judge whether by Scotia Bede understands the Northern parts of Britain or Ireland But after all doth not Bede say that the Island Hy did belong to Britain as a part of it And what then follows Doth not Bede in the same place say it was given by the Picts not by the Scots to the Scotish Monks who came from Ireland So that upon the whole matter that which Bede understands by Scotia seems to be Ireland although he affirms the Scots to have setled in the Northern parts of Britain and to have set up a Kingdom there From whence there appears no probability of Palladius's being sent to the Scots in Britain Bede saying nothing of their Conversion when he so punctually sets down the Conversion of the South Picts by Ninias a British Bishop and of the Northern Picts by Columba a Scotish or Irish Presbyter But if Palladius were sent to the Scots in Ireland how came St. Patrick to be sent so soon after him To this the Bishop of St. Asaph answers that Palladius might die so soon after his Mission that Pope Celestine might have time enough to send St. Patrick before his own death And this he makes out by laying the several circumstances of the Story together as they are reported by Authours which the Advocate calls a laborious Hypothesis and elaborate contrivance to divert all the unanswerable Authorities proving that Palladius was seâ—t to them in Scotland A. D. 431. What those unanswerable Authorities are which prove Palladius sent to the Scots in Britain I cannot find And for all that I see by this Answer the onely fault of the Bishop's Hypothesis is that it is too exact and doth too much clear the appearance of contradiction between the two Missions 3. As to Dr. Hammond's Testimony who is deservedly called by the Advocate a learned and Episcopal English Divine it is very easily answered For 1. He looks on the whole Story of the Scots Conversionfs as very uncertainly set down by Authours 2. He saith that Bozius applies the Conversion under Victor to Ireland then called Scotia for which he quotes Bede 3. That neither Marianus Scotus nor Bede do take the least notice of it 4. That if Prosper's Words be understood of the Scots in Britain yet they do not prove the thing designed by his Adversaries viz. that the Churches there were governed by Presbyters without Bishops for Prosper supposes that they remained barbarous still and therefore the Plantation was very imperfect and could not be understood of any formed Churches But the Advocate very wisely conceals one passage which overthrows his Hypothesis viz. that they could not be supposed to receive the first Rudiments of their Conversion from Rome viz. under Pope Victor since the Scots joined with the Britains in rejecting the Roman Customs From whence we see that Dr. Hammond was far from being of the Advocate 's mind in this matter and what he proposes as to some Rudiments of Christianity in Scotland before Palladius his coming thither was onely from an uncertain Tradition and for reconciling the seeming differences between Bede and Prosper or rather for reconciling Prosper to himself But I remember the Advocate 's observation in the case of their Predecessour's Apology against Edward I. viz. that they designed as most Pleaders do to gain their Point at any rate and how far this eloquent Advocate hath made good this observation through his Discourse I leave the Reader to determine Having thus gone through all the material parts of the Advocate 's Book I shall conclude with a serious Protestation that no Pique or Animosity led me to this Undertaking no ill Will to the Scotish Nation much less to the Royal Line which I do believe hath the Advantage in point of Antiquity above any other in Europe and as far as we know in the World But I thought it necessary for me to enquire more strictly into this Defence of such pretended Antiquities both because I owed so much service to so worthy and excellent a Friend as the Bishop of St. Asaph and because if the Advocate 's Arguments would hold good they would overthrow several things I had asserted in the following Book and withall I was willing to let the learned Nobility and Gentry of that Nation see how much they have been imposed upon by Hector Boethius and his followers and that the true Honour and Wisedom of their Nation is not concerned in defending such Antiquities which are universally disesteemed among all judicious and inquisitive Men. And it would far better become Persons of so much Ingenuity and Sagacity to follow the Examples of other European Nations in rejecting the Romantick Fables of the Monkish times and at last to settle their Antiquities on firm and solid Foundations As to the following Book it comes forth as a Specimen of a greater Design if God gives me Life and Opportunity which is to clear the most important Difficulties of Ecclesiastical History And because I look on a General Church-History as too heavy a Burthen to be undergone by any Man when he is fit for it by Age and Consideration I have therefore thought it the better way to undertake such particular Parts of it which