some things agrees with the Dutch yet gave me so much trouble that I was forc'd to make use of an Interpreter for the understanding of it That therefore which I could not understand by my self I learn'd by the help of a Learned English man and when he had translated the principal Places which relate to the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome into Latine it plainly appear'd that the Author did not only write against me but also against other Catholics who either in this present Age or in former Times had treated upon this Subject He hath therefore taken upon him to confute for Italy Baronius the Parent of Annals and Lucas Holstenius For France Cardinal Perron Petrus de Marca Johannes Morinus Jacobus Sirmondus and Johannes Garnerius Christianus Lupus and me the least of them all for the Low-Countries Of these such as did not understand English if they were yet alive would as I conceive joyn with me in this request to the Author that if he should hereafter write of Ecclesiastical matters he would either forbear to impugn our Writings or else express himself in a Language we could understand But since none of the forementioned Writers besides my self are now living and our Authors Book sent out of England was brought to me by a Noble Person that I might return a brief Confutation of it I thought it necessary to examine some of his Allegations I shall not here Answer all the Objections he hath thought fit to make for since he hath written against those things which I had deduced from ancient Testimonies concerning the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Bishop over the West in my Book intitled Antiquitas illustrata I will refute what he hath writ in answer to it when I publish my Book de Antiquitate c. with the addition of three or four Ages to it I had been for some months time diligently bestowing my pains about this Work when our Authors Book call'd me off and requir'd a Confutation And about the time that I began to examine it little thinking that I should ever have any dispute with Catholic Writers concerning this Point loe another Book comes to my hands intitled de Disciplina Ecclesiae which was divided into seven Dissertations the first whereof treats de forma distributione Ecclesiarum and Sect. 6. the Question is put whether either Metropolitical Authority Card. Perronius in responso ad Jacobum Angliae Regem cap. 30. fol. 171. seq or Patriarchal Dignity were instituted by Christ or his Apostle Cardinal Perron that great light of France had shew'd that the Patriarchal Dignity was of Apostolical Institution Petrus de Marca Archbishop of Paris had asserted the same concerning Metropolitical Authority in his Book de concordia Sacerdotii Imperii De Marca lib. 1. de concordia Sacerdotiy Imperij cap. 3. § 7. seq against the Innovators of this our Age. A late French Author contends that neither of them proceeded from the Apostles and hath recourse to the Arguments of Heretics and Schismatics to prove what no Catholic to this very day ever yet durst that both these Authorities were introduced by a later Custom and the Patriarchal Dignity was first enlarged by invading the Rights of others and established by the Synodical Decrees of the fourth and fifth Ages This is the opinion of that Author which being repugnant not only to the Canons of the present but also to the Monuments of the ancient Church he hath not been ashamed to wrest the Sanctions of the Councils which do not favor his purpose to a perverse sence to ridicule the Writings of the ancient Bishops that do not please him to elude the eminent Testimonies of the Fathers that overthrow his Opinion by his cavils lastly to tax the Practice of the peresent Church as novel because it suits not with his humors In the year 1662. Launoy a Divine of Paris set forth a small Treatise intitled de recta intelligentia Sexti Canonis Nicaeni in which after the Disputes of Sirmondus and other Catholics against Salmasius and the Heretics that were his followers he proposes two principal things which he thought gave most light for the finding out of the true sense of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice One was that it did not treat of Patriarchs and their Rights The other that it only referr'd to Metropolitans and the right which they have in the Ordination of Bishops He hath many Arguments to this purpose and that as be there forespeaks saving the Authority of the Apostolic See which the Heretics impugn'd from this Nicene Canon Henricus Valesius Dissert de Canone 6. Nicaeno Tom. 2. Hist Eccles post Socratem Zosomenum But in France he was opposed by Henricus Valesius who shew'd from the Decrees of the Synods and the Writings of the Fathers that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice was to be understood of Patriarchs and could no ways be interpreted as referring to Metropolitans only so that the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome depended very much upon the true sense of it This Dissertation of the Learned Valesius displeas'd Launoy he therefore in the year 1671 sets forth a Defence of his Treatise in which he so admits of Patriarchs at the time of the Nicene Council that he hath plainly shew'd them though against his will to be a more eminent sort of Metropolitans Hadrianus Valesius treats of this Book of Launoy in the life of Henricus his Brother which Guilielmus Batesius lately set forth at London amongst the lives of Choice men and he attests that Launoy made a sort of cavelling answer which saith he Valesius would not have to be read to him Hadrianus Valesius affirming that there was no further matter for a dispute and being fully perswaded that his Writings could no ways be confuted or invalidated by Launoy Valesius therefore despis'd the Answer of Launoy accounting it a mere Cavil William Beverege the English Writer did not so esteem of it but the year after Tomo 2. Pandectarum in Annotationibus ad Canonem Sextum Nicaenum undertook to defend Launoy and answer the Arguments of Valesius The chief reason that mov'd Beverege was the Schism of the English Church which hitherto unjustifiable seem'd now to have some foundation from the opinion of Launoy England acknowledged no Power superior to that of a Metropolitan and because this Error might easily be confuted from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice in which the Dignity of the three Patriarchs is explained Beverege undertook to defend Launoy's Allegation and lays it down for a Truth that the Institution of Patriarchs was after the Nicene Council For thus the English Church had a President for Ecclesiastical Hierachy in the three first Ages to defend their modern Schism Launoy was yet living when Beverege's Work was publisht and seeing the Hereties drew a far different consequence from his Opinion then he thought they would
the English Author which are here summ'd up together with the Truths by which they are confronted that the Reader may observe them all at one view THE ERRORS Which are Confuted in this DISSERTATION ARE Here set down together with the TRUTHS Confronting them ERRORS TRUTHS ERRORS 1. THat Peter rather Preached the Gospel in Britain than Gaul depends upon slight Testimonies viz. Those of Simeon Metaphrastes the Legendary Writers or the Monkish Visions Origines Britannicae chap. 1. p. 45. TRUTHS 1. That St. Peter preached the Gospel in Britain depends upon the the Testimonies of Eusebius Innocent the first Gildas the Wise John the V. Kenulphus King of the Mercians and Metaphrastes chap. 1 2. Of this Dissertation ERRORS 2. That St. Paul declared the Faith to the Britains is had from the Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Eusebius Theodoret and St. Jereme who in his Commentary upon the 5 chap. Of the Prophet Amos says that St. Paul having been in Spain went from one Ocean to another and that his diligence in Preaching extended as far as the Earth it self chap. 1. p. 37. TRUTHS 2 The Testimonies of Clement Eusebius and Theodoret either relate not at all to Paul's coming into Britain or else may be equally understood of Peter and Paul's coming thither St. Jerome upon the 5. Chapter of Amos says that Paul was called by the Lord to go from Jerusalem even to Spain and to take his course from the Red-Sea and even from Ocean to Ocean which does not signisie that he preacht the Gospel from the Spanish Ocean to the British Ocean but from the Arabic Ocean which is adjacent to the Red-Sea to that Ocean which washeth upon the Spanish Coasts chap. 1. num 4. ERRORS 3. When Sulpitius Severus asserts that Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul in the time of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus the Christian Religion being more lately receiv'd beyond the Alpes he relates the former of these things as certain the latter as doubtful chap. 2. p. 55. TRUTHS 3. Sulpitius Severus lib. 2. Historiae saith that the fifth Persecution was carried on under Aurelius the Son of Antoninus and that then Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul the Christian Religion being more lately received beyond the Alpes He relates both these things as equally certain neither doth he doubt more of the latter than of the former chap. 1. num 6. ERRORS 4. Lucius King of the Britains sent his Embassadors to Rome as to the place whither as Irenaeus argues in the like case resort was made from all places because of its being the Imperial City so saith our Author chap. 2. p. 69. TRUTHS 4. St. Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. asserts not of the Roman Imperiality but of the Roman Apostolical Church that it is necessary that all Churches that is the Faithful from all parts resort to it by reason of its more powerful Principality So that King Lucius sent his Embassadors to Pope Eleutherius at Rome by reason of the Principality of that Church and upon no other account chap. 1. num 9. ERRORS 5. The Council of Arles in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester have writ who holdest a greater Diocese For so that place is to be read chap. 2. p. 83. chap. 3. p. 130. TRUTHS 5. The Council of Arles in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester set forth first by Pythaeus afterwards by Sirmondus from the Gallican M. S. S. say who holdest the greater Dioceses and so that place is to be read chap. 4. ERRORS 6. It is doubtful whether the distribution of the Empire into Dioceses were made by Constantine at the time of the Council of Arles and it seems more probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice Dioceses not being mentioned there but only Provinces Chap. 3. p. 130. TRUTHS 6. In the time of the Nicene Council Constantine in his Epistle to all the Churches makes mention of the Pontic and Asian Dioceses so that it is not probable but plainly false that in the time of the Council of Nice there was no mention made of Dioceses For in the time of the Synod of Arles the name of Greater Diocese was known as even our Author himself confesses whilst he affirms that instead of Greater Dioceses we ought to read Greater Diocese Chap. 4. ERRORS 7. The Authority of publishing Easter-day in all parts which the Council of Arles in its first Canon allowed as the right of the Bishop of Rome was taken away from him by the Nicene Council which committed this Affair to the Bishop of Alexandria Chap. 2. p. 84. TRUTHS 7. The Authority of publishing Easter-day in all Parts was not taken away from the Bishop of Rome by the Nicene Council the burdensom charge of computing Easter-day was laid upon the Bishop of Alexandria by the Nicene Fathers the Authority of proposing the certain day to the Churches was left to the Roman Bishop Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria in the Preface to his Paschal Cycle says that the Patriarch of Alexandria ought to intimate Easter-day every year by his Letters to the Roman Church from whence by Apostolic Authority the Universal Church might know without any further dispute the determin'd day of Easter throughout the whole World. Which Rule seeing they had observ'd for many Ages c. Chap. 4. ERRORS 8. The Council of Nice in the fourth and fifth Canons hath established the Authority of Provincial Synods as Supreme the Securing of which the Fathers have provided for in the sixth Canon neither did they acknowledge any Authority to be above that of a Metropolitan Chap. 3. p. 100. c. TRUTHS 8. The Council of Nice in the fourth and fifth Canons never so much as dream't of the Supreme Authority of Provincial Synods and hath acknowledg'd in the sixth Canon that the Patriarchal Power of the Bishops of Rome Alexandria and Antioch was Superior to that of Metropolitans Chap. 5. ERRORS 9. The sixth Nicene Canon decrees that the Bishop of Alexandria hath Power over Aegypt Libia and Pentapolis because the Bishop of Rome had a like custom But the likeness did consist in this that as the Roman Patriarch hath no Metropolitan under him so there was no other Metropolitan in all Aegypt but the Metropolitan of Alexandria Chap. 3. p. 104. TRUTHS 9. Before the time of the Council of Nice there were Metropolitans subject not only to the Patriarch of Antioch but likewise to the Patriarch of Alexandria S. Athanasius and S. Epiphanius declare Meletius to have been an Archbishop before the Nicene Council so that the parallel between the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome mentioned by the Nicene Council did not lye in this that neither of them had Metropolitans under them Chap. 5. ERRORS 10. That the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Pishop was confined to the Suburbicarian or Neighbouring Proviâ—ces and that the Roman Bishops First began to Usurp the Provinces of Illyricum by constituting the Bishop of Thessalonica as his Vicar after the Second
who doth not know or not consider that what was deliver'd by Peter the Prince of the Apostles to the Roman Church and is kept till this very Day ought to be observed by all and that nothing is to be superadded or introduced which either hath not Authority or may seem to take Example from elsewhere Especially since it is manifest that none have instituted Churches in all Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the interjacent Islands but those which the venerable Apostle Peter or his Successors have ordained Priests Or let them search whether any of the other Apostles is found or read to have taught in those Provinces if they do not read this because they no where find it they ought to follow that which the Roman Church observes from whence no doubt they had their Original least in giving themselves selves up to the Assertions of Strangers they may seem to wave the Head of their Institutions This Testimony of Innocent the First is very considerable by which it appears either that St. Peter or those whom he or his Successors made Priests instituted Churches through all Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the interjacent Islands and therefore that these ought to acknowledge the Roman Church as their special Head. For this he expresly declares in those last Words Least in giving themselves up to the Assertions of Strangers they may seem to wave the Head of their Institutions 6. Neither is there just cause why any one should object to Innocent that the Apostle Paul preach'd two years at Rome and that this appears from the Acts of the Apostles which were writ by Luke Pauls inseparable Companion For the most Eminent Cardinal Baronius in his Annals Tome 1. ad An. 4 makes answer that under the name of Peter Paul also is to be comprehended and if the answer of this Parent of Annals do not fully satisfie you let us interpret Innocent's Mind by his own Words and shew that Peter only preach'd in the West in that sense wherein the most Holy Pope asserts him to have preach'd Innocent speaks in the Place before cited concerning that Apostolical Preaching by which Churches were instituted in the Western Regions not of that which the Churches had after they were once constituted after the same manner that Paul the Apostle himself in the Epistle to the Romans Chap. 15. spake concerning the Churches that were instituted by him From Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum Rom. 15. I have fully preach'd the Gospel of Christ Yea so have I strived to preach the Gospel not where Christ was named lest I should build upon another mans Foundation but as it is written to whom he was not spoken of From which Words it is plain that Paul reckons no Church in the number of those that he had preach'd to wherein the Gospel was preach'd before which being so and evidently so from his own Words the Roman Church is not to be reckon'd as one of those which were instituted by Paul for that was instituted before his coming to the City as is plain from his Epistle to the Romans which as the very Words of it shew was written before he came to Rome and yet he asserted that even then when he wrote there was a Church instituted at Rome because Chap. 26. he sends his Salutation to many of the Faithful at Rome and Chap. 1. he derects his Epistle to all that be in Rome beloved of God called to be Saints and expressed their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole World. Therefore Paul doth not suffer us to reckon the Roman Church among those which he by his preaching instituted which Innocent the First knowing of declared that Peter only preach'd at Rome because he had found that the Roman Church was instituted by Peter before Paul came to that City the same may be said of Spain and the other Regions if any shall believe that Paul at any time preached in them for there was a Church founded in them before either by Peter or by those Priests which Peter had ordain'd and sent to those Parts so that the preaching of Paul was no Argument against Peter's instituting those Churches which way of preaching and no other is here meant by Innocent whilest he attributes the Institution of the Occidental Churches solely to Peter or to the Priests that were sent either by him or his Successors 7. These things therefore being premised for the better understanding of the Testimony of Innocent we are now to answer the Authors two Objections the former of which impugns the Matter of Fact the latter the reason of the thing deduced from the Matter of Fact. Both which Objections he proposeth in these Words But the Matter of Fact saith he Author p. 132. is far from being evident for we have great reason to believe there were Churches planted in the Western Parts neither by Peter nor by those who were sent by his Successors 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 Custom and Rules of the Church as fully appears by the Council of Nice And as to the British Churches this very Plea of Innocent will be a farther Evidence for 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 only be understood of those Islands which are situate in the Mediterranean Sea. 8. These two Objections which the Author here joyns together are to be handled distinctly And in the first place that we may speak to that which concerns Matter of Fact the Author says that all the Churches in the West were not instituted by Peter or those whom the Apostolical See ordain'd Innocent testifies the contrary of Italy Africa France Spain and the interjacent Islands which of these shall we give credit to an English Writer who upon his own Authority denies this when many hundred Monuments of Antiquity are lost in sixteen hundred years time or the most Holy Pope who liv'd above one thousand two hundred and seventy years since and had the Opportunity of seeing many Monuments of Antiquity in the Registry of the Apostolic See concerning this Matter and constantly affirms it If we ask the Opinion of our Ancestors as well those who liv'd in England as in the rest of the Western Parts adhere to the Testimony of Innocent since from the time of Dionysius Exiguus they have receiv'd it as authentic and have plac'd it amongst the Decretal Epistles religiously venerated by the whole Western Church It appears then by the Testimony of Innocent which hath been approv'd by the Judgment of all the West for almost twelve Centuries that no one hath instituted Churches either in Italy Africa
