our Brethren Ibid. and Fellow-Bishops by your Letters that they do not receive their Epistles that is their Communicatory Letters In which thing the British Bishops agreed with St. Ambrose and the Italian Bishops who in the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Aquileia in this very same fourth Age Concilium Aquileiense Epist ad Gratianum Imperatorem Vid. num XLII wrote to Gratian the Emperor that the Roman Church was the Head of the whole Roman World from whence the Rights of venerable Admonition flow to all 4. There is an eminent Testimony of the Popes Primacy which is taken from the very Enemies of the Roman Faith born in Britain Pelagius a Britain being first accused of Heresie by Osorius a Spanish Priest at the Synod of Diospolis and afterwards by those of the West in an Eastern Synod under Theodotus Bishop of Antioch did not only suffer his Cause to be refer'd to Pope Innocent but he also directs Letters missive to to him wherein he gave an account of his Faith. Osorius gives Testimony of the Act of the former Synod in Apologia pro libertate arbitrii contra Pelagium telling us that John Bishop of Jerusalem did at least pronounce this Sentence in the Diospolitan Synod that the Brethren and their Epistles should be sent to St. Innocent the Pope of Rome Osorius Apologia prolibertate arbitrii Vid. num XLIII and that all were to stand to his Determination St. Augustine makes mention of the second Synod affirming Lib. 1. Contra Julianum Cap. 3. that Theodotus Bishop of Antioch presided in it and that he had the Letters by him which that Bishop and Praylus Bishop of Jerusalem sent to Innocent concerning this Matter D. Augustinus Lib. 2. de gratâ—a Christi Cap. 2.1 De Libro fidei quem Romanâ— ipsis litteris misit ad eundem Innocentium Lastly that Pelagius presented a Treatise containing his Faith to Innocent the First St. Augustine Lib. 2. de Gratia Christi Cap. 21. informs us in these Wâ—rds concerning the Treatise of his Faith which he sent to Rome together with Letters to the same Innocent Would â—elagius have suffered that his Cause should have been remov'd from the Synod of Eastern Bishops to the Tribunal of the Bishop of Rome and have been Solicitous to clear himself before Innocent in the Treatise of his Faith which he sent him if Innocent's Authority had not been at all valued in Britain the Place wherein Pelagius had his Birth and Education Would not he rather have declin'd the Sentence of the Apostolic See and rejected the Judgment of the Roman Church in this Point 5. It was so far from this that Celestius the Disciple of Pelagius and a Scotch-man being accused of the same Heresie in another part of the World by Paulinus Deacon to St. Ambrose and condemn'd in the Synod of Carthage in Africa thought fit to appeal to the Bishop of Rome for his Tryal This we find to be written by Marius Mercator in Commonitorio Marius Mercator in Commonitorio from which Sentence he thought fit to appeal to the Examen of the Bishop of Rome Could he judge him to be appeal'd to whom he thought to have no Authority to Judge Paulinus declar'd himself of another Opinion in the Libel he offer'd to Pope Zosimus speaking in this manner concerning Celestius he Paulinus in libello Zosimo Papae oblato that had made his Appeal to the Apostolic See was absent who ought to have maintained the Merits of his Appeal St. Ambrose's Deacon could not more evidently have asserted that the See Apostolic had a Right to receive Appeals and that Celestius ought to have pleaded the Points of his Appeal before the Roman Bishop as his Superior But although Celestius neglecting his first Appeal fled into Bsia and Thrace yet being driven thence Marius Mercator in Commonit he made all the hast he could to the City of Rome in the time of Pope Zosimus of blessed Memory as Mercator testifies and there after his Tergiversations and Errors were detected he and Pelagius were condemned by Pope Zosimus of blessed Memory concerning which Epistle of Zosimus sent throughout the whole World was confirm'd by the Subscriptions of the Holy Fathers as we are told in Commonitorio above mention'd with which St. Prosper agrees asserting that the Decrees which were made against â—elagius and Celestius were brought out of Africa to Pope Zosimus S. Prosper in Chronico which being approv'd of the Pelagian Heresie was condemn'd throughout the whole World. As far therefore as we can collect from the management of the whole Cause of Celestius and Pelagius it was so certain in the time of Innocent the First that it belong'd to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop as Superior that not only the Eastern and African Councils freely acknowledge this but Pelagius and Celestius the very Pests of Mankind durst not deny it Moreover when the Epistle of Zosimus which condemn'd the Pelagian Heresie being transmitted through every Church under Heaven came at last to Britain there is no doubt to be made but that Heresie was condemned by the Subscriptions of the British Fathers Whence Venerable Bede observes that the Pelagian