may be most usefull and I have now begun with these Antiquities of the British Churches which may be followed by others as I see occasion But I hope none will have just cause to complain that I have not used diligence or faithfulness enough in this present Work or that I have set up Fancies and Chimaera's of my own instead of the true Antiquities of the British Churches I have neither neglected nor transcribed those who have written before me and if in some things I differ from them it was not out of the Humour of opposing any great Names but because I intended not to deliver other Mens judgements but my own ERRATA In the Preface PAge 6. line 35. for but he did it reade for doing it p. 23. l. 31. for And r. Surely p. 36. l. 32. for but r. yet p. 38. l. 10. for Cladroe r. Cadroe p. 41. l. 39. after had insert made p. 44. l. 33. for a Generation r. three Generations and for overdoe r. not doe p. 61. l. 37. for foelix r. Salix In the Book PAge 2. l. 10. dele and. p. 25. l. 19. for under floo r. understood p. 59. l. 20. for with r. and. p. 70. for Dioclesian r. Diocletian and so throughout p. 115. l. 14. for Alexander r. Alexander p. 137. l. 7. for put p. 179. l. 11. for Council r. Church p. 194. l. 11. for Frecalphus r. Freculphus p. 209. l. 39. instead of but r. whereas p. 241. l. 7 8. dele But now the Britains were p. 256. l. 26. for Edecus r. Ederus p. 266. l. 35. for Egypt r. Europe p. 276. l. 37. for Erimthon r. Erimhon p. 281. l. 23. for Eanus r. Edanus p. 285. l. 18. for Authemius r. Anthemius p. 306. l. 29.
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
might die and rather than live so long without one they chose to set up one themselves Another is the fourty years Schism in the Church of Antioch between Euzoius Meletius and Paulinus But these are onely slight and frivolous Evasions For the Cyprian Bishops never alledged the first Inconveniencie nor did the Bishop of Antioch the second No not when Alexander was unanimously chosen as Morinus confesseth and made his Complaint of the Cyprian Privilege to Innocentius I. as may be seen by his 18 Epistle To whom the Pope gave an ignorant Answer as appears by Morinus himself For he pretends that the Cyprian Bishops had broken the Nicene Canons in consecrating their own Metropolitane because saith he The Council of Nice had set the Church of Antioch not over any Province but over the Diocese By which he must mean the Eastern Diocese within which Cyprus was comprehended But there is not one word of the Diocese in the Nicene Canons and these things are refer'd to ancient Customs as Morinus acknowledgeth And he saith the Diocese of the Orient as distinguished from Asiana and Pontica was not settled at the time of the Nicene Council And yet he brings the Testimony of Innocentius to disprove the allegation of the Cyprian Bishops when he confesses that he was so mistaken in the Nicene Canons on which he grounds that Right And the Cyprian Bishops had the Nicene Canons to plead for themselves as the general Council of Ephesus thought who understood them far better than Innocentius seems to have done If what he saith had been true it is not to be thought that the Council of Ephesus would have determin'd in favour of the Cyprian Bishops But Morinus urges against them 1. That they named onely three Bishops Troilus Sabinus and Epiphanius But do they not ayer that it had been always so from the Apostles time 2. That no one pleaded for the Bishop of Antioch What then If they were satisfied of the truth of their Allegation the Nicene Council had already determin'd the case 3. They onely doe it conditionally if it were so But they enjoy'd their Privilege by virtue of it which shews it could not be disproved 4. The Cyprian Privilege was granted in Zeno's time upon finding the Body of St. Barnabas But it is evident they enjoy'd it before by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus And it was not properly a Privilege For that implies a particular exemption But it was a Confirmation of their just Rights And not onely as to them but as to all Provincial Churches So that this Decree is the Magna Charta of Metropolitane Churches against any Incroachments upon their Liberties And so the Council thought it when it appoints all Metropolitanes to take Copies of it and voids all Acts that should be made against it It is necessary now to enquire whether the Bishop of Rome had a Patriarchal power over the British Churches before the Council of Nice And the onely way to doe that is to examine the several Patriarchal rights which were allow'd in the Church And if the Marks of none of them do appear We have reason to conclude he had no Patriarchal power For however some urge the Conversion of Britain by Eleutherius as a Pretence to the Bishop of Rome's Authority yet allowing it to be true no man of understanding can pretend to derive a Patriarchal power from thence unless there were a concurrence of Jurisdiction from that time Neither were it of force if Saint Peter himself had preached the Gospel here and settled the Bishops of these