that See to the Patriarchal Dignity which gave great occasion of Jealousie and Suspition to the Bishops of Rome that being the Imperial City as well as Rome and Socrates observes That from that time Nectarius the Bishop of Constantinople had the Government of Constantinople and Thrace as falling to his share This made the Bishops of Rome think it high time to look about them and to inlarge their Jurisdiction since the Bishop of New-Rome had gain'd so large an Accession by that Council And to prevent his farther Incroachments Westwards his Diocess of Thrace bordering upon Macedonia the subtilest Device they could think of to secure that Province and to inlarge their own Authority was to perswade the Bishop of Thessalonica to act as by Commission from the Bishop of Rome So that he should enjoy the same Priviledges which he had before And being back'd by so great an Interest he would be better able to contest with so powerful a Neighbour as the Bishop of Constantinople And if any objected That this was to break the Rules setled by the Council of Nice They had that Answer ready That the Bishop of Constantinople began and their Concernment was to secure the Rites of other Churches from being invaded by him By which means they endeavour'd to draw those Churches bordering on the Thracian Diocess first to own a Submission to the Bishop of Rome as their Patriarch Which yet was so far from giving them ease which some it may be expected by it that it only involved them in continual Troubles as appears by that very Collection of Holstenius For the Bishops of Constantinople 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 obtain'd 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 doubtful Case happen'd according to the ancient Custom 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 notorious Invasion of their Rites 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 withal so as to reserve the last resort to the Bishop of Constantinople At this Boniface shews himself extremely netled 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 this the Contention between the Bishops of the two Imperial Cities proved the Destruction of the Ancient Polity of the Church as it was setled by the Council of Nice 5. Thus far our Author affirming some things contrary to the Decretal Epistles which he cites and falsly explaining other things without any Testimony from Antiquity But that we may not seem to have said these things without good ground they are to be proved and I begin with those things which he alledgeth contrary to the Decretal Epistles where I pray does he find that the Bishops of Thessaly among whom the chief were Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus did oppose the Election of Perigenes Metropolitan of Corinth Where does he read that they look'd upon the Inthronization of Perigenes as a notorious invasion and put Maximus in his Place lawfully according to the Canons The Author hints to us that he had these things out of Bonifacius's Epistle to Rufus Let us see what the Epistle it self which is the Eighth amongst those set out by Holstenius says Bonifacius in this Epistle to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica hath these Words Bonifacius Epist inter Holsten 5. ad Rufum Vid. num XIX We require your Charity convening our Fellow-bishops above named by whom Perrevius our Fellow-bishop complains he hath Injury done him diligently to try the Cause of which he hath given us an account in the Libel he hath sent us informing us that the Prelates his Brethren are very vexatious so far as to think he should be expel'd his Bishoprick Then that they may be given to understand that whatever they have done contrary to the ancient Custom is in the first place to be made void having diligently examin'd the whole Matter let your Charity send us a speedy account of it to the end that the Judgment which your Brotherhood shall give may be confirm'd by our Sentence I would have you take notice what we have written in the Epistle to our Brethren of Thessaly that Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus are utterly to be depriv'd of our Communion so that they may know the only remedy they can have must be your favourable Intercession As for Maximus who as your Charity hath inform'd us is not rightly ordain'd we judge it meet that he be wholly deprived of the Dignity of Priesthood This is taken out of the Epistle to Bonifacius which our Author hath mention'd neither is there any other extant in which Boniface makes mention of Cyriacus Calliopus and Maximus But Boniface doth no where here intimate that Maximus was chosen in the place of Perigenes by Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus Bishops of the Province of Thessaly according to the ancient Canons which our Author might have been easily fatisfied of if he had been well acquainted with the ancient Canons For what had the three forenamed Bishops of the Province of Thessaly to do with Perigenes the Metropolitan of the Province of Achaia Could the Authority of constituting another Bishop in the room of Perigenes whereof the Author deprives the Roman Bishop and his Substitute in Illyricum belong to the three Bishops of Thessaly according to the Canons Is it not decreed in the Canons that no Authority belongs to the Bishops of one Province over the Metropolitan of another which if the Canons ordain as it is certain they do how can our Author impute the Transgression of the Canons in the Cause of Perigenes to Boniface who never so much as dream'd of the Cause of Perigenes when he mention'd the three Bishops of Thessaly But it was a foul Mistake in our Author to read Perigenes
in that of the Vatican which is eight hundred years old with which the Synodical Epistle agrees Censemus ergo Epistola Synodica Patrum Arelatonâ—â—â— Pascha Domini per Orbem totum una die observari We therefore think fit that Easter be observ'd on the same day throughout the whole World. But what will our Author deduce from this way of reading the Words in favour of his Opinion Perhaps that in the time of the Council of Arles it belong'd of right to Sylvester to publish Easter-day throughout the whole World and that at the time of the Council of Nice this Prerogative of Papal Jurisdiction was taken from him But the Nicene Fathers were so far from correcting any thing in reference to this Publication that the same Authority which the first Canon of the Council of Arles shews the Roman Bishop to have used about the Publication the same he continued still to use according to the Canons of the Council of Nice as St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria testifies in the Preface to his Paschal Cycle which Bucherius in Appendice ad Doctrinam temporum first published from the Manuscripts It is decreed saith Cyril Cyrillus Alexandrinus praefat ad Cyclum Vid. num XXVIII by the consent of the Synod of the Holy Fathers throughout the whole World that because there was such a Church found to be at Alexandria which was eminent for their Skill in finding out on what Day of the Kalends or Ides and in what Moon Easter ought to be celebrated this Church should every Year by their Letters intimate this to the Roman Church from whence by Apostolick Authority the universal Church might know without any further dispute the determin'd day of Easter throughout the whole World. Which rule being they had observ'd for many Ages and no one believed any writing concerning it c. so saith Cyril who having been Patriarch of Alexandria from the Year 412. could by no means be ignorant of what the Nicene Council had eighty seven Years before determin'd and enjoyn'd to his Predecessors in the said Patriarchate concerning the observation of Easter He testifies therefore that the computation of Easter was by the Nicene Council committed to the care of the Bishop of Alexandria and that he did yearly intimate the day to the Roman Church but that the Catholic Church throughout the whole World was to know the day not by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria but of the Apostolic See. 9. It is false therefore that the Nicene Council did any ways detract from the Roman Bishops Authority of publishing the Feast of Easter to be celebrated by all upon one and the same day The Council of Nice even after the computation was committed to the care of the Bishop of Alexandria left this Prerogative intire to the Apostolic See and that the Roman Bishops did for many ages make use of it is affirm'd by Cyril and taught by the Synod of Arles and Victor Pope and Martyr about the end of the second Age shews this in several Epistles in which he owns that the care of celebrating the Feast of Easter on the same day in all places belong'd to him 'T is to be lamented indeed that those Letters are lost but I cannot but think it a special Providence of God that an abstract of some of them has been preserv'd for us by a Priest of the Church of England who liv'd long since viz. Venerable Bede Fragmentum Synodi Palestinae apud Bedam Vid. num XXIX who Tomo 2. libro de Paschatis celebratione gives us a certain fragment of the Synod of Palestine in which are these words Then Victor Pope and Bishop of the City of Rome directed his Authority to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea and Palestine that in that place wherein our Lord the Saviour of the World conversed when he was in the flesh there might be an useful order made for the Churches how Easter should be rightly celebrated by all Catholics The foresaid Bishop therefore having received this Authority assembled all the Bishops not only of his own Province but also from divers other Regions Where when that multitude of Prelates were convened Theophilus the Bishop produc'd the Authority that was delegated to him by Victor the Pope and shew'd them what was given him in charge to do So that here we have an evidence from one of the Epistles of Victor wherein he enjoyn'd Theophilus Metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine to call a Council in which the Question concerning Easter should be discuss'd and that Polycrates Bishop of Ephesis obeyed the Authority of Victor appears by his writing back to him in this manner Polycrates Ephesinus Epist ad victorem I could likewise make mention of the Bishops who are with me whom you required me to assemble together as I have also done This Testimony of Polycrattes is extant in Eusebius Caesariensis who lib. 5. cap. 24. saith that Victor after Councils had been celebrated in several parts of the World set forth a Decree for the observation of Easter upon the same day every where and that he would have Excomunicated the Asiatics who refused to obey this Decree 10. Things being thus carried saith Eusebius Eusebius lib. 5. histor cap. Vid. num XXX Victor Bishop of Rome forthwith endeavours to cut off from the Catholic Communion all the Churches of Asia and the neighbouring Provinces as dissenters from the right Faith and by the Letters which he sent interdicts all the Brethren which were there and pronounces them to be wholly aliens from the unity of the Church The Letters which Eusebius hath here mention'd are lost to the great detriment of Ecclesiastical Learning For if they were extant it is probable it might be Collected from the very words of Victor how by vertue of his Supreme Pontifical Authority he Excommunicated Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and other Asian Bishops or at least terrified them with the Sentence of Excommunication But whethersoever of these is ascribed to Victor it is certain that he exercised the Authority of his See concerning which no Catholic Bishop did then contend with him For Irenaeus and other Western Bishops did only exhort him that he would abstain from denouncing the Sentence of Excomunication or at least revoke it after it was denounc'd as I have shew'd elsewhere from Eusebius And let it suffice to have said thus much concerning the first Canon of the Council of Arles which is read two several ways in the Manuscripts in some thus that the Fathers of the Council of Arles refer the Decree to Sylvester for the celebration of the Feast of Easter upon one and the same day per omnem Vrbem through every City in others per omnem Orbem through the whole World. Our Author may make choice of which of these Readings he shall think fit for he cannot reasonably deny but that the Patriarchal or Papal Authority is proved from hence nay if he be wise he will admit of
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
this p. 48 Which were the greater and which the lesser Dioceses p. 60 61 The name of Diocese was known in the time of the Nicene Council p. 62 E. The Bishop of Rome publisht Easter day after the time of the Nicene Council p. 69 71 The charge of computing Easter day was imposed upon the Patriarch of Alexandria by the Nicene Synod p. 71 Pope Eleutherius receiv'd an Epistle from King Lucius 13. Britain was Converted to the Faith under him p. 12 The Epistles of the Bishops of Rome concerning the Roman Patriarchal Power over Illyricum p. 40 41 42. The Testimony of Eusebius shewing where the Gospel was Preach'd by the Apostles p. 7 The Eusebians vainly attempted to draw Julius the first to their party 80. they were the first in the World that ever dreamt that the judgment of the Eastern Council was supreme p. 80 81 F. France vid. Gaul Frumentius Bishop of Aethiopia had his Mission from Athanasius p. 32 G. Gaul when converted to the Faith. p. 10 The Catholic Writers of Gaul defended the Roman Bishops Patriarchal Authority over the West against the Hereticks p. 21 Germanus Bishop of Auxerre came as Vicar of Pope Celestine into Britain p. 99 The Testimony of Gildas the Wise concerning the Preaching of the Gospel in the time of Tiberius 2 his Testimony concerning Peter See in Britain p. 4 The Schismatic Greeks acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be Patriarch of the West p. 21 H. A very clear Testimony of Henry the Eighth concerning the Popes Primacy 111. he was the first King of England that fell into Schism p. 111 The Epistle of Honorius the Emperor to Theodosius concerning the preserving the priviledges of the Apostolic See. p. 51 I. What Iames King of England believ'd concerning the Institution of Patriarchs and concerning the Roman Patriarchate in particular p. 20 The testimony of Ierome concerning Paul's preaching the Gospel from Ocean to Ocean 8. his testimony concerning the Authority of the Patriarch of Antioch over the Metropolitan of Cesarea p. 86 Illyricum though converted to the Faith by Paul the Apostle was notwithstanding Subject to the Roman Patriarchate as appears from many Epistles of ancient P. P. p. 38 c. The testimony of Ireneus concerning the more powerfull Principality of the Roman Church p. 14 Iuiius the first reprehends the Eusebians for declining the judgment of the Apâ—stolic See. p. 81 Iustinian the Emperor acknowledges the Roman Bishops Patriarchate over the West p. 55 L. Launoy opposes the authority of Clements Epistle to the Romans without any ground 10. he gave occasion to the Ministers of the English Church to defend their Schism with the greater obstinacy See Preface Lucius was the first King of England that was Converted to the Faith. 