Churches For by the same reason there could have been no Patriarchates at Antioch or Alexandria where he is supposed to have placed Saint Mark but if notwithstanding the Bishops of those Churches had a true Patriarchal power Then so might the Metropolitanes of the British Churches have their proper Rights Although Saint Peter himself had founded these Churches Morinus saith The Patriarchal power consisted in these four things 1. In the Consecration of Metropolitanes and the Confirmation of other Bishops 2. In calling Councils out of the several Provinces under his Iurisdiction 3. In receiving Appeals from Provincial Synods 4. In the Delegation of persons with authority from him to act in the several Provinces The first is that upon which the rest are founded As we see in the case of the Bishop of Antioch and the Bishops of Cyprus For if he could have carried the Point of Consecration of the Bishop of Constance he knew all the rest would follow In the Patriarchate of Alexandria it appears by the Epistles of Synesius That the Bishops of Pentapolis although then under a Metropolitane of their own yet had their Consecration from the Bishop of Alexandria When Justinian advanced the Bishop of Justiniana prima to the dignity of a Patriarch by giving him power over seven Provinces he expresses the Patriarchal power by this That all the Bishops of those Provinces should be consecrated by him and consequently be under his Jurisdiction and be liable to be called to his Council as Justinian elsewhere determines And when the Bishop of Justinianopolis removed from Cyprus thither he not onely enjoy'd the Cyprian privilege there but was allow'd for a Patriarch by the Council in Trullo and consequently the Consecration of the Bishops in the Province of Hellespont belong'd to him And when the Patriarchal power was settled at Constantinople that was the chief thing insisted upon at least as to Metropolitanes The first attempt the Bishop of Constantinople made towards any true Patriarchal power for all that the Council of Constantinople gave him was a mere honorary Title was the Consecrating Bishops in the Dioceses of Asiana and Pontica and Thracia And this was charged on St. Chrysostome as an Innovation in the Synod ad Quercum i. e. in the Suburbs of Chalcedon And his actings in the Council at Ephesus and Consecrating of many Bishops in that Diocese could not be justified by the Canons of the Church The best excuse is what Palladius makes viz. That his going into Asia was upon the great importunity of the Bishops and Clergy there For what Morinus saith That he did this by the Pope's authority is ridiculous It being not once thought of by St. Chrysostome or his Friends And for a Bishop of Constantinople to act by authority from the Bishop of Rome was then as absurd as for the Czar of Muscovy to act by Commission from the Emperour of Germany For it is plain That one stood upon equal Privileges with the other As fully appears by the Council of Chalcedon and the warm Debates which follow'd it between the two Sees And what could have served Leo's turn better against Anatolius than to have produced St. Chrysostome's Delegation from one of his Predecessours But in the Council of Chalcedon where the Right of the Patriarch of Constantinople was at large debated this Act of St. Chrysostome was alledged as
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
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
Professours of all Arts and Sciences And at Sicca Veneria in Africa Arnobius was Professour of Rhetorick Near Lyons in Gaul the 60 Cities had dedicated an Altar to Augustus where the Rhosn and the Arar meet there Caius Caligula appointed Prizes to be plaid both in Greek and Latine Eloquence And not that onely but Philosophy was there taught Thence Odilo Abbat of Clugney about Anno Dom. 1020. calls Lyons of old the Mother and Nurse of Philosophy In the time of Dioclesian and Maximianus the Nobility of Gaul were brought up to Learning at Augustodunum Autun and there Eumenius was both Rectour and Professour as appears by his Speech to Constantius where he celebrates so much the Scholae Moenianae Quondam pulcherimo opere studiorum frequentiâ celebres which having suffer'd very much in the Rebellion of the Bagaudae under the latter Claudius he was extremely concerned to have them rebuilt which is the design of his excellent Oration But long before in Tiberius his time Tacitus saith The Sons of the Nobility did there Liberalibus studiis operari improve themselves in Learning Eusebius mentions in the time of Nero Statius Vrsulus of Tholouse a famous Professour of Rhetorick And Ausonius reckons up many of those who had been famous there and at Bourdeaux and other Places But to spare our pains in particular Places there is extant in the Theodosian Code an Edict of Gratian requiring all the chief Cities of these Parts of the Roman Empire to settle and maintain in them Professours of Learning both of the Greek and Roman Languages This Edict was directed to the Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum and was commanded to be observed through all his Diocese which Gothofred restrains to the Provinces of Gaul excluding Britain for which I see no reason Since Ausonius who was himself in that Office in Gratian's time comprehends the Britains under his Jurisdiction And the Notitia Imperii places the Provinces of Britain under him after Gratian's time Which Notitia he thinks was made about Anno Dom. 426. By virtue of which Edict we are to search for the ancient Schools of Learning among the Britains in the chief Cities of the Provinces at that time especially at London which was the Caput Gentis being Augusta or the Imperial City and so at York and Caerleon So that the British Churches as long as the Roman Power continued here had the same advantages for Learning which they had in other Provinces But when the Roman Forces were withdrawn and nothing but Miseries and Desolation follow'd then St. German's Care proved a most seasonable Relief to them in providing such Schools as those of Dubricius and Iltutus for the breeding up of Persons qualified for the Service of the Church as far as the Miseries of those times would permit The last thing to be considered is The Publick Service of the British Churches And in an ancient MS. in the Cotton Library about the Original of Divine Offices Germanus and Lupus are said to have brought into the use of the British Churches Ordinem Cursûs Gallorum By which Archbishop Vsher understands the Gallican Liturgy For Cursus in the Ecclesiastical use of the Word is the same with Officium Divinum as Dominicus Macer in his late Hierolexicon shews thence Cursum celebrare is to perform Divine Offices And so the word Cursus is often used in Fortunatus his Life of St. German Bishop of Paris and in our Saxon Writers But this Cursus Gallorum is there distinguished from the Cursus Orientalis and the Cursus Ambrosii and the Cursus Benedicti which little differs he saith from the Cursus Romanus And this was that which Germanus and Lupus had learnt in the Monastery of Lerins where it was used by Cassianus and Honoratus as the Authour of that Book affirms which I find to have been the same which Sir H. Spelman commends for its great Antiquity And that Authour derives the Gallican Liturgy from St. John by Polycarp and Irenaeus Which MS. Mabillon was inclined to think to have been the Book which Gregorius Turonensis wrote de Cursibus Ecclesiasticis but for the quoting the Life of Columbanus and Attala which was not written till after his Death This will oblige us to enquire what the Gallican Liturgy at this time was and how far different from the Roman It is agreed on all hands that there was a material difference between them but wherein it lay is not so easily understood When Gregory sent Augustine the Monk into England to settle the Saxon Churches and he was consecrated by the Archbishop of Arles one of the Questions Augustine proposed was since there was such difference between the Offices of the Roman and Gallican Churches Which he should follow Gregory answered That he should chuse what he thought most proper for the English Church Which implies That there was a diversity still between them And that the Pope did not oblige him to follow the Example of the Roman Church chiefly I suppose Because the Queen being a Christian before and using the Gallican Liturgy in the Publick Service and her Bishop being of the Gallican Church it would have given great Offence to them to have had it taken away as likewise to all the British Churches which had been accustomed to it If the Books of Musaeus mention'd by Gennadius were extant we should easily understand wherein the difference lay For he being a Presbyter of the Church of Marseilles and a Man Learned in the Scriptures was desired by Venerius the Bishop there to draw up a Form of Publick Service consisting of two Parts viz. The Morning Service and the Communion Service The first he finished in the time of Venerius and is highly commended by Gennadius for its Order Vsefulness and Decency The second in the time of Eustathius his Successour which he likewise commends for its great weight and exactness And there was great Reason at that time to bring the Church Service into Order because Cassian and others endeavour'd to introduce the Monastick Customs which he had observed in Egypt and elsewhere as appears by the design of his Monastick Institutions especially the second and third Books which he dedicated to Castor Bishop of Apta Iulia at the same time that Venerius was Bishop of Marseilles where Cassian lived This Musaeus was therefore employ'd to draw up the most convenient Order for the Publick Service from whence we may be able to judge of the difference in both parts between the Gallican and Roman Offices I begin with the first viz. the Morning Service which consisted of Lessons Hymns and Psalms agreeable to the Lessons and short Collects after them In the Church of Rome for a long time viz. for above 400 years they had nothing before the Sacrifice as the old Ritualists agree besides the Epistle and Gospel then Celestine appointed the Psalms to be used or as Walafr Strabo and Micrologus say caused