12 he sends Embassadors to Pope Eleutherius 13. Whether leaving his Kingdom he went into Germany and converted Bavaria to the Faith. p. 31 M. The English Manuscript set forth by Spelman is of no credit or authority p. 102 Meletius was Second in dignity to the Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt 87. he was a Metropolitan under Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria p. 88 The Metropolitical Authority was instituted by the Apostles Preface It is not suprem p. 78 The Metropolitan of Cesarea was in ancient time subject to the Patriarch of Antioch 85. the Institution of Metropolitans in Britain in the time of Gregory the Great p. 34 It is necessary that those who plant Churches should have a true Mission p. 29 N. The 6. Canon of the Council of Nice 82. it doth not treat of the authority of Metropolitans as Supreme p. 86 O. The Testimony of Optatus Milevitanus concerning the Roman Church p. 110 How the Ordination of Metropolitans belonged to the Patriarchs p. 33 P. The Pall when first received and by whom p. 33 There were Patriarchs in the Primitive Church p. 20 They had their Original from Apostolical institution 53. there are three Patriarchal rights p. 18 The Patriarchal right over Illyricum p. 50 S. Patrick Legate to Celestine I. p. 100. Where Paul the Apostle preach't the Gospel 8. he was not the firft Planter of the Roman Church 25. whether he Preach't in Britain p. 6 It was most just that the cause of Paulus Samosatenus should be remov'd to the tribunal of the Bishop of Rome p. 80 Pelagius consented that his cause should be brought before Innocent the first after it had bin heard in the Eastern Synod 96. how his Heresy was condemn'd by Zosimus and the censure that Zosimus passed against it was approv'd by every Church under Heaven p. 98. Who determin'd in the cause of Perigenes and when p. 48 c. The cause of Perrevius different from that of Perigenes p. 47 Peter head of the Apostles 109 110. his memory to be honour'd 81. he instituted three Patriarchal Sees 30. he and his Successors instituted all the Churches in the West 24. he had instituted the Roman Church before Paul came to Rome 26. his See in Britain p. 4 c. R. The Roman Church hath the more powerful Principality for which cause it is necessary that every Church should have resort unto it 14 15. the whole World hath intercourse with it by communicatory Letters 110. the Principality of the Apostolic See always prevail'd in it 1â— as the imperial Seat had its Principality so likewise had Priesthood its Principle in it ibid. The Roman Bishop is Patriarch of the West 89. he had Metropolitans under him 89. he is the Head of the Institutions in the West 30. Britain appertains to his Patriarchate 38. the Roman Bishop had always the right of promulgating Easter day 72. his Authority is shew'd from those things which happened concerning Easter in the time of Victor 73 74. all Provinces are to refer their Causes to him as Head of the Church p. 95. S. The Testimonies of the Council of Sardica for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome p. 95 The Authority of Severus Sulpitius for the preaching the Gospel in Gaul in the third Age. p. 12 Divers Errors of Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls set down Prolegom p. 7. 9. 11. 14. 19. 20. 27. 43. 45. 46. 48. 60. 61. 64. 68. 77. 78. 79. 82. 83. 84. 92. T. Theodosius junior being circumvented by the Bishop of Constantinople withdraws Illiricum from the Roman Patriarchate 48 49. he repeals the Law that he made concerning this matter p. 52 Thule an Island in Iceland p. 9 V. Pope Victor judg'd that the Question concerning the Feast of Easter was to be decided by him 72. he terrifies the Astatic Churches that withdrew their Obedience with the censure of Excommunication p. 73 FINIS Post-script SInce this Dissertation which the Author not being acquainted with the English Tongue was obliged to write in Latin is an Answer to what the Dean of Paul's hath Written in English 't was thought convenient it should be Translated that both Writers might appear in the same Language And it was the part of the Interpreter to render the true Sence of the Latin Treatise which he hath carefully endeavour'd to do Leaving it now to the Reader to Judge of the Works of these two Authors and Intreating him either to Excuse or Correct some Errata of this Impression in the manner following Some Errors Corrected REad Venantius pag. 9. Pausianus p. 36. Nectarius p. 48. ad Theodosium p. 5 in margine Anastasium p. 54 in marg Dieceses p. 60. Praefecti Pretorio p. 61. Chap. V. p. 89. Britain instead of Great Britain 112. c. BY HIS MAJESTY's Letters Patents under His Great Seal of England dated the tenth day of November in the 3d. Year of his Majesties Reign there is Granted to Matthew Turner of Holborn Bookseller and his Assigns only full and sole Power Licence Priviledge and Authority to Print and Reprint either in Latin or English and also to Vtter and Sell at any Place within His Majesties Kingdom of England Dominion of Wales and Town of Berwick upon Tweed the several Books Following viz. I. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent II. The Works of Lewis de Granada III. The Works of S. Francis de Sales IV. The Devotional Treatises of St. Augustin V. The Works of Thomas of Kempis VI. The Devotional Treatises of St. Bonaventure VII Father Person 's Christian Directory or Book of Resolution VIII Father Person 's Treatises of the Three Conversions of England IX A Journal of Meditations for each day in the Year By N. B. X. Meditations used at Lisbon Colledge XI The Christians Daily Exercise by T.V. XII Paradisus Animae Christianae XIII The Key of Paradise XIV Stella's Contempt of the World. XV. The Works of Hieremias Drexelius XVI The Devotional Treatises of Cardinal Bona. XVII Beda's Ecclesiastical History of England XVIII Turbervil's Manual of Controversies XIX Vane's Lost Sheep Returned XX. The true Portraicture of the Church XXI The Catholic Scripturist XXII Historical Collections of the Reigns of Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth Queen Mary Queen Elizabeth and King James XXIII The Devotional Treatises of Cardinal Bellarmin XXIV The Question of Questions XXV The Works of Lewis de Puente XXVI The Works of Alphonsus Roderiguez XXVII The Poor Man's Devotion As by the said Letters patents doth more fully appear
Persons by whose means Lucius desired of Eleutherius to be instructed in the Faith and by whose aid Eleutherius did not only convert Lucius but also most of the Britains to the Faith and instituted a Church in that Country Our Author admits that Eluanus and Medroinus were sent by Lucius and he gives this Account of the Embassie Eluanus and Edwinus were British Christians themselves and therefore sent to Eleutherius Pag. 68. having been probably the Persons employ'd to convince King Lucius but he knowing the great Fame of Rome and it being told him not only that there were Christians there but a Bishop in that City the twelfth from the Apostles had a desire to understand how far the British Christians and those of Rome agreed and he might reasonably then presume that the Christian Doctrine was there truly taught at so little distance from the Apostles and in a place whither as Irenaeus argues in this Case a resort was made from all Places because of its being the Imperial City These were reasonable considerations which might move King Lucius and not any Opinion of St Peter's having appointed the Head of the Church there of which there was no imagination then 9. But since our Author confesses that Ambassadors were therefore sent by Lucius to Rome that they might perform that which the Faithful from all parts as Irenaeus testifies were then used to perform I would know this one thing of him where he finds that they observ'd this by reason of the Principality of the Roman City Certainly he could not find this in the Words of Ireneus Ireneus Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam inquit propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam which he mentions and which are taken out of his third Book Chap. 3. where this Holy Bishop of Lions directs all the Faithful to the Roman Church For to this Church saith he it is necessary that all Churches resort by reason of its more powerful Principality But where in that place doth Ireneus say that there must be resort made to Rome because of its being the Imperial City The Author here find that in the Words of Ireneus which that Father never in the least meant by them For Ireneus writes not that the City but the Church of Rome which was consecrated by the Blood of Peter and Paul was to be consulted in Controversies of Faith and that all the Faithful under Heaven ought to agree with the Roman Church because of its more powerful Principality not because of the Principality of the Imperial City its necessary saith Ireneus that resort be made to this Church by all other Churches that is by the Faithful from all parts because of its more powerful Principality Therefore the Supremacy of the Ecclesiastical Principality at Rome was the cause of Lucius's sending an Embassie thither not the Principality of the Imperial City For in the City of Rome that I may use the Words of Honorius the Emperor not only the Imperial Seat was planted but the Principle of the Priesthood And there also as * Honorius Imperator Epist ad Theodosium Augustum In urbe Roma non solum Romanum Principatum Domus Augusta obtinuit sed Principium quoque Sacerdotium accepit Augustine Epist 162. affirms The Principality of the Apostolic See ever prevail'd This Principality over the Church Christ gave to Peter and Peter left it to his Successors in the Roman See which when our Author denies he opposeth a Truth which Peron the Glory of France in his Answer to James King of England Chap. 23. proves from very many Canons of the Church and Testimonies of the Councils and Ancient Fathers I should cite more of them were not the present Question chiefly concerning the Roman Bishops Patriarchal Authority over the West not his Supremacy over the Catholic Church Divus Augustinus Epist 162. therefore that we may keep close to that which we have undertaken to treat of let us conclude with our Author that Lucius sent Embassadors to Eleutherius that they might be inform'd of him in Matters of Faith and let us acknowledg with Ireneus that the Britains no less than the Faithful in other parts of the World ought to agree with the Roman Church because of its greater Principality to which let us add with English Writers that Eleutherius the Roman Bishop made use of his Authority when he ordain'd those Legats who being sent into Britain baptised Lucius setled Churches and consecrated Bishops and from hence we may conclude that to be true which I have in the Title of this Chapter taken upon me to prove viz. That the British Church was instituted either by St. Peter or by those whom his Successors ordained Priests CHAP. II. That the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the West and therein even of England and that this follows from the British Church's having receiv'd her Institution either from him or from his Priests as is prov'd by the Testimony of Innocent 1. The Roman Patriarchate over the whole Western Church which is asserted in the 17th Canon of the Eight General Council our Author likes not His words are recited 2. He saith that the way of proving the Patriarchal right from the exercise of it and the exercise fromthe right is ridiculous although he confesses that it is of force against de Marca and other Catholics who admit that the Pope is Patriarch over the whole West against whom only I have used that way of proof so that it cannot be ridiculeus as I use it 3. Against such Heretics who deny the Bishop of Rome to be Patriarch over the West I have not used that but another way of proof viz. the perpetual Tradition of the Ancients which the very Schismatic Greeks themselves have not been so bold as to deny 4. One of the ancient Testimonies which I have brought for that Tradition is out of S. Augustine who hath plainly deliver'd that Innocent the First had not only a Supremacy of order and dignity over the Western Church but also of Jurisdiction 5. Another of them is that of Innocent the First himself who relates that Churches were Instituted through all France Spain Africa Sicily Italy and the interjacent Islands by Peter only or his Successors or else by those whom they ordain'd Priests and affirms that all these Countries ought to acknowledge the Apostolic See as the Head of their Institutions 6. How Paul having preacht at Rome and it may be in other of the Western parts proves nothing against this is shewed from Paul himself who reckons only such Churches amongst those which were instituted by his Preaching whom himself first taught the Faith of which sort the Roman is not as having been planted by Peter before Pauls coming into Italy the same may be said of other Western Churches supposing that Paul Preach'd in them 7. Two things are objected by our Author the first in relation to matter
of Fact whilst he denies that the Churches in the West and especially in Britain were instituted only by Peter or by Priests which had their mission from the Apostolic See. The second to invalidate the reason alledged by Innocent viz. That there is no connexion between the Institution of a Church and its Subjection and so that a Patriachal right over Churches doth not accrue from the instituting of them 8. The first Objection is answered and it is shew'd that we ought rather to believe Innocent then the Author about this matter of Fact. For Innocent tells us that Churches were Instituted in the Islands that lay between Italy Africa Spain and France by Peter only Now Britain may be reckon'd amongst these Islands since it is not only adjacent to France but interjacent as to some part moreover it ought to be accounted in the number of these since it is made to appear that a Church was instituted in Britain if not by Peter yet by the Priests that were sent by Eleutherius Peters Successor 9. The second Objection is answer'd and the reason drawn from matter of Fact is made good also the connexion between the Institution of a Church and its Subjection is shew'd since a Church can be instituted by none but him that hath a true mission and that hath jurisdiction which properly appertains to a Superior so that Innocent doth rightly call the Apostolic See the Head of the Institutions 10. It is shew'd that what is objected by the Author coucerning Churches being instituted through all Bavaria and Rhetia by King Lucius depends upon weak Testimonies which if they were true would make nothing for the Authority of the English Church over Bavaria and Rhetia unless it could be made out that Lucius was sent into those parts by Authority of the English Church and that he ordain'd Bishops by the same Authority which will never be proved 11. For the Subjecting of Bishops of a Country to any Patriarch by virtue of their Ordination it is sufficient that their first Bishop be Ordained by this Patriarch as is proved from the the example of Frumentius the first Bishop of Aethiopia the Testimonies of Nicolaus the first Gregory the Great and the eighth general Council 1. HAving treated in the foregoing Chapter of the Origin or first Institution of the British Church we are now to treat of its Subjection to the Roman Bishop as Patriarch of the West concerning which our Author in his Third Chapter states the Question against me in these words Author p. 112. The present Keeper of the Vatican Library having endeavoured in a set Discourse to assert the Popes Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches I shall here examin the strength of all that he produceth to that purpose He agrees with us in determining the Patriarchal Rights which he saith lie in these three things 1. In the right of Consecration of Bishops and Metropolitans 2. In the right of summoning them to Councils 3. In the right of Appeals All which he proves to be just and true Patriarchal Rights from the Seventeenth Canon of the eighth general Council And by these we are contented to stand or fall So this Author in the very beginning of his Disputation who if he would hear the Rule of the Eighth general Council might plainly be shew'd to have been vanquish'd before he began to fight For that Canon was made to renew the Bishop of Romes Patriarchal authority over the Metropolitans in the West which doth not at all promote our Authors design but quite overthrows it as we shall see hereafter 2. In the mean time let us proceed to the Authers Pleas by which he contends I have not rightly prov'd that the three Patriarchal Rights above mention'd belong to the Roman Bishop over all the West For when I had confirm'd the Right from the use of those Countries in which the Roman Bishop had exercis'd it I shew'd from the Right it self that the exercise or use thereof did belong to him even in those other Regions of the West where by reason of some certain priviledges granted them he often abstain'd from the exercise of this Right But our Author complains of this as an absurd way of arguing For this way of proving saith he is ridiculous viz. Author p. 119 to prove that the Pope had Patriarchal Rights because he exercised them and then to say though he did not exercise them yet he had them and so prove that he had them because he was Patriarch of the West And as it folloâ—s Author p. 12â— this way of proving may be good against de Marca who had granted the Pope to be the Western Patriarch but it is ridiculous to those that deny it Here again the Author stumbles and makes himself a laughing-stock whilst he endeavours to expose me as so for the way of proof which I have used He confesses that the way of proof which I have taken is good against de Marca and all those that call the Pope the Patriarch of the West which all Catholics did until the year 1678 wherein I publish'd my Book intitled Antiquitas Illustrata although all Catholics did not agree that there was a perpetual exercise of the Patriarchal Jurisdiction in all the Western Provinces I did therefore treat Disert 2. Antiquitatis Illustratae cap. 4. in three Articles concerning the threefold Patriarchal Right above mention'd against those Catholics who allow'd the Roman Bishop to be Patriarch of the West but notwithstanding contended that he ought not to exercise a Patriarchal Jurisdiction in all the Western Parts using that way of Proof which the Author himself confesses of force against them so that it cannot be at all ridiculous 3. And I know not upon what account he can object to me that this way of arguing is not of force against him who at this time undertakes to deny the Bishop of Romes Patriarchal Right over the whole West For to speak the truth could I divine seven years since that six years after that an English Author should oppose the Roman Bishops Patriarchate which James King of England Jacobus Rex Anglie In Apologia pro Juramento Fidelitatis plainly admitted I know saith he that there were Patriarchs in the Primitive Church And afterwards there was great contention amongst them for the Supremacy then he adds But if the Question were still about this matter the Roman Bishop should have my suffrage for the Precedence I being a Western King would adhere to the Western Patriarch Here both the former and the latter words of King James are to be observ'd He affirms in the former that there were Patriarchs in the Primitive Church that is when a Church began first to be propagated in the latter that if the Question were now put concerning the chief Patriarch he would adhere to the Roman as being Patriarch of all the West Which is exprest in those words I being a Western King would adhere to the Western Patriarch Which