St. Paul's Circumstances that he had Leisure and Opportunity enough to have come hitheâ— 2. From the Circumstances of Britain that here was incouragement and invitation enough for him to come 3. From the Circumstances of the rest of the Apostles That he was the most likely to come hither of any of them 1. That St. Paul had Leisure and Opportunity enough to come hither to preach the Gospel It is agreed by Eusebius St. Jerome and others of the Ancients That St. Paul suffer'd at Rome 14 th of Nero. Baronius saith the 13th reckoning the years of Nero exactly from the beginning of his Reign in October But Petavius saith That the Ancients reckon'd the years according to the usual custome of a civil year So that the 13th of Nero's Reign is the 14th from the Calends of January St. Paul was sent to Rome when Festus was made Procuratour of Judaea in the room of Felix which was say Eusebius and St. Jerome in the second of Nero And I see no reason to question it For although Felix succeeded Cumanus in the Government of Judaea who was not condemned till the 12th of Claudius from whence to the second of Nero cannot be reckon'd those many years St. Paul saith he had been Governour among the Jews yet we are to consider that Felix was not sent immediately from Rome as Baronius mistakes but upon Cumanus his Sentence had his former Government inlarged Judaea being then added to his Province and part of the Province which he had before being given to Agrippa as Josephus saith So that part of Galilee and Samaria having been under his Government before Saint Paul might well say he had been a Ruler among them many years although he were dismissed in the second of Nero And although Tacitus saith That Felix had been a long time Governour of Judaea yet it appears by the distribution of the Province between Cumanus and him That before Cumanus his Banishment that which was properly Judaea fell not to his share And it is not probable that his Government should outlast the Favour of Pallas with Nero which mightily declined in his second year After Saint Paul's coming to Rome Saint Luke saith he abode there two years But Massutius observes from the Circumstances of Saint Paul's Voyage That he could not come to Rome till the third of Nero. So that he could not have his liberty till the fifth upon occasion of the Favours shew'd as he conjectures to Prisoners and Exiles on the Murther of Agrippina But from this time to his returning to Rome he went up and down Preaching the Gospel To which time Godeau in his Life of Saint Paul allows eight years Massutius rather more Baronius the same And he saith it was time enough for him to pass through the whole World Which Massutius repeats after him The Question now is Where Saint Paul employ'd all this time The Ancient Writers of the Church generally say in the Western parts so Clemens Theodoret St. Jerome Athanasius Epiphanius and others But I need not to insist on particular Testimonies since the onely Learned Person who hath opposed this Opinion doth ingenuously confess it to have been the common and received Opinion of all the Fathers And I see no reason by any thing he hath produced to recede from it For suppose we should grant that he went back into the Eastern parts and visited the Churches there some part of this time yet there is enough still left for St. Paul to Preach the Gospel in Britain and other Western parts as the Fathers say that he did And if we compare the time spent by St. Paul in his former Travels in the East and allow him to use an equal diligence afterwards there cannot appear any improbability that he should come into Britain and establish a Christian Church here Three Peregrinations of St. Paul we have an Account of in the Acts of the Apostles before his Voyage to Rome The first is of him and Barnabas from Antioch to Seleucia Cyprus Perga Iconium Lystra and Derbe of Lycaonia from whence they returned back and settled the Government of the Churches then planted by them And although it be said that they abode long at Iconium and Antioch yet Massutius shews That this whole Peregrination took up but five years Which is as much as Baronius allows from the beginning of it to the Council of Jerusalem For that he placeth in the 4th of Claudius and this in the 9th But he makes their return to Antioch in the 7th so that he allows but three years to the founding and settling so many Churches After the Council at Jerusalem Saint Paul takes another Progress from Antioch and went through Syria and Cilicia from thence to Derbe and Lystra and so through Phrygia and Galatia and Mysia and then from Troas crossed the Sea into Macedonia where he first Preached at Philippi a Roman Colonie And from thence passed to Thessalonica and so to Berrhoea Athens and Corinth where he tarried a year and six months and more and then failed into Syria and made haste to Jerusalem and so returned to Antioch This second Progress Baronius reckons from the ninth of Claudius to the twelfth and half the time was spent at Corinth The third was again from Antioch over all the Countrey of Galatia and Phrygia to which Baronius allows a years time And the next he fixes at Ephesus where St. Paul saith he tarried three years not exactly but the far greatest part of it having taught three months in the Synagogue and two years in the School of Tyrannus From Ephesus he goes into Macedonia and Achaia and having abode there three months he returned through Macedonia to Troas and from thence went to Miletus whither he sent for the Elders of the Church and took his solemn leave of them saying that they should see his Face no more From Miletus he passed to Phoenicia and so to Jerusalem where he was kept two years in custody and then sent by Festus to Rome This is a short account of St. Paul's labours and diligence in Preaching the Gospel before his Imprisonment at Rome And we cannot suppose a Person of such indefatigable Industry and Pains should lie still so many years after It is certain he thought he should never return more to the Eastern parts when he said so solemnly I know that ye all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my Face no more Which Words do not onely concern the Church of Ephesus but all the other Churches planted by him in the East And this he speaks not as his fear or conjecture but out of certain Knowledge And therefore it is not probable he should return into the East nor if he did would this hinder his coming into these parts afterwards where he might plant Churches within that time But it is
at the same time to be their Supreme Head They could have been glad of the Company of their Brother of Rome as they familiarly call him But since his Occasions would not permit his Absence from home they acquaint him what they had done and so send him an Abstract of their Canons as may be seen at large both in Sirmondus and Baronius By this we see what Opinion the British Bishops and their Brethren had of the Pope's Supremacy But now to their Canons Those may be reduced to three Heads Either to the Keeping of Easter Or to the Discipline of the Clergy Or to Lay Communion 1. As to Easter That Council decreed Can. 1. That it should be observed on the same day and time throughout the World And that the Bishop of Rome should give notice of the day according to custome But this latter part was repealed as Binius confesses by the Council of Nice which referr'd this matter to the Bishop of Alexandria 2. As to the Clergy There were Canons which related to Bishops Priests and Deacons 1. To Bishops and those were four 1. That no Bishop should trample upon another Can. 17. which Albaspineus well interprets of invading another's Diocese 2. As to travelling Bishops that they should be allow'd to perform Divine Offices in the City they came unto Can. 19. 3. That no Bishop should consecrate another alone but he ought to take seven with him or at least three Can. 20. Which shews the number of Bishops then in the Western Provinces and so in Britain at that time The Nicene Canon C. 4. takes notice onely of three Bishops as necessary to be present because many Eastern Provinces had not seven as Christianus Lupus observes on that Canon In an African Council in Cresconius we find That because two had presumed to consecrate a Bishop they desire that twelve may be present But Aurelius Bishop of Carthage refused it for this reason Because in the Province of Tripolis there were but five Bishops Therefore when the Council of Arles appoints seven it doth suppose these Provinces to have a greater number of Bishops 4. That if any were proved to have been Traditores in the Time of Persecution i. e. to have given up the Sacred Books or Vessels or to have betrayed their Brethren and this proved by Authentick Acts Then they were to be deposed However their Ordinations are declared to be valid Can. 13. 2. As to inferiour Clergy 1. Excommunication is denounced against those that put out money to use Can. 12. 2. That they were not to forsake the Churches where they were ordained Can. 2. And Deprivation is threatned on that account Can. 21. 3. The Deacons are forbidden to celebrate the Lord's Supper there called Offering Can. 15. 3. As to Lay Communion 1. Those that refuse to continue in their Employment as Souldiers now the Persecution was over were to be suspended Communion Can. 3. The words are de his qui Arma projiciunt in Pace Of which some do hardly make tolerable sense Binius saith it must be read in Bello But nothing can be more contrary to Peace than War How then should such a mistake happen Albaspineus saith It is against those who refuse to be Souldiers in time of Peace Baronius saith It is against them that apostatize in time of Peace But if a Metaphorical Sense will be allow'd that which seems most probable is That many Christians now the Persecution was over neglected that Care of themselves and that Strictness of Discipline which they used before And therefore such are here threatned if not to be thrown out yet to be debarr'd Communion till they had recover'd themselves And