having been written many years since by a King of famous memory in that work of his which he set forth on behalf of the English Church could I foresee that the Dean of London a Minister of the same English Church when the Question was about Patriarchs would deny the Western Patriarchate It may be he will say that all Catholies do not agree in the thing as appears from the Book of a late Author de Disciplinâ Ecclesiae But I ask again could I foresee that on the fourteenth day of November in this Year 1686 at which time I had not only finish'd this Discourse but had likewise printed the first sheet of it a Book lately publish'd would come to my hands in which the Author being tainted with the itch of novelty should deny the Roman Bishops Patriarchate over the West which all France even till that time had undertaken to defend against Schismatics and Heretics which Perron Sirmondus de Marca and other Writers of the Gallican Church had defended against the Heretic Salmasius and against his ringleaders or followers besides whom no body in those times denied the Popes Patriarchate over the West Against these therefore I employ'd my Pen not using the former but another way of Proof and demonstrated the Roman Patriarchate to extend it self over all the West For besides the Question against Catholics concerning the exercise of Patriarchal Jurisdiction I stated another against Heretics concerning the Patriarchal Right it self which belongs to the Bishop of Rome over all the West and that I prov'd by the perpetual Tradition of the Ancients which was so well known to the whole Christian Church before the rise of modern Heresy that the Schismatic Greeks themselves maintain'd this truth insomuch that not only Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica hath written Nilus Thessalonicensis Romano Episcopo hoc datum esse ut Occidentalibus praesit Barlaam Monachus Occidentales Eâ—clesias Papae Gabernationi à Sauctis Patribus fuisse commendatas That it was granted to the Roman Bishop to Preside over the West but also Barlaam the Monk cap. 2. libri de Primatu Papae hath openly profest that the Western Churches were by the Holy Fathers commended to the Government of the Pope I have alledged many of those Authorities in Dissert 2. Antiq. Illustratae which Barlaam commends without the recital of the Names of those Holy men that wrote them I am not at leasure now to repeat them all I shall only cite two of them at present one of Augustine the other of Pope Innocent who at the same time though in different Regions adorn'd the Church with their Sanctity and Learning 4. Augustines Testimony is lib. 1. contra Julianum cap. 2. where having cited the Testimony of some of the Fathers viz Cyprians of Africa those of Ireneus Hilarius and others of France and St. Ambrose's of Italy he thus expostulates with Julian the Disciple of Pelagius the Britain D. Augustinus An ideo contemnendos putaes quia Occidentaiis Ecclesie sâ—mt â—nnes nec nâ—â—ut in eis oft commemoratus Ortentis Episcopus Quid ergo faciemus cum the Greâ—â— sint nes Latini puto tihi cam partem Orbis sufficeâ—â— dehere in qua primâ—m Apâ—â—oloâ—um sâ—orum vâ—â—uit Dâ—minus glâ—riâ—sissimo Marâ—â—rio câ—â—nari chi Eâ—â—â—â—â—a prâ—â—sidenteâ—â— B. Luâ—ceâ—â—ium si â—â—dire volâ—â—â—es sam ture poâ—â—â—uiâ—â—am â—â—ventutern tuam Pelagianis laqueis exâ—â—â—â—es do you therefore think that they are to be contemn'd because they are all of the Wesiern Church and no Eastern Bishop is mention'd amongst them What therefore shall we do saith Augustine since they are Greeks and we Latines I think that part of the World ought to suffice you in which our Lord was pleas'd to have the chief of his Apostles crown'd with a most glorious Martyrdom if you would have heard St. Innocent the President of this Church even then your dangerous Youth might have avoided the Snares of Pelagius Thus speaks Augustine of Innocent the first whose Presidence as special Head of the Western Church could not have been exprest in more clear words For although our Author would have it Author p. 131. That Augustine only thereby shews the Order and Dignity of the Roman See but doth not own any Subjection of the Western Churches to his Power since no Church did more vehemently withstand the Bishop of Romes Incroachments than the Churches of Africa did in St. Augustine's time Yet there is no body but may see that this subterfuge was invented meerly to elude the force of this Testimony for it is false that the African Church was exempted from Subjection to the Roman neither do the contests of the African Church for a short time about the exercise of some particular Jurisdictions which were ended after they had own'd the Canons of the Council of Sardica evince this St. Augustine gives his Testimony for the Patriarchal Right by which the Roman Bishop especially presides over the Western Church neither can it be said that Africa was not reckon'd by him amongst the Western Churches For Cyprian accounts the Primate of all Africa to be of the number of those Bishops which he affirms to be Western Bishops and discinguishes them from the Eastern Therefore Africa appertaind to the Western Church over which Churches Innocent Presided and that the President of it when he not by virtue of his Order and Dignity but by his Authority condemn'd the Pelagian Heresy ought to have been heard by Julian is here signified by Augustine as also the whole African Church had heard him after they had referred the matter of that Heresy to him as their Head. For when aster the referring of the cause they had received Rescripts back from the Apostolic See Now concerning this matter saith Augustine de verbis Apostoli Serm. D. Augustinus Jam de hac causa due Concilia miâ—sa sunt ad sedem Apostolicam inde etram rescripta venerunt causa si nita est error utinam finiatur 2. two Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See from thence also Rescripts have been sent back the Cause is determin'd would to God the Error were extinguished Thus Augustine shews that to be false and erroneous which a late Author de Disciplina Ecclesiae hath rashly utter'd viz. that the Africans did acknowledge no Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop over their Province and that nothing further could be collected from Augustine then that the Roman Bishop had a Primacy amongst the Western Bishops 5. We have heard Augustin now let us hear Innocent himself whom Augustine extols For that most holy Man doth not only claim to himself as Bishop of the Universal Church a Power to determine in the Cause of the Pelagians but also challenges this as of special Right too belonging to him as he was the Head of the African and the other Occidental Churches in his Epistle ad Decentium Eugubinum Episcopum in these Words Inoncentius I. vid. in p. 24. Vidnum VIII For
Honorius sent to Theodosius the Emperor wherein he writes thus concerning this matter Without doubt the Church of that City from whence we receiv'd the Roman Principality Honorii Epist Theodosium Vid. num XXII and the Original of Priesthood deserves extraordinary veneration For as much as the Legates that were sent to us have desired nothing from our Piety but what is agreeable to Catholic faith discipline and equity for they require of us that those priviledges which having been establish'd long since by our fore-fathers were preservd till this time may ever remain inviolable and afterwards Wherefore we desire your Majesty that being mindful of that Christian temper which the Divine mercy hath infused into our hearts you would consider of our Pious discourse and that removing all these usurpt Rights which are said to have been gain'd by the private designs of diverse Bishops you would command that the ancient order be kept that so the Roman Church may not lose under Christian Princes what she preserv'd under other Emperors Hence it is clear that when Boniface the Pope desir'd that the Patriarchal right over Illyricum might be restor'd to him he ask'd nothing which was against the Canons or the ancient Order which was not only acknowledg'd by Honorius the Western Emperor but also by Theodosius Emperor of the East as appears by the Rescript whereby he revoked his Law in these words Setting aside all that the Bishops over Illyricum Theodosii Rescriptum Vid num XXIII by their Supplications have surreptitiously gain'd we command that to be observed which the Apostolic discipline and the ancient Canons declare Concerning which thing we have sent our Orders in writing to the Illustrious Praefecti Praetori over Illyricum according to the form of the Oracle of your perpetuity that all which hath been surreptitiously obtain'd by the Bishops being laid aside they would cause the antient Order to be especially observ'd least the venerable Church of that City which hath consecrated to us a perpetul Empire of its own name should lose the most holy privileges which were settled by the ancients These words of Theodosius are observable in which setting aside what the Bishops by their Supplications had surreptitiously gain'd over Illyricum he commands that to be observ'd which the old Apostolic Discipline and ancient Canons declare This Rescript was concerning the Patriarchal power which Theodosius at length acknowledg'd to belong to the Bishop of Rome from the old Apostolic Discipline confirm'd by the determinations of the ancient Canons So that it appears to be plainly false that Innocent the First and other Bishops endeavour'd to gain a Patriarchal power which they had not before over Illyricum by appointing the Bishop of Thessalonica to act as by Commission from them which notwithstanding after our English Writer the Author of the Treatise De Disciplina Ecclesiae hath endeavoured to obtrude upon the World. Indeed it ought not to seem so great a wonder that this should have bin said by one that was not of the Communion of the Roman Church since something is to be indulged to the Prejudice of a disturbed mind But I know not how it came to pass that a man who professes himself to live in the Communion of the Apostolic See should rashly utter those things which I can hardly relate without blushing 9. Now since the Illyrican Churches notwithstanding they were instituted by the Apostle Paul yet belong'd to the Roman Patriarchate what should hinder the British Churches from being subject to the Roman Patriarchate although Paul and not Peter had first instituted them as our English Author makes it his main endeavour to prove He ascribes the Institution of Patriarchates to ancient custom Canon 6. Nicaenus which the Nicene Council hath made mention of in the Sixth Canon commanding the ancient custom to be observed concerning it in Egypt because the Bishop of Rome hath a like custom But did this ancient custom and these Primitive Rights of the Church spring up like Mushrooms or gain'd force without any reason Before the times of the Nicene Council the universal Church was not govern'd by written Canons but by Tradition and Custom D. Augustinus lib. 5. contra Donatistas cap. 24. alibi now Tradition and Custom of which any other Original was unknown according to the Rule of the Great Augustine was to be held as coming from the Apostles so that we are to believe that these very Apostles anciently erected Patriarchates since no other Original of them is to be found Leo the Great in his Epistle to Anastafius Bishop of Thessalonica treating of the institution of Churches says that it was provided by the wisdom of the Apostles that there should be One in every Province who should have the first Vote amongst the Bishops of his Province Now who can believe that the Apostles who so accurately observ'd order in the Provinces had no regard to the greater Dioceses Since it was provided Leo primue Epist ad Anastatium Thessalonicen Vid. num XXIV by the wisdom of the Apostles saith Leo Epist 54. that there should be one in every Province who should have the first Vote amongst the Bishops of his Province again some were appointed in the greater Cities who should take upon them a greater Charge by whom the Care of the Vniversal Church might be carried up to Peter 's single See and none in any place dissent from their Head. These were the Reasons why the See of Antioch had a Patriarchal Authority over all the East and the See of Alexandria over all Aegypt And for these Reasons also a Patriarchal See was erected at Rome to the care of which the Churches of the West should of special Right appertain 10. The affixing the British Church to the Roman Patriarchate depends upon this Apostolical Institute and upon this account it was that Pope Agatho reckon'd the British Bishops amongst those that appertain'd to the Council of the Roman Patriarchate There is an evident Testimony not only of Agatho but likewise of a hundred and twenty Western Bishops concerning this Matter which is read in the Synodic Epistle to the sixth General Council Synodic Romana Agathonis Papae in these Words Agatho Bishop of the Servants of God together with all the Synods which are subject to the Council of the Apostolic See. And in the Epistle it self the Synods which are subject to the Roman Council are said to consist of the Western Bishops the multitude of which extended themselves even to the Regions which lay upon the Ocean viz. those of Lombardy Sclavonia Franconia Gaul and Britain In my Judgment Pope Agatho and the hundred and twenty Bishops could not have said that the British Churches were subject to the Roman Bishop as Patriarch of the West more clearly than they have done Neither could the Bishops of the whole Eastern Church assembled in Council at Constantinople have any way more manifestly confirm'd this Truth than by their approbation of