much to this purpose Josephus Aegyptius and Joh. Antiochenus do understand the 12. Can. of the Council of Nice But if a Metaphorical Sense be thought too hard Then I suppose the meaning is against those who renounced being Souldiers as much now in time of the Churches Peace as under Persecution when they could not be Souldiers without committing Idolatry as appear'd in the Persecution of Licinius and others Constantine as Eusebius saith gave them all leave to forsake their Employment that would But the Council of Arles might well apprehend That if all Christians renounced being Souldiers They must still have an Army of Heathens whatever the Emperours were And therefore they had reason to make such a Canon as this since the Christians ever thought it lawfull to serve in the Wars Provided no Idolatrous Acts were imposed which was frequently done on purpose by the Persecutours as Maximianus Licinius Julian c. And this I think the true meaning of this difficult Canon 2. For those who drove the Chariots in Races and acted on Theatres as long as they continued so to doe There being so many Occasions of Idolatry in both of them They were to be cast out of Communion Can. 4 5. 3. That those who were Christians and made Governours of remote places should carry with them the communicatory Letters of their own Bishop and not be debarr'd Communion unless they acted against the Discipline of the Church This I take to be the meaning of Can. 7. 4. That those who were received into the Church in their weakness should have Imposition of hands afterwards Can. 6. 5. That those who brought Testimonials from Confessours should be bound to take communicatory Letters from their Bishop Can. 9. 6. That those who found their Wives in Adultery should be advised not to marry again while they did live Can. 10. 7. That those young Women who did marry Infidels should for a time be suspended Communion Can. 11. 8. That those who falsly accused their Brethren should not be admitted to Communion as long as they lived Can. 14. 9. That none who were excommunicated in one place should be absolved in another Can. 16. 10. That no Apostate should be admitted to Communion in Sickness But they ought to wait till they recover'd and shew'd amendment Can. 22. 11. That those who were baptized in the Faith of the Holy Trinity should not be rebaptized Can. 8. And this was the Canon which Saint Augustine on all occasions pressed upon the Donatists as Sirmondus and Launoy think And therefore they suppose this Council to be called so often a Plenary and Vniversal Council not from the number of Bishops present but from the Provinces out of which they came And so it was the first General Council of the Western Church CHAP. III Of the Succession of the British Churches from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum GReat Probabilities that the British Bishops were present in the Council of Nice The Testimonies of Constantine's being born in Britain clear'd The particular Canons of the Council of Nice relating to the Government of Churches explained How far the right of Election was devolved to the Bishops Of the Authority of Provincial Synods there settled Particular Exceptions as to the Bishops of Alexandria Rome and Antioch from ancient Custome
Successours But whosoever considers that Epistle well will not for Innocent's sake lay too much weight upon it For Is it reasonable to think that the double Vnction the Saturday Fast the Eulogiae sent to the several Parishes in Rome were Apostolical Traditions which all the Western Churches were bound to observe because they were first planted by those who were sent from Rome But the matter of Fact is far from being evident for we have great reason to believe there were Churches planted in the Western parts neither by St. Peter nor by those who were sent by his Successours Yet let that be granted What connexion is there between receiving the Christian Doctrine at first by those who came from thence and an Obligation to be subject to the Bishops of Rome in all their Orders and Traditions The Patriarchal Government of the Church was not founded upon this but upon the ancient Custome and Rules of the Church as fully appears by the Council of Nice And therefore the Churches of Milan and Aquileia though in Italy the Churches of Africa though probably the first Preachers came from Rome never thought themselves bound to follow the Traditions or observe the Orders of the Roman Church as is very well known both in St. Cyprian's and St. Augustine's times But if the Pope's power be built on this ground what then becomes of the Churches of Illyricum Was the Gospel brought thither from Rome And as to the British Churches this very Plea of Innocent will be a farther evidence of their exemption from the Roman Patriarchate since Britain cannot be comprehended within those Islands which lie between Italy Gaul Spain Africa and Sicily which can onely be understood of those Islands which are situate in the Mediterranean Sea And if no Instance can be produced of the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchal Jurisdiction over the British Churches why should not we claim the same benefit of the Nicene Canons which Leo urges so vehemently in such a parallel Case Neither can it be said that afterwards Subjection and Consent makes a just Patriarchal Power for neither doth it hold as to the British Churches whose Bishops utterly refused to submit to Augustine the Monk And if it doth all the force of Leo's Arguments is taken away For there were both Prescription pleaded and a Consent of the Bishops of the Dioceses concerned in the Council of Chalcedon But Leo saith the Nicene Canons are beyond both these being dictated by the Spirit of God and passed by the common consent of the Christian Church And that it was a Sin in him to suffer any to break them Either this is true or false If false how can the Pope be excused who alledged it for true If true then it holds as much against the Bishop of Rome as the Bishop of Constantinople And as to the Prescription of 60 years he saith the Canons of Nice were before and ought to take place if the practice had been never so constant which he denies Nay he goes so far as to say Though the numbers of Bishops be never so great that give their consent to any alteration of the Nicene Canons they signifie nothing and cannot bind Nothing can be more emphatical or weighty to our purpose than these Expressions of Pope Leo for securing the Privileges of our Churches in case no Patriarchal Power over them can be proved before the Council of Nice And it is all the reason in the World That those who claim a Jurisdiction should prove it Especially when the Acts of it are so notorious that they cannot be conceal'd as the Consecration of Metropolitanes and matters of Appeals are and were too evident in latter times when all the World knew what Authority and Jurisdiction the Pope exercised over these Churches I conclude this with that excellent Sentence of Pope Leo PRIVILEGIA ECCLESIARVM SANCTORVM PATRVM CANONIBVS INSTITVTA ET VENERABILIS NICAENAE SYNODI FIXA DECRETIS NVLLA POSSVNT IMPROBITATE CONVELLI NVLLA NOVITATE VIOLARI The privileges of Churches which were begun by the Canons of the Holy Fathers and confirmed by the Council of Nice can neither be destroy'd by wicked Usurpation nor dissolved by the humour of Innovation In the next great Council of Sardica which was intended to be general by the two Emperours Constans and Constantius it is commonly said that Athanasius expresly affirms the British Bishops to have been there present But some think this mistake arose from looking no farther than the Latin Copy in Athanasius in which indeed the words are plain enough to that purpose but the sense in the Greek seems to be the same For Athanasius pleads his own Innocency from the several Judgments which had passed in his Favour First by 100 Bishops in Egypt next by above 50 Bishops at Rome thirdly in the great Council at Sardica 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which as some say above 300 Bishops out of the several Provinces there mention'd consented to his Innocency But here lies an insuperable difficulty for Athanasius himself elsewhere affirms that there were but 170 Bishops in all there present and therefore it is impossible he should make 300 there present Which some have endeavour'd to reconcile by saying the latter was the true number present but the former of those Bishops scattered up and down who did agree in the Sentence which passed in favour of Athanasius But then the Greek here cannot be understood of those present in Council and on the other side if it be not so understood then the words do not prove what he designs viz. that he was acquitted in the Sardican Council in which although the number were not so great I see no reason to exclude the British Bishops It is true that in the Synodical Epistle of that Council onely Italy Spain and Gaul are mention'd And so likewise in the Subscriptions But it is well observed by Bucherius that Athanasius reckons up the British Bishops among those of Gaul And Hilary writing to the Gallican Bishops of Germania prima and Germania secunda Belgica prima Belgica secunda Lugdunensis prima Lugdunensis secunda Provincia Aquitanica and Provincia novem populona after he hath distinctly set down these he then immediately adds And to the Bishops of the Provinces of Britain Which makes me apt to think that about that time the Bishops of Britain were generally joyn'd with those of Gaul and are often comprehended under them where they are not expresly mention'd And to confirm this Sulpicius Severus speaking of the Summons to the Council of Ariminum mentions onely of these Western parts Italy Spain and Gaul But afterwards saith That the Bishops of Britain were there present So that Britain was then comprehended under Gaul and was so understood at that time as Sicily was under Italy as Sirmondus shews And Sextus Rufus doth put down the description of Britain under that of Gaul as Berterius hath observed For otherwise who could have
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