the foremention'd Epistle of Agatho and inserting it into their Synodical Acts. The Western Bishops sent this Epistle to those of the East and which is chiefly to be here considered the British Bishops made it their own by subscribing to it And all the Eastern Bishops gave their Approbation to it by inserting it into their Acts. So that all who contradict this Epistle may be said to oppose the Judgment both of the Eastern and Western Bishops and that the English whilst they deny its Authority recede from the Judgment of their Ancestors and affect to be wiser than their Fore-fathers Neither is the Authority of Agatho's Epistle of the less force because it was written after Augustin's coming into England for there is no Innovation in that Epistle but the ancient Custom of the Church is kept up according to which Justinian the Emperor declar'd before Agatho's time that the Roman Patriarch had presided over the whole West and so consequently over Britain as appears from his 109th Novel in which he mentions five Patriarchates and the Roman as the only Western Patriarchate the rest as Eastern Justinianus Imperator Totius Oâ—bis terrarum Patriarchae seilicet Hesperiae Romae hujus Regiae civitatis Alexandriae Theopoleâ—â— Hierosolymorum omnes qui sub eis constituti sum Sanctissimi Episâ—â—pi Aposcolicam praedicant fidem atque traditionem The Patriarchs saith he of the whole World viz. of Hesperia and Rome and of this Imperial City and of Alexandria and Theopolis and Jerusalem and all the most Holy Bishops that are constituted under these preach the Apostolic Faith and Tradition The whole World is here by Justinian divided into five Patriarchates four of which were said to preside over the various Eastern Diocesses only the Roman over Hesperia that is the Western Diocesses and their most Holy Bishops so that the British Bishops which are contain'd here as being in one of the Western Diocesses did belong to the Hesperian or Western Patriarchate as the first Synod of Arles long before Justinian hath consecrated to Posterity which we shall see in the next Chapter CHAP. IV. Concerning the Greater Dioceses attributed to Pope Sylvester by the Council of Arles 1. The Fathers of the Council of Arles in the year 314. did not only refer the first Canon concerning the observation of Easter but also all the rest to Sylvester whom they have affirmed to hold the Greater Dioceses not the Greater Diocese as our Author would have it 2. A Diocese of old signified a Tract of several Provinces under the administration of one as is shewn from the Notitia Imperii which was written before the time of Honorius and Arcadius so that when the Fathers of the Council of Arles wrote that Sylvester held the Greater Dioceses they signified thereby that he presided over the Dioceses of the West to avoid the admission of which the Author Substitutes the the word Diocese in the place of Dioceses 3. Our Author shews the reasons which mov'd him to do this and this among the rest because the Empire was not only not divided into Dioceses by Constantine at the time of the Council of Arles but also because the name of Diocese doth not seem to have been known at the time of the Council of Nice In the latter of which his great mistake is prov'd from the Epistle which Constantine sent to all the Churches in the time of the Nicene Council since in that Epistle there is mention made of the Pontic and Asian Dioceses 4. Although it might so fall out that in the time of the Council of Arles the Empire was not as yet divided into thirteen Dioceses under four Praefecti Praetorio by Constantine yet it doth not follow from thence that the name of Dioceses was not known before Onuphrius Panuinus affirms that the Provinces were known by the name of lesser Dioceses from the time of Adrian the Emperor so that there is no reason why those might not have been called Greater Dioceses which Sextus Rufus and the Fathers of the Council of Arles contradistinguished from the lesser Dioceses 5. Although our Authors seem in words to deny that the Fathers of the first Council of Arles had any knowledge of the Greater Dioceses yet he in effect proves the thing whilst he affirms that the words Greater Diocese should be inserted in the place of Greater Dioceses 6. The Fathers of Italy France Africa Spain and Britain being assembled at Arles in the first Canon refer the Decree for the observing of one and the same day for Easter throughout the whole World or according as others read it throughout every City to Sylvester that he might Send Letters to them all by which Decree they acknowledge him to be their Superior 7. Our Author is of opinion that the Authority of declaring when Easter day should be observ'd was taken from Sylvester by the Nicene Synod and given to the Patriarch of Alexandria But the grossness of his Errors is discover'd from the Testimony of Leo the Great and Innocent the Third 8. Although it be granted that the first Canon of the Council of Arles saith that Sylvester ought to have given notice throughout the whole World on what day Easter should be observ'd yet it is made good from the Testimony of Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria that the Popes Power was not at all diminished in the Council of Nice since from that Testimony it appears that the computation of the Paschal Solemnity was committed to the Bishop of Alexandria but the publication of it was left to the Bishop of Rome 9. It is therefore false to say that the Nicene Synod did at all detract from the Pontifical Authority which Victor long before exercised upon the occasion of the celebration of Easter as appears from that part of the Synod of Palestine which is left us and by the Testimony of Polycrates the Ephesian 10. Victor either endeavour'd to Excommunicate or did indeed Excommunicate those of Asia who refused to obey his command concerning the observation of Easter-day from whence his Pontifical Authority is evinced which that it extends it self over the whole World as likewise his Patriarchal doth over the whole West our Author even against his will is forced to acknowledg from the first Canon of the Synod of Arles AMongst the various Monuments of Antitiquity which make proof of the Patriarchal Authority of the Roman Bishop over all the West that is not of small moment which the Fathers of the first Council of Arles have consecrated to the memory of Posterity For when they were Assembled together from France Spain Britainy Africa and Italy at the very beginning of the flourishing state of the Church they made twenty two Canons in the first of which they treat concerning the observation of the Feast of Easter upon one and the same day in all parts of the World and adds that Pope Sylvester ought according to Custom to direct his Letters to all
detest the Error they have imbibed concerning the Supremacy of the Metropolitcal Authority 8. Thus far enough of the Patriarchate of Antioch Let us now speak of that of Alexandria It is confest that the Bishop of Alexandria had a power over many Provinces before the time of the Nicene Council which the Sixth Canon of Nice plainly declares whilst it ordains that the ancient custom should be observ'd according to which the Bishop of Alexandria exercised a jurisdiction over Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis This is expresly commemorated of Dionysius who govern'd the Church of Alexandria Sixty years before the Nicene Council by St. Athanasius lib. de sententia Dionysii contra Arianos in these words D. Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Vid. num XXXVIII In Pentapolis of the upper Lybia some of the Bishops embraced the opinions of Sabellius and their fictions did so much prevail that the Son of God was scarce any more Preach'd in their Churches Vpon the discovery of which Dionysius to whose charge those Churches belong'd sent Legates to withdraw the Authors of these things from their false opinions Therefore according to the testimony of Athanasius the Churches of upper Lybia Epiphanius Haeresi 68. Vid. num XXXIX or Pentapolis as also other Churches distributed through the rest of the Provinces of the Egyptian Diocese were under the charge of Dionysius as St. Epiphanius informs us Heresi 68. where he detests the Original of the Meletian Schism Meletius saith he and the Martyrs especially Peter Archbishop of Alexandria were then in bonds and Meletius though he excell'd the other Bishops of Egypt yet was second to Peter in dignity as being his Suffragane yet subject to him and referring Ecclesiastical Causes to his Jurisdiction For it is the Right of the Arch-Bishops of Alexandria to administer Ecclesiastical Affairs throughout all Aegypt and Thebais Mareotis Lybia Ammoniaca and Pentapolis From these ancient Testimonies the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria over all the Provinces throughout Aegypt is clearly proved neither do I see that any doubt can be made of this it remains therefore for us to consider whether there was at that time no Metropolitan Bishop to be found in any of the Provinces of Aegypt 9. This our Author denies as to the times before the Nicene Council but upon what ground I know not For Meletius held a Bishoprick in Thebais before the time of the Council of Nice and St. Epiphanius in the place above mentioned hath recorded that he in the time of St. Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was crown'd with Martyrdom about fourteen years before the Nicene Council excelling the other Egyptian Bishops was the second to Peter in Dignity Now how could Meletius then have obtain'd the second Place to Peter by what Right could he have excell'd the other Egyptian Bishops unless he had been a Metropolitan If you would have a farther Confirmation of the thing consult St. Athanasius who tells us that Meletius ordain'd Bishops in Egypt and in the Breviary of the Bishops consecrated by Meletius names John Bishop of Memphis in the last place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Memphis Bâ—â—â—â—â—um Eâ—â—â—coporum à Meletio orâ—â—natâ—um John commanded by the Emperor to be together with the Archbishop Meletius therefore was an Arch-bishop to whom John Bishop of Memphis was by the command of the Emperor to be an Assistant and this St. Athanasius expressy affirms Haeresi 69. where he tells us that Arius drew to his party Secundus Bishop of Pentapolis together with some others and that all this was done without the knowledge of S. Alexander until Meletius Arch-bishop of Thebais in Aegypt D. Epiphanius and again until Meletius Arch-bishop in Aegypt and subject to Alexander had inform'd Alexander of the whole Business Thus Epiphanius twice calls Meletius Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and affirms that he was subject to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria so that there is no question but the Patriarch of Alexandria had a Metropolitan under him before the time of the Nicene Council and whereas our Author owns no Metropolitan to have been in Thebais this proceeds from his Ignorance in Ecclesiastical History 10. Since therefore these things are so clear that they cannot be call'd in question let our Author now say that the Parity between the Patriarchate of Alexandria and that of Rome lay in this that neither of them had Metropolitans under him For since it hath been shew'd that there were not only many Provinces but likewise several Metropolitan Bishopricks under the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria before the time of the Nicene Council since the fixth Canon of the Council of Nice decrees that the ancient Custom should be observ'd viz. that the Bishop of Alexandria should have Authority over Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the Bishop of Rome hath a like Custom hereby the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria not only over Bishops but also over Metropolitans is confirm'd from the Example of the Roman Patriarch who consequently must have a Jurisdiction over Metropolitans Neither hath any one reason to alledge the Paraphrase of Ruffinus concerning the Suburbicarian Regions against us and to affirm with Salmasius that these were confined within the space of a hundred Miles from the City or within the Bounds of the Lieutenancy of the City as a late French Author would have them to be All which I shall refute at large in the second Edition of Antiquitas Illustrata and shew to be erroneous In the mean time who will not admire that there should be such Men to be found who notwithstanding they may plainly see that the Bishop of Antioch had fifteen Eastern Provinces and the Bishop of Alexandria six Provinces of Aegypt under thier Jurisdiction yet can have the confidence to affirm that the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome was confin'd to the narrow space of a hundred Miles or but few more from the City If the Bishop of Alexandria obtain'd a Patriarchal Jurisdiction over a larger Diocess of the Empire because the Roman Bishops had the like Custom then we must of necessity allow the Roman Bishop to have obtain'd a Jurisdiction over at least a like Diocess of the Empire But the first Council of Arles ten years before that of Nice expresly declared that Sylvester Bishop of Rome held not only one but many greater Diocesses nor is it any where read that these Diocesses were taken away from Sylvester in so short a space of time it must then be held for certain that he retain'd them all at the time of the Council of Nice and consequently that the Popes had not only a Patriarchal Jurisdiction over the Provinces that were near the City of Rome but also over all the rest of the Western Provinces amongst which the British are to be reckon'd CHAP. VI. That the British Church acknowledged an Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan from the time that the Christian Religion was first planted there till such time
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
Church and receded as Schismatics from the center of Ecclesiastical Communion What else can we conclude but that God was willing to shew the falshood of the Schismatical Church of Britain by the Miracle which he wrought upon Augustine's intercession Do not the Acts of the British Synod recorded in Bede testifie that Augustine did by so manifest a Miracle demonstrate the truth of those things which he proposed to the Britains that they were forc'd to confess it was the true way of Justice which Augustine Preach'd If these things cannot be denied as it is most certain they cannot what do the modern English Authors mean when they object against Catholics the answer of the Britains and the Monks of Banchor Will they not at length be convinc'd that they oppose nothing but their own Errors which are the vain Forgeries of Men against that Truth which hath been confirm'd by a Divine Testimony and that the rest of the Church hath just reason to condemn them for having lost both Truth and Modesty at the same time I am weary of vainly spending my time in matters so clear so manifest so perspicuous and of being again forc'd when Religion is the subject to bring a new Evidence of that Truth which all the English Writers of former Ages all men that have been eminent in Britain for Sanctity and Learning and lastly even the Bishops who have been present in the several Councils that have been held in England Scotland and Ireland have acknowledg'd and defended I will therefore conclude my Discourse with the following Exhortation AN EXHORTATION TO THE MINISTERS OF THE English Church WHen Philo the most Eloquent of the Hebrews address'd his Oration to Caius the Emperor Philo in Oratione pro Gente Hebraeorum ad Caium Caligulam and the Roman Senate How long saith he shall we old Men be Children as to the Body gray indeed through Age but as to the Mind through want of Knowledge very Infants whilst we believe Fortune the most inconstant thing in the World to be stable but Nature to be unstable whereas it is most constant Pardon me I beseech you most excellent Ministers of the English Church if I make my Address to you in the Words of Philo tho somewhat alter'd How long will you who are ancient in Body be Children in Minds and meer Infants for want of knowledg of Religion whilst you think the Catholic Church unstable which is yet most constant and your own which is rent from the Body of the Catholic Church will be stable You have chang'd the true Estimate of things attributing that to a part which is only the Property of the whole and imagining with your selves that the Catholic Church is defectible Matthaei 16 cap. 1. ad Timoth 3. which the eternal Truth hath promised shall never fail and which the Doctor of the Gentiles hath called the Pillar and Ground of Truth You thought that the true Faith was lost in the Catholic Church spread over the Face of the whole World but found again by you in England little considering how truly that Objection might be made against you which Henry the Eighth your King in the Age before this made against Luther that like the Donatists you reduce the Catholic Church to a very small number whispering of Christ in a Corner It was the Judgment of the great Augustine and of St. Optatus Milevitanus Optat. Melcvit Lib. 2. contra Parmenianum Quasi in carcerem latitudo Regnorum that the Church was not to be shut up in some Corner but to extend it self to the utmost Bounds of the World the latter of these Holy Fathers Lib. 2. reprehends Parmenianus the Chief of the Donatists for endeavouring to make void that Promise of God the Father of giving to the Son the uttermost parts of the Earth for his Possession whereas he had confined the large Extent of his Dominions as it were to a narrow Prison Then he asserts the Church that it may be Catholic ought to be extended to all parts of the World and that the first Mark to distinguish it by was Vnity which consists in the Communion it holds with St. Peter's See which is but one and this he believ'd so manifest that he thought Permenianus himself could not deny it Negare non potes inquit loco supracitato Stire te in Vrbe Roma Petro Primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse callatam in qua sederit emnium Apostolorum Caput Petrus undè Cephas appellatus est in qua una Cathedra uni as ab â—mâ—â—bus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent ut jam schismaticus peccater esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collâ—caret Ergo Cathedra unica que est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus enumerata longa Romanorum Pontificum serie usque ad Siricium sub quo scribebat Siriâ—â—us inquit hodie qui noster est Sociuâ— cum quo nobis totus Orbis commercio formatarum in una Communionis Societate concerdat You cannot deny saith he in the place above cited but that you know that the Episcopal See of the City of Rome was granted to Peter as the Chief in which Peter the Head of all the Apostles sate from whence he was called Cephas in which one See Unity was to be preserved by all least the rest of the Apostles should claim a Superiority to any of their Sees So that now he would be a Schismatic and a Sinner who should set up another See in opposition to this peculiar See. Therefore in this one See only which is its chief Dowry Peter first sate to whom Linus succeeded and so reckoning up a long Series of Roman Bishops till he came to Siricius in whose time he wrote who saith he is our fellow-Fellow-Bishop with whom the whole World agrees as we do in one Society of Communion by intercourse of Communicatory Letters There was then a true Church in time past which diffused throughout the whole World made Peter's one See the Center of its Vnity and communicated with the Roman Church as a Sign of one Faith and Religion by Communicatory Letters This was the Sentence of Optatus Milevitanus and the rest of the Fathers which because the Donatists durst not deny they had constituted a Bishop of their own in the City of Rome who as St. Augustine tells us was called Rupensis and Montensis a Rupe vel Monte from the Rock or Hill wherein he conceal'd himself If therefore the Popes Authority was so manifest in former Ages that the Schismatical Affricans themselves could neither be ignorant of it nor deny it how comes it to pass that you in England now do not at all acknowledg it was perhaps the Knowledge of it so obliterated in the latter Ages that it could not be discovered by your Ancestors when they separated from the Communion of the Apostolic See Henricus Octavus libro de 7.
Romanae Ecclesiae Caelestino primus mittitur Episcopus ibid. NUM XLVII Matthaeus Westmonasteriensis Audita verò morte Palladii Patricius Theodosio Valentiniano imperantibus à Papa Caelestino ad partes occiduas missus est ut vexillum S. Crucis Gentibus praedicaret Cumque ad Britanniam pervenisset praedicavit ibi verbum Dei à Genti-incolis gratanter est susceptus Deindè ad Scotos se conferens praedicavit verbum Dei quod non potuit alligari ibid. NUM XLVIII Jocelinus in vita S. Patricii Illique inquit vices suas committens atquen legatum suum constituens quaecumque in Hibernia gesserat constituerat disposuerat auctoritatis suae munimine confirmavit Pag. 101 NUM XLIX Auctor vitae Gregorii Magni Gregorius cum primum in toto Orbe gereret Pontificatum conversis jamdudum ad fidem veritatis esset praelatus Ecclesiis ibid. NUM L. Venerab Beda lib. 2. Hist cap. 2. In multis quidem nostrae consuetudini imò Universalis Ecclesiae contraria geritis tamen si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis ut ministerium baptizandi quo Deo renascimur juxta morem Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis ut Genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis verbum Domini caetera quae agitis quamvis moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus At illi nihil horum se facturos neque illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant Pag. 103 NUM LI. Ibid. Qui cum longa disputatione habita neque precibus neque hortamentis neque increpationibus Augustini ac sociorum ejus assensum praebere voluissent sed suas potius traditiones universis quae per Orbem sibi in Christo concordant Ecclesiis praeferrent Sanctus Pater Augustinus hunc laboriosi ac long◠certaminis finem fecit ut diceret obsecremus Deum qui habitare facit unanimes in domo Patris sui ut ipse nobis insinuari caelestibus signis dignetur quae sequenda traditio quibus sit viis ad ingressum Regni illius properandum Adducatur aliquis aeger per cujus preces fuerit curatus hujus fides operatio Deo devota atque omnibus sequenda credatur Quod cum adversarii inviti licet concederent allatus est quidam de genere Anglorum oculorum luce privatus qui cum oblatus Britonum Sacerdotibus nil curationis vel sanationis horum ministerio perciperet tandem Augustinus justa necessitate compulsus flectit genua sua ad Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi deprecans ut visum caeco quem amiserat restitueret per illuminationem unius hominis corporalem in plurimorum cordibus fidelium spiritualis gratiae lucem accenderet Nec mora illuminatur caecus ac verus summae lucis praeco ab omnibus praedicatur Augustinus Tum Britones confitentur quidem intellexisse se veram esse viam Justitiae quam praedicaret Augustinus c. Pag. 104 NUM LII Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Cunctis enim Evangelium scientibus liquet quod voce Dominica Sancto omnium Apostolorum Petro Principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est Pag. 105 THE INDEX A. WHat Provinces there were in Aegypt and to whom they were Subject p. 87. The Aegyptians did in the third Age acknowledge the Authority of the Roman Bishop as Supreme p. 79 Aethiopia appertains to the See of Alexandria because Athanasius sent a Bishop thither who planted the Aethiopic Church p. 30 The Epistle of Agatho shewing of what Bishops the Patriarchal Synod of the Bishop of Rome consists p. 54 Agricola first brought the Pelagian Heresie into Britain p. 98 The Bishop of Alexandria had the care over all Aegypt committed to him 82. The Nicene Council intrusted him also with the Computation of Easter day 68. He had Metropolitan Bishops under him p. 84 The Bishop of Antioch had also Metropolitan Bishops under him before the time of the Nicene Council p. 84 Appeals to the Bishop of Rome as being Successor to Peter are to be admitted of p. 81 It appears from the Testimony of the Council of Aquileia that the Roman Church is the Head of the whole Roman World. p. 96. The first Canon of the Council of Arles is recited from several Manuscripts p. 66 The Council of Arles refers the determination of Easter day to Pope Sylvester 59. How the defect in the citation concerning the publishing of the Feast of Easter is to be supplyed p. 59 The Testimony of Augustine the Bishop concerning the Roman Patriarchs Authority over all the West 22. Augustine the Monk was Gregory the Great 's Legate 101. he institutes Metropolitans by Authority receiv'd from the Apostolic See. 102. he proves the truth of Catholic Religion by miracle p. 105 B. What Testimonies prove Britain to have been converted to the Faith by Peter 4. Severus Sulpitius affirms that Britains first Conversion to the Faith was in the third Age. 11. Bede and Tertulian testifie the same 12. Britain was longer preserv'd from the Pelagian Heresie than the other Western Regions 98. Faith and Discipline were restored in it by Augustine the Monk under Gregory the Great The Acts of the British Synod concerning those things which Augustine wrought for the restoring of Religion in England p. 103. The British Bishops did acknowledg in the Council or Arles that the greater Dioceses did belong to Sylvester the Bishop of Rome and that the Apostles did daily sit in the Roman See. 94. They profess'd in the Council of Sardica that the Memory of Peter was to be honoured 95. They acknowledg'd that they appertain'd to the Patriarchal Synod of the Bishop of Rome 55. When they began to deviate from truth and Ecclesiastical Discipline 101. How bad a cause they endeavoured to defend against Augustine Legate of the Apostolic See. p. 106 C. The Bishop of Caesarea being Metropolitan of the Chief part of Palestine was Subject to the Patriarch of Antioch p. 85 Pope Caelestine sent his Legates into Britaem p. 99 The Catholic Church is the Pillar and ground of truth the Faith of which Church never fails p. 109 The Testimony of Clemens Romanus concerning Paul the Apostles Preaching p. 9 Caelestine was of opinion that appeal was to be made from the judgment of the African Synod to the examen of the Roman Bishop p. 97 The Fragments of the Council of Palestine concerning Easter p. 72 The 8th general Council hath taught us in the 17th Canon that the Metropo itans of the West did appertain to the Roman Patriarchate p. 35 The Council of Arles c. See Arles c. What Customs were introduced by the Apostles and how they may be known to have been so p. 53 The Church was chiefly governed by Custom before the time of the Nicene Council p. 53 The Testimony of Cyril of Alexandria concerning the Computation of Easter-day p. 71 D. Pope Damasus constituted a Vicar in Illyricum and why he did
A DISSERTATION CONCERNING Patriarchal Metropolitical AUTHORITY In Answer to what Edw. Stillingfleet DEAN of St. PAVLS Hath written in his BOOK OF THE BRITISH ANTIQUITIES By Eman. Ã Schelstrate S.T.D.C.L. And Prefect of the Vatican Library Translated from the Latin. With Allowance LONDON Printed for Matthew Turner at the Lamb in Holbourn MDCLXXXVIII TO JAMES the II. OF Great Britain c. KING DEFENDER of the FAITH CONQUERER TRIUMPHANT PEACEMAKER THE Immortal God Supreme Governour of Kings and Ruler of the World hath by his Providence order'd it as auspicious to the Catholic Faith That in these times wherein other Christian Princes are restoring the Kingdoms of Hungary and Greece to the Church Your Majesty should ascend the British Throne and invite the renown'd English Nation to embrace the true Religion by your Royal Example It is by the conduct of Divine not Human Wisdom that Kings reign Prov 8.15 and Law-givers decree Justice Which being spoken of all Princes in this World cannot but be understood of Your Majesty who governing the British World in Justice reign so happily that You seem to have ravish'd the hearts of all your Subjects with Love and the Eyes of all Strangers with Admiration It is a Maxim of the Ancients and the Oracle of Wisdom it self that the Love of the People is the Princes chief Safeguard Which made Pliny the second say in his Panegyric to Trajan that the Kings Palace is no where better secured than where Love keeps the Court of Guard. And Themistius the fam'd Graecian Orator hath given this excellent Admonition that it is far better to allure Subjects by Love and Favour than to awe them with Fear and Terror By Love Mens minds are united and made to agree in one and by Agreement Empires cement as by Discord they fall asunder Which Your Majesty very well understanding presently quell'd the dissention that in the beginning of your Reign threatned destruction to all Britain and when you had cut off the Principal Conspirators Victorious and Triumphant You either intirely pacify'd or wholly restrain'd the minds of the rest by Sweetness and Love. Being excellently well read in the tempers of Men You knew that he is in vain arm'd with dread who is not fenc'd with love and affection Having therefore freed your Subjects from terror and fear You won their hearts by your serene Countenance and affable Conversation who the more freely acknowledg they owe the Public Safety to Your Majesty the more other Nations look upon it with admiration O thrice happy Prince who whilst you embrace your People with Kindness gain Veneration at home Renown abroad and are purchasing with God a blessed Eternity I will not speak here of that Frankness with which you receive all of that Clemency which makes you easie to be intreated of that Liberality wherewith you relieve the Needy and Miserable of the indefatigable Industry wherewith you manage the Affairs of your Kingdom of that firm Constancy which enables You to undertake the most difficult Enterprises For these and many other gracious Endowments wherewith the Great God of Heaven hath richly adorn'd your Royal Mind might here be highly extoll'd But since they would be too copious a Subject for a short Epistle I shall only intreat this Favour that not being mindful of Your Majesty but my meaness you would so far condescend as favourably to receive this small Treatise concerning Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which I have put forth in Answer to an English Author and to protect it with the Patronage of Your Great Name Nor can any one induce Your Majesty to believe That I seek to shelter Novelty under the Protection of Your Royal Name for in this small Book I do not undertake to defend an Error lately invented but a truth anciently receiv'd I treat concerning the Roman Patriarchate which the Catholic Kings Your Predecessors acknowledg'd for the space of Thirteen hundred years and which even since the Schism Your Grand-father King James of Illustrious Memory hath not obscurely asserted For in the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance which he sent to Rudolphus the Emperor to the Christian Monarchs and to both the Catholic and Protestant Princes * Jacobus Augliae Rex in apologia pro juramento fidelitatis Scio inquit Patriarchas in Ecclesia primitiva extitisse institutionem illam ordinis discriminis causa amplexor sed inter illos de Principatu magna contentione certatum est quod si in eo quaestio adhuc verteretur meo libens suffragio primum locum Episcopo Romano deferrem Ego Occidentalis Rex Occidentali Patritarchae adhaererem I know saith that Prince That there were Patriarchs in the Primitive Church and I embrace that Institution for Order and Distinction Sake there was also great Contention amongst them who should be Chief but if that were still the question I would freely give my suffrage that the Bishop of Rome should have the first place I being a Western King would adhere to the Western Patriarch That which King James the First a Prince of the same name with Your Majesty here asserts I explain more clearly in this Dissertation and prove from the Testimonies of the Antients and the Decrees of Synods that the Authority of the Roman Patriarchate extends it self over all the West So that I may use almost the same words which Honorius did when he exhorted the Emperor Theodosius to preserve the Priviledges long before granted to the Roman See that the Roman Church may not lose under a Catholic Prince what she ought not to have lost under other KIngs who fell into Schism Honorius Epistâ—ad Theod. Suffer therefore Most Gracious Prince that this small Treatise may come forth under your Protection in which the only thing I earnestly contend for is that the Roman Church which is the special Head of all the Western Churches and the Principal Head of all the Churches in the World may not be disturbed because from thence the Rights of admonishing others issue forth all over the West as well as over the whole World. Written from Rome by Your Majesties Most humble and most obedient Servant Emanuel of Antwerp in the Low Countries THE PREFACE TO THE READER I Know not Courteous Reader how it came to be my Lot in one years time this proves my second Contest with Adversaries that write in the Language of their own Countries At the beginning of this year I had to deal with Maimbourg who set forth a Treatise in French concerning the Roman Bishops Supremacy over the Vniversal Church Now towards the end of the year I must fall to work with the Dean of St. Paul's who hath publish'd a Book in English wherein he calls in question the Bishop of Romes Patriarchal Power over all the West The former Authors Work though it ought not to have been written in French did not create me any difficulty because I understood that Language But the second in English although the Idiom in
have done being mov'd as I suppose at the indignity of the thing he desisted from writing and there was none afterwards found in France to maintain the Cause till of late the Author of the Book de Disciplina Ecclesiae started up who Dissertatione 1. Part. ultima says indeed that he defends Valesius's Cause against Launoy's whereas in reality he impugns and rejects it He understands the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice as referring to the Suburbicarian Churches only and restrains the bounds of the Roman Patriarchate within the limits of the Cities Vicariate thinking it most probable that only those Regions which were subject to the Vicariu Urbis were the Suburbicarian Churches to which the Patriarchal Right of the Bishop of Rome extended and to no others He denies Germany Spain France Britain Africa Illyricum and a great part of Italy to have been subject to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarchate in former times and as if it had been but a small matter to shake off the Yoak of Patriarchal Authority he hath endeavour'd to destroy the Papal Power and to reduce the Primacy of Peter to a meer Dignity of Order amongst equals I am ashamed to think of those things which this Author deduces from such like Principles as these I shall treat of them in another place if I shall think it worth while In the mean time it will be enough to observe in brief that they are so absurd and disagreeable to the Doctrine of the Church Julius 1 Epist Synodica ad Orientales Antiochiae congregatos that they run the same Fortune as Julius the first tells us befell the Eusebian's Letters that all were so full of admiration that they could hardly be induced to believe such Writings should proceed from a man who desires to seem a Catholic The Eusebians contended that the Sentence of the whole Eastern Synod could no ways be retracted by the Bishop of Rome and when the Church was offended at that Error Julius the first wrote thus That it was better according to the Gospel that a Mill-stone were hanged about his neck and so he were drowned then that one of these little ones should be offended What then would that great Prelate say if he liv'd in our times and heard it maintain'd that not the Eastern Church only but the Bishops of one Diocess the Synod of one Province have Supream Authority and that their Sentence cannot be invalidated by any other Judge Dissert 2. ca. 1. Sect. 1 p. 97. What would he say if he should hear that not only the Causes of the Eastern but likewise of the Western Bishops were to be exempt from the Jurisdiction of the See Apostolic and that it is but a feign'd story that an Apostolical Authority was so given to Peter that it might descend to his Successors whereas it was granted to the rest of the Apostles only for their time This is fictitious Ibid. Sect. 2 p. 96. Seq says that Author because we have no reason nor testimony from Scripture or Tradition to prove that the Power of Peters Apostleship descended down to his Successors and that the rest of the Apostles did not seeing that the Bishops of the Apostolical Churches are equally said to be the Successors to those Apostles by whom their Churches were founded nay all Bishops are esteemed Successors of all the Apostles These are the consequences of this mans Principles which if they might take place farewell the sollicitude which in Obedience to the Divine Precept the Bishop of Rome has had over all Churches of the Catholic Communion throughout the whole World and which he still has as becomes the Primacy of his See although Quesnellio Dissert 1. p. 79. a late Author invents another story concerning the Churches of France supposing according to his Opinion that the Bishop of Rome hath not the Gallican Churches under his charge I am unwilling to insist any longer upon this expostulation but before I conclude this Preface two things are to be observ'd the former whereof hath relation to the favourable Reader whom I would not have to suspect that the Errors of this Book are to be ascribed either to the Sacred Faculty of Paris or to the most Illustrious Gallican Clergy For although the Author calls himself a Doctor of Paris and is a French-man yet it is not at all credible that this Work of his will either please the Sacred Faculty of Paris or the most Illustrious Gallican Clergy 'T is rather to be believed that all those of the French Nation that are eminent for Learning and Piety will judge it unfit that Book should ever have been publish'd The ancient Religion of the Gallican Church which never withdrew its subjection to the Apostolical Sea and hath often profess'd it never will obliges me to believe this It would be temerity therefore to censure the most Illustrious Gallican Church for the publishing of this Book Far be it from Men eminent for Learning far be it from Doctors educated in the Communion of the Apostolic See far be it from a Clergy and Bishops that maintain the Catholic Faith whilst they are earnestly endeavouring to root out one Heresie to consent to the Principles of another not remembring that saying which St. Avitus Bishop of Vienne St. Avitus Viennen Episcopus in Epist ad Faustum Symmachum Senaeores in the Name of the Gallican Church hath 1160 years since consecrated to the memory of Posterity If the Papacy be called in question not a Bishop but Episcopacy will seem to shake Si Papa Urbis vocatur in dubium Episcopatus jam videbitur non Episcopus vacillare The second thing concerns our English Author whom I would not have to boast that he hath found a Patron for his Cause amongst Catholics For since he is a Minister of the English Church and acknowledges a Metropolitical Authority he must necessarily own that the French Author is no less an Adversary to him than to us For since that Author not only denys Patriarchal Authority to be of Apostolical Institution but Metropolitical also that the Dean of St. Saul's may be able to defend the Hierarchy of the English Church to be of Apostolical Institution he ought to exclude out of it not only Patriarchs but Metropolitans also and first to constitute a Church consisting only of Bishops and their inferior Clergy This I say he ought to do if he follow the judgment of the late French Author which notwithstanding we will never subscribe to For we shall ever oppose those Opinions by which we see the Rights of Churches are destroyed the receiv'd Sanctions of Synods perverted the approv'd Writings of ancient Bishops ridicul'd the venerable Testimonies of the ancient Fathers despised and the solid foundations of Ecclesiastical Polity subverted And never admit Principles of Division and Schism to be Rules of Catholic Religion And so much concerning the Treatise of a late French Writer now I proceed to shew the Errors of
General Synod had given the Second place of Dignity to the Constantinopolitan See least the Bishop of Constantinople should encroach upon these Illyrican Provinces Chap. 3. p. 114. c. TRUTHS 10. The Metropolitical Authority of the Roman Bishop was limited to the Suburbicarian Provinces as the Author Terms them his Patriarchal Authority extended to the Greater Dioceses of the West after the Constantinopolitan Council Damasius first constituted the Archbishop of Thessalonica Vicar of the Patriarchal See of Rome in the Provinces of Illyricum that the Bishop of Constantinople might not encroach upon them Before the time of Damasius the Roman See had a right to exercise Patriarchal Power by it self or by its Legates as appears in that Legates were sent by Clements the First to Corinth at the end of the First Age wherefore Honorius the Emperor did require that the priviledge of the Roman See which was long since established by the Fathers and confirm'd by the Canons should be preserv'd in Illyricum and Theodosius the Emperor commanded the Ancient Apostolical Discipline and Order by which the Roman Bishop presided over Illyricum to be kept up Chap. 3. ERRORS 11. When Perigenes the Bishop Elect was rejected at Patrae and put into the See of Corinth by the Bishop of Rome without the consent of the Provincial Synod the Bishops of Thessaly amongst whom the Chief were Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus look upon this as a notorious invasion of their Rights and therefore in a Provincial Synod they appoint another person to succeed there Chap. 3. p. 116. TRUTHS 11. Perigenes the Metropolitan of Corinth in the Province of Achaia was one Person Perrevius Bishop of a See in the Province of Thessaly not well known to us another Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus Bishops of the Province of Thessaly had no Jurisdiction ever Perigenes the Metropolitan of another Province neither doth Bonifacius the first testifie that they acted against him but against Perrevius that was lawfully ordained who appeal'd from their Sentence to Rome and was restored to his See by the Sentence of the Roman Bishop Chap. 3. ERRORS 12. The British Church did not acknowledge any Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan during the Six First Ages so that when Augustine the Monk was sent to them at the beginning of the Seventh Age Seven British Bishops who were found there and many other learned Men of the Monastery of Banchor refused to be Subject to the Apostolic See or to acknowledge Augustine but remain'd under their own Metropolitan So it appears from Bede and some Monuments set forth by Spehnan which last although the Author doth not think them necessary for the proof of what is above mention'd yet he declares that he approves of them Chap. 5. p. 357. c. TRUTHS 12. The British Church acknowledg'd an Authority Superior to that of a Motropolitan in the Six First Ages and this is so manifest that the Pests of the World Pelagius and Caelestius who were born in Britain confess'd this very thing whilst they either permitted their causes which had been decided in the Provincial Synods to be referr'd to the tribunal of the Apostolic See or did by their own proper Appeal refer them thither What Spelman cites out of the English Monument concerning the Monks of Banchor is Supposititious What Bede Relates does not shew that the British Bishops acknowledged the Metropolitical Authority as Supreme and if it did shew this it discovers that their Error was reprov'd by Miracle from Heaven so that those who persist obstinately to defend this Error are guilty of a double fault of resisting the Truth and being shameless Chap. 6. THE HEADS OF THE CHAPTERS OF THIS DISSERTATION CHAP. I. THat the British Church was instituted either by St. Peter or his Successors Pag. 1 CHAP. II. That the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the West and therein even of England and that this follows from the British Church's having receiv'd her Institution either from him or from his Priests as is prov'd by the Testimony of Innocent p. 16 CHAP. III. Although the British Church had not received 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 p. 36 CHAP. IV. Concerning the Greater Diocesses attributed to Pope Sylvester by the Council of Arles p. 57 CHAP. V. Whether the Nicene Canons establish the Metropolitan Dignity as Supreme and what is decreed in the Sixth of these Canons concerning the Patriarchal Authority p. 76 CHAP. VI. That the British Church acknowledged an Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan from the time that the Christian Religion was first planted there till such time as it was again restored by Augustine the Monk under Gregory the Great p. 91 Imprimatur si videbitur Reverendissimo Patri Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici 19. Octobris 1686. Pro Eminentissimo Cardinali CARPINEO Vicario H. Cardinalis CASANATE Imprimatur Fr. Dominicus M. Puteobonellus Sacri Apostolici Palatii Magister Ordinis Praedicatorum A DISSERTATION Concerning the AUTHORITY OF Patriarchs and Metropolitans ALthough there is something spoken in the Preface to the Reader concerning the Occasion and Design of this Dissertation yet it is so little that I think it will not be amiss if at the entring upon it I give you a more full Account of the Occasion of it and add something for the more clear Understanding of its Design This Dissertation hath its Origin from what I had written in the first Part of Antiquitas Illustrata Dissertation the Second For when I had there shew'd from many Monuments of the Ancients that was true of the whole West which Theodosius Bishop of Echinus in Thessaly said above eleven hundred and fifty years since before Boniface the Second in the Roman Synod concerning the Churches of Illyricum viz. that the Roman Bishops besides their Principality over the Churches of the whole World more especially claim'd to themselves the Government of the Western Churches this special Authority of the Roman Bishop over the West did not please a Modern English Writer that styles himself Dean of St. Paul's and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty and he took it ill that the English Church which is rent from the Communion of the Apostolic See should be concluded by me within the Bounds of the Western Patriarchate He explains his Sense of the thing in a Book intituled Origines Britannicae or The Antiquities of the British Churches which he set forth at London Anno 1685. wherein as a Minister of the English Church he takes upon him its Defence and contends that the Hierarchy of the English Church which since the Schism hath own'd Subjection only to Bishops and Metropolitans as the Superior Clergy is conformable in this to the Ancient Church Therefore he endeavours not only to shew that the English Church was Acephalic that is without a
France Spain or the interjacent Islands but Peter the Apostle or those which he or his Successors have ordain'd Priests so that 't is in vain for our Author to presume that England after so many Ages teaches otherwise and to affirm that this Testimony of Innocent doth not comprehend the British Churches De Marca understood Innocent quite in a different sense supposing that the British Islands were understood by the Islands mention'd by Innocent the Reason is because Innocent did not mention by name those Islands of the Mediterranean Sea which lye between Italy France and Africa but only mentions the interjacent Islands in general under which the British Islands adjacent to France and partly interjacent might and if we will believe antient Writers ought to be comprehended For from them it appears as is before prov'd that the Churches in the British Islands were instituted if not by Peter the Apostle or by Preachers sent by him yet at least by the Priests which his Successor Eleutherius constituted 9. Thus have I answer'd the Objection concerning Matter of Fact and now proceed to the Second which the Author urges against the Reason drawn from the Matter of Fact. Innocent so manifestly concludes from the Institution of the Western Churches that they ought to be subject to the Roman Patriarch that our Author confesses it cannot be denied Yet saith he let that be granted what connexion is there between receiving the 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 He asks the Reason of this Connexion let him hear it from Christ who would not have his Apostles to preach through the World unless they were sent for being about to ascend into Heaven he spake to them in these Words as we find in the last Chapter of Mark Go ye into all the World Mark. Chap. Last and preach the Gospel to every Creature And let him answer the Apostle Paul thus asking in his Epistle to the Romans For how shall they preach unless they are sent Epist to the Romans Doth not the Apostle here affirm that Mission is necessary in order to preaching of the Gospel Ought not all to acknowledg that there ought to be a special Authority when Churches are to be instituted by preaching and Priests and Bishops to be ordain'd So the Apostles having receiv'd Power from Heaven undertook to instruct the World by their preaching and dividing amongst themselves the Regions of the whole Earth instituted Churches of which those only obtain'd Patriarchal Dignity in which Peter either by himself or by Mark his Disciple had placed Sees He himself presided at Antioch where he erected a See which govern'd the Eastern Patriarchate He sent Mark the Evangelist his Disciple to Alexandria whose See there erected constituted a Patriarchate which in St. Athanasius's time extended its Borders as far as India interior Carolus à S. Paulo in Geographia Sacra For as Carolus à S. Paulo in his Geographia Sacra truly observes This Custom prevail'd amongst the Ancients that the Provinces which were converted to Christianity should remain subject to that Patriarch by whose Industry and Vigilance they were first converted and so Aethiopia and India interior appertain'd to the See of Alexandria because Frumentius being sent thither by St. Athanasius preach'd the Gospel instructed the People in the Faith and ordain'd their Bishops as Ruffinus testifies he had learned from Aedesius So that it ought not to seem strange to us that the See of Rome should have obtain'd the Patriarchate of the West since the Prince of the Apostles chose that City for himself and instituted Churches throughout the West and no other Apostle ordained Bishops or Priests there but he reserved this Power to himself and his Successors This therefore is the Connexion between the receiving of their Doctrine from those which were sent from Rome and the Subjection of such who were converted by them which had their Mission from the Apostolic See because those Churches owe their Institution to the special Authority of the Roman Bishop so that Innocent the First rightly said that the Churches which had their Institution from the Apostolic See ought not to attend to the Instruction of Strangers but to consult the Roman Bishop * Ne caput Institutionum videantar omittere least they might seem to omit a chief point of their Institutions 10. The Author obviates this argument p. 68 by asserting from antient Tradition out of Notkerus Notkerus Balbulus 8 Calend. Junii Author p. 59. that Lucius after he was converted leaving his Kingdom converted all Rhetia and part of Bavaria to the Christian Faith by his Preaching and Miracles If so saith our Author the British Church on the account of King Lucius his converting their Country hath as much Right to challenge Superiority over Bavaria and Rhetia as the Church of Rome hath over the British Church on the account of the Conversion of Lucius by Eleutherius The first words of the Author here are to be observed If so saith he so that he seems very much to doubt of the truth of the thing Neither can it be said that the matter of fact is evident for whether we consult Regino Abbas Prumiensis Hermannus Contractus Sigebertus Gemblacensis or other German Historians Or Galfridus Monemuthensis Mattheus Westmonasteriensis and other English Writers these latter write that Lucius died in Britain the former do not tell us that he Preach'd the Gospel in Germany and there suffer'd Martyrdom And if we look into the more ancient Martyrologies we shall not find one word in them of Lucius his dying in Germany Venerable Bede may be consulted who hath nothing either at the Third of November or any other day concerning this matter Also a more ancient Martyrology of the Western Church attributed to St. Jerom lately Printed at Lucca makes no mention of Lucius his being buried in Germany An old Martyrology set forth by Rosweidus since Baronius died no where makes mention of Lucius King of England his being the Apostle of Bavaria and Rhetia Nor is he remembred in the Martyrologies of Rhabanas Maurus Vsuardus and Ado Viennensis And Notkerus is the first of all men who hath made mention of the Apostleship of Lucius in a Martyrology who notwithstanding doubted whether Lucius King of England were the Apostle of Bavaria and Rhetia or some other Holy man named Lucius Whether saith he ad 5. Kal. Jun. it was he that was heretofore King or whatsoever servant of God it was So that the thing was doubted of in Germany it self where Notkerus wrote Notkerius in Martyrologio Sive Rex quondam ille sive quicunque servus Dei fuerit even in Notkerus his time And if it were another Lucius and not the King of England who was Apostle of Bavaria if I mistake not our Authors argument for Englands Authority over Bavaria falls to the ground which
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
they were subject to the Roman Patriarch 2. The Epistles to the Bishops of Rome to the Bishops of Thessalonica and Illyricum which the Legates of Adrian the Second and Nicholaus the Frist have made mention of were not set forth in the time of De Marca Archbishop of Paris but have been publish'd since his Death by Lucas Holstenius 3. Out of these the Testimonies of Innocent the First to Anysius Caelestine the First to Perigenes Sixtus the Third to the same as also to the Synod of Thessalonica are produced from whence it is made to appear that Theodosius Echiniensis hath rightly concluded for the Roman Bishop's Patriarchal Authority over Illyricum 4. Now least any one should conclude from the foresaid Testimonies that the British Churches were equally subject to the Roman Patriarchate with those of Illyricum the Author strives to prove that the Bishop of Thessalonica was first made Vicar of the Apostolic See in Illyricum that it might the better withstand the Bishop of Constantinople who took upon him to hear the Cause of Perigenes and that Pausanius Cyriacus and Calliopus Bishops of Thessaly opposed Pope Damasus in this thing and were therefore condemn'd by Bonifacius 5. Against which it is shew'd that the Cause of Perigenes was one thing and the Cause of Perevius another and that the three forementioned Bishops of Thessaly were not excommunicated because they withstood the Pope in the Cause of Perigenes but in that of Perevius who had been rightly ordain'd 6. The Cause of Perigenes is another thing and there might a Controversie arise by reason of this between the two Churches of New and Old Rome because the Bishop of New-Rome had assumed to himself the deciding of it and had obtain'd a Law from Theodosius the Emperor to justifie this his Vsurpation 7. The Law of Theodosius was made not against the Patriarchal Right of the Bishop of Rome but against the Vsurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople and supposes the ancient Roman Patriarchal Right over Illyricum which also Bonifacius hath not omitted to urge against the Vsurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople 8. Bonifacius desired nothing against the Vsurpation of the Constantinopolitan See but what was agreeable to the Canons and according to the ancient Order as appears by the Epistle of Honorius to Theodosius and is confirm'd by the Rescript of Theodosius wherein he revokes his above mention'd Edict 9. It may be prov'd from the Example of Illyricum that Britain is subject to the Roman Patriarchate although it had not been first instituted in Christianity by the Bishop of Rome for besides the Institution of Churches there is an ancient Custom which since we are ignorant when it first began is believed to have been derived from the time of the Apostles as is proved by the Testimony of Leo the First 10. Vpon this Apostolical Institution is founded the British Churches Subjection to the Roman Patriarch of which Agatho the Pope a hundred and five Western Bishops and all the Eastern Prelates in the sixth Synod made no doubt when they admitted the British Synods to be subordinate to the Patriarchal Synod at Rome Which Justinian the Emperor hath shew'd before Pope Agatho 's time affirming that the Roman Patriarch was the Primate of all Hesperia and long before Justinian the Synod of Arles said the same as shall be shewed in the following Chapter 1. I Have shew'd in the last Chapter that the English Church appertains to the Roman Patriarchate by Right of Institution In this Chapter I am to shew that it is subject to it although it had not receiv'd its first Institution from the Apostolic See for the Confirmation of which Truth we are to observe that the Argument for the Subjection of Churches is not only drawn from their Institution but also from the ancient Custom of the Church which since we know not the first beginning of is believ'd to have proceeded from Apostolical Prescript A great part of Illyricum was converted to the Faith by the preaching of Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles who instituted Churches and ordain'd Bishops there from whence it comes to pass that Innocent hath not reckon'd the Provinces of Illyricum amongst those which were instituted by Peter or his Successors notwithstanding the Illyrican Diocess was not exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarchate For it may be collected even from Innocent himself though he hath not named the Illyrican Church amongst those which were instituted by the Apostolic See yet that it was subject to the Roman Patriarchate According as De Marca Archbishop of Paris hath collected Lib. 1. de concordia Sacerdotii Imperii Cap. 4. Num. 3. where having related the Testimony of Innocent concerning the Churches in the West that were instituted by the Apostolic See De Marca The Diocesses saith he of the Illyrican Church are only wanting to our Account which Innocent hath not made mention of in this place It is notwithstanding certain that these no less than the rest of the Western Provinces did obey the Apostolic See and honoured it as the Head of the Churches Do not take the thing upon my Credit Let Innocent speak for himself in that Epistle which he wrote to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica which was the Metropolis of Illyricum and to the rest of the Bishops of Macedonia Innocentius Epistola ad Rufum Adverti sedi Apostolicâ—e ad quam relatio tanquam ad caput Ecclesiarum missa currebat aliquam fieri injuriam cujus adbuc in ambiguum sententia duceretur when he answer'd their Letters which were brought to him by Vitalis the Arch-Deacon I have taken notice that there hath been some Injury offer'd to the Apostolic See to which there came an Appeal being sent to it as the Head of Churches concerning which Injury the Sentence was yet accounted ambiguous And moreover in another place Innocent exercised the Patriarchal Authority in retracting the Sentence of Bubalius and Taurianus Illyrican Bishops so that there can remain no doubt but the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome extended as well to the Illyrican as to the rest of the Diocesses of the West 2. De Marca writ forty years since when other Epistles of Innocent and many other Roman Bishops concerning the Power of the Roman Patriarchate over Illyricum were not yet set forth of which the Legates that were sent by Adrian the Second to Constantinople in the Dissertation against the Vicars of the Orientals who contended that Bulgaria did not appertain to the Ordination of the Roman Church Apud Anastatium Biblioth Legati Adriani II. Vid. num XIII have made mention The Apostolic See say they as you may learn from the Decretals of the most Holy Roman Prelates hath from antient time canonically ordained and exercised Authority over both the Epiruses viz. the New and the Old all Thessaly and Dardania in which the City Dardania is now to be seen the country in which it is being now from these
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
Diocess What is more clear What is more express than this How could Constantine have writ more plainly in this case It is certain therefore that there were Diocesses in the Empire at the time of the Nicene Council which betrays our Authors Ignorance and discovers his great Error about this Matter 4. Secondly He saith that it is doubtful when Constantine distributed the Empire into Diocesses which relates nothing to the Question in hand since there were Diocesses in the Empire before its being distributed under four Praefecti Praetorio so that the Fathers of the Council of Arles might have used the Word Diocesses in their time as no body yet has made any doubt but they did They attribute Diocesses to Sylvester therefore there were then Diocesses in the Empire under the Name of which the Fathers expressed the Amplitude of Patriarchal Jurisdiction Onuphrius Panuinus giving an Account of the Division of the Provinces as it stood in the time of Hadrian the Emperor amongst other Titles presixes one to the Provinces of Italy by which he asserts Onuphrâ—â— de Imperâ—â— Romanâ— that there were seventeen Provinces or Diocesses in Italy and in the Islands which belong to it Now although it doth not appear to me by what means he knew that the Provinces were then called Diocesses yet I can make no doubt but that he found this as also all the other particulars which he there relates in ancient Monuments let us therefore lay it down for a certain Truth that the Name of Diocess was attributed even to the Provinces from the time of Hadrian himself and then no body can deny but that the Provinces were lesser Diocesses in respect to the greater of which Sextus Rufus hath made mention in his Breviary Sextus Rufus in Breviario Constantinus M. Epist ad omnes Ecclesias where we read that in the Diocess of Macedonia there were seven Provinces constituted and of which Constantine the Great hath made mention in his Epistle to the Churches calling to mind the Pontic and Asian Diocess at the time of the Nicene Council Therefore that the Fathers of the Council of Arles might give us to understand that they meant such sort of Diocesses they opposed the greater Diocesses to the lesser Patres Arelatenses in Epist Synod and told us that the greater Diocesses were held by St. Sylvester Sylvester therefore held Diocesses at the time of the Celebration of the Council of Arles and so he did not preside over a few Provinces only which constituted the lesser Diocesses but over many Tracts of the World which made the greater Diocesses and in these he obtain'd a Patriarchal Authority 5. Thirdly Our Author says that since the Nicene Council doth not mention Diocesses but Provinces it follows that this place must be corrupt but allowing the Expression genuine it implies no more than that the Bishop of Rome had then more extensive Diocesses than other Western Bishops which is not denied But before I answer to this last particular I shall with the Author 's good leave make some few Observations concerning the acception of the Word Diocesses at the time of the Council of Nice He says that the Name of Dioecesis was unknown to the Nicene Fathers and so as we have heard before that the Fathers of the Council of Arles could not have made mention of more Diocesses therefore that the place is corrupt and that instead of Majores Dioeceses greater Diocesses we ought to read Majorem Dioecesim greater Diocess But in what ancient Book I pray doth he find this manner of reading Out of what old Author hath he discover'd this If he hath learn'd this from no Manuscript no Author it must necessarily follow he has feign'd it and was the first that ever dream'd of such a thing Again if we are to substitute the Words greater Diocess and our Author believes the place is to be thus read then the Word Dioecesis was not unknown to the Council of Arles as he contradicting himself says it was He supposes indeed that admitting this Authority not to have been corrupted it follows that the Roman Bishop hath a Diocess of a greater extension than those of other Bishops whereas it really follows from hence that he hath not one Diocess only but many for so the Fathers write to St. Sylvester Qui majores Dioeceses tenes who holdest the greater Diocesses If therefore the place be sincere as it is testified to be as to these Words by those Manuscripts out of which first Pittheus afterwards Sirmondus published the Epistle in France before our time from thence it is deduced that Sylvester held many of the greater Diocesses and that the late Author de Disciplina Ecclesiae is greatly mistaken when commenting on the Words of the Council of Arles upon his own Authority without any Testimony from Antiquity he says Author de Diserâ—â—ina Eâ—clesiae Dissert 1. §. 11. Pag. 41. The word Dioeceses is not to be taken strictly here for the Diocesses of the Empire but rather for those several Provinces which the Roman Bishop govern'd so that the sense is you who preside over the greater Churches of the West shall by your Letters signifie to others on what day Easter is to be observ'd Thus saith that Author being plainly ignorant of what he writes For where will he find those greater Churches of the West within his Suburbicarian Bounds Indeed he will find the Roman Church but this is but one and not more Churches Moreover the Council doth not say greater Churches but greater Diocesses which if you inquire after the Fathers themselves plainly point them out to you since being assembled together out of the Diocesses of Italy France Africa Britain and Spain they refer their Decrees to Pope Sylvester and affirm not only in their Synodical Epistle but also in their first Canon that he ought to promulgate them 6. Canon I. Concilii Arelatensis 1. Vidmum XXV I shall cite the Canon which Sirmondus hath set forth in these Words Concerning the Observation of Easter and the Lord's Day that it may be observ'd the same Day and Time throughout the whole World and that you may direct Letters to all according to the Custom So Sirmondus delivers it to whose reading of the Words all the ancient Manuscripts do not agree for that which is kept in the Library of the Queen of Sweden Codex MS. Bibl. Râ—ginae â—ucciae being six hundred years old instead of per omnem Orbem observetur that it may be observ'd throughout the whole World runs thus Per omnem Vrbem à nobis observaretur that it may be observ'd by us throughout every City The Manuscript in the Vatican Library which is nine hundred years old and of the greatest Authority hath it thus Codex MS. Bibl. Paâ—aâ—â—â— Per Vrbem omnem à nobis observetur that it may be observ'd by us in every City From which Books it may be gather'd that the Fathers of the Council
of Arles sent their Decrees to Sylvester that he might publish them throughout Africa Spain Britain France and Italy according to the ancient Custom which shews a special Authority of Sylvester over the forementioned Diocesses of the West acknowledged by the Fathers in their Epistle to him since they would have their Decrees chiefly divulg'd to all by him who held the greater Diocesses Here indeed our Author moves some difficulties against Baronius Baronius A. D. 314. n. 68. who concluded from this referring of the Aâ—â—s of the Council to Pope Sylvesler that the Pope hath a Power of confirming the Decrees of Councils Baronius saith the Author had good luck to find out the necessity of the Pope's Confirmation here whereas they plainly tell him they had already decreed them by common consent and sent them to him to divulge them i. e. as Petrus de Marca saith Pet. de Marca de Concord l. 7. c. 14. n. 2. as the Emperors sent their Edicts to their Praefecti Praetorio Was that done to confirm them Thus says our Author admitting de Marca's Interpretation which seems not well to agree to this place Yet supposing it to be true did not the Emperors acknowledge some special Authority to have been committed to the Praefecti Praetorio over the forementioned Diocesses when they entrusted them with the Promulgation of the Laws through these Diocesses of the Empire Since no body can gainsay this how can our Author deny that the Roman Patriarch had a special Authority over the Diocesses of the West under his Charge through which the Fathers of the Council of Arles offer him the Decrees to be published Could this be done without acknowledging any greater Authority in him If Sylvester had no Jurisdiction over the Diocesses of the West then why did not the Council commit the Publication of the Decrees to the several Metropolitans Why did it not send Letters concerning them to all the Provinces Why did it make this Sylvester's Business Do not the Fathers declare in the first Canon that they did this because it was according to ancient Custom 7. Our Author cannot deny this but he objects Page 84. that the Authority of declaring on what day Easter should be observ'd was taken away from the Bishop of Rome in the Nicene Council The Council of Arles saith he decreed Can. 1. as to Easter-day that it should be observ'd on the same Day and Time throughout the World and that the Bishop of Rome should give notice of the Day according to Custom But this latter part was repealed as Binnius confesses by the Council of Nice which refer'd this Matter to the Bishop of Alexandria But I wonder how our Author could cite Binnius for the repealing of this Canon who doth not at all write that it was repealed For Binnius only says that the Office of computing Easter-day was committed to the Bishop of Alexandria by the Council of Nice and that he should tell the day to the Bishop of Rome But he does not say that the Bishop of Alexandria had any thing to do in the publishing this day Leo Magnus Epist 64. ad Marcianum Vid. num XXVI by sending his Letters through the Western Diocesses Let us hear what Leo the First saith in his 64th Epistle to Marcianus the Emperor concerning this Matter For the Feast of Easter in which the Sacrament of Mans Salvation is chiefly contained although it be always to be celebrated in the first Moâ—â— yet the Course of the Moon is so changable that for the 〈◊〉 part the Election of that most sacred Day is doubtful Hence what should not most commonly comes to pass that all Churches which ought to be as one do not observe it at the same time The Holy Fathers therefore have made it their endeavour to take away the occasion of this Error by committing the whole care of this Matter to the Bishop of Alexandria because the Skill in this Computation seem'd to be receiv'd amongst the Aegyptians from ancient Tradition by which Skill the Apostolic See was to be inform'd on what day the aforesaid Solemnity fell out yearly that the Knowledge thereof might be generally conveyed to the Churches more remote The last Words of Leo are to be taken notice of for from these it plainly appears that the Knowledge of the Day communicated to the Apostolic See by the Patriarch of Alexandria was yet to be published by the Apostolic See in the Churches which were more remote from Alexandria as the Western Churches were Leo the First in his 9th Epistle to Ravennius Bishop of Arles writes that this did belong to his own Charge by Divine Institution and by the Tradition of the Fathers Innocentius I. Epist 2. Vid. num XXVII and we have an eminent Testimony of this Truth in the second Epistle of Innocent the First to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage wherein he writes thus I have writ this Epistle to you beforehand concerning the Computation of Easter-day for another I mean the next Year For whereas almost the sixteenth Moon for it is something less is reckon'd before the eleventh day of the Kalends of April and also the twenty third comes sometime before the fourth day of the same Kalends I judg'd that Easter was to be celebrated the second day of the said Kalends because we know no Easter-day before this ever to have happen'd on the twenty third Moon I have explain'd and set forth the Tenor of my Opinion Now it will be your Wisdom my dear Brother and Consort to treat of this very thing in the most Religious Synod together with the unanimous our Fellow-priests so that if there be nothing to be alter'd in our Disposition you may write fully and plainly to us to the intent that we may now prescribe the determinate Day of Easter by our Letters beforehand as the Custom is to be kept by all at the proper time You see that the Computation only belong'd to the Bishop of Alexandria and that this was to be confirm'd by the Judgment of the Bishop of Rome and if his Opinion was approv'd the Publication of it in the Western Diocesses appertain'd to the Bishops of Rome and therefore is us'd by him also to be prescrib'd through Africa The Words ex more according to Custom are to be taken notice of implying that the same Custom which had been in the time of the Council of Arles was continued in the time of Innocent the First without any Interruption So that what our Author hath writ that the Council of Nice brought in another Custom concerning this Matter is false 8. It is true indeed that our Author together with Sirmondus doth not read the Words of the Canon of the Council of Arles after this manner Canon 1. Arelatensis Per omnem Vrbem à nobis observetur that it may be observ'd through every City by us but Per omnem Orbem throughout the whole World as it is in most Manuscripts and especially
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
Heresie came late into Britain and was first brought thither by Agricola the Son of a Pelagian Bishop about the time of Pope Celestine for it appears from Bede that Britain was free from that Heresie during the whole time that Innocent and Zosimus were Popes which cannot be thought to proceed from any other Ground than this viz. that they had receiv'd the Decrees of Innocent and Zosimus 6. But when Agricola spread the Pelagian Heresie in Britain the Apostolic See making use of its Authority sent Bishops into Britain whom Britain receiv'd and by their help was not only converted from Heresie in those parts where they were Christians but likewise from Infidelity in the Parts where the Christian Faith was extinguished Indeed Venerable Bede relates Lib. 1. Hist Gentis Anglorum Cap. 17. that the Britains implored the Aid of the French Bishops against the Pelagian Heresie and that Lupus Bishop of Troies and Germanus Bishop of Auxerre came into Britain from France whence our Author Pag. 89. deduces that the Authority of the Roman Church was not acknowledg'd by the Britains But whilst he cites Bede let him also consult that Writer from whom Bede might have borrowed his History viz. St. Prosper who ad Consulatum Florentini Dionysii gives us an account of the Matter of Fact in these Words S. Prosper in Chronico Vid. num XLIV Agricola the Son of Severianus a Pelagian Bishop being himself also a Pelagian corrupted the British Churches by the Insinuation of his Doctrine but Pope Celestine being solieited by Palladius the Deacon sends Germanus Bishop of Auxerre as his Legate and having expell'd the Heretics he instructs the Britains in the Catholic Faith. Thus St. Prosper who for his Age might have seen and spoken with Palladius Deacon to Pope Celestine who was also at Rome under Leo the Great Successor to Celestine and Notary to the said Leo and so might have read in the Registry of the Roman Church the authentic Instrument wherein Germanus was constituted Delegate of the Apostolic See for Britain so that there can be no question made of the Authority of this Fathers Testimony Nor imports it that Bede says Germanus came together with Lupus into this Island at the Instance of the Britains and that they were chosen by the Council of Verolam to dispute with the Pelagians For as Baronius the Parent of Annals rightly observes this doth not at all hinder but that Pope Celestine made Germanus Bishop of Auxerre his Delegate at the Instance of Palladius the Roman Deaconâ— and that Germanus relying upon the Apostolical Authority came to compose the differences of the British Church and went out of his own proper Diocese into the Dioceses of others which as the Monuments of those times inform us was a frequent practice 7. S. Prosper Vid. num XLV Venerab Bâ—da lib. 1. cap. 133. Vid. num XLVI Matthaeus Westmonasteriensis Vid. num XLVII For Prosper relates that two years after the mission of Germanus Antisiodorensis Bassus and Antiochus being Consuls Palladius was ordain'd by Pope Celestine and sent the first Bishop to the Scots who believ'd in Christ Venerable Bede tells us the very same thing lib. 1. cap. 13. asserting at the Eighth year of Theodosius junior that Palladius was the first Bishop that was sent by Celestine Bishop of the Roman Church to the Scots believing in Christ After Palladius Matthaeus Westmonasteriensis mentions St. Patrick as sent by the same Pope in these words Pope Celestine after he had heard of the death of Palladius Theodosius and Valentinian being Emperors sent Patrick to display the Banner of the Holy Cross to the Gentiles who when he came to Britain preach'd the word of God there and was kindly receiv'd by the Inhabitants of that Island Then going into Scotland he preach'd Gods word which could not be restrained Indeed he adds that he was advanced to the degree of a Bishop by Matthew Archbishop and this also might be done by the command of Celestine in the same manner as we shall see anon Augustine was ordain'd by the Bishop of Arles upon the Order of Pope Gregory Moreover Marianus Scotus asserts that St. Patrick was ordain'd Archbishop of Scotland by Celestine and that all Ireland was converted by him for which we have not only the testimony of Sigebert and other foreign Writers but likewise of many English Authors as the Bishop of Armagh hath observ'd p. 838 c. where he cites their testimonies and amongst the rest that of Joceline the Monk who hath placed St. Patricks life at the latter end of the Twelfth Age which Henschenius puts at the 17th day of March and doth not only mention that St. Patrick was created Bishop by Pope Celestine but likewise that he came again to Rome in the time of Pope Hilary to give an account of his mission who Jocelinus in vâ—â—â— S. Patricii Vid. num XLVIII saith he giving him power to act in his stead and constituting him his Legate by the Sanction of his Authority confirm'd all that he had done constituted or settled in Ireland From all which it is clearly proved that the Apostolic See did make use of its Authority in governing the British Churches by its Legates and that Britain did acknowledg this Authority till the Invasion of the Saxons which was after the time of Celestine 8. After that upon the coming of the Saxons into Britain the Churches had been demolished the Altars broken down and the Priests dispersed Gregory the first sent Augustine the Monk to restore the Catholic Religion gone to decay in the chief Provinces under the Tyranny of the Heathen Princes for a long series of years and Britain receiv'd and honour'd him as their Apostle Venerable Bede lib. 7. cap. 28. testifies that Augustine was ordain'd Archbishop of the English Nation by Etherius Archbishop of Arles according to the commands he had received from the Holy Father Gregory Venerab Bede lib. 1. Hist c. 28. Auctor vitae Gregory Magni vide num XLIX Augustine was therefore ordain'd by the command of Gregory the Great because Gregory being the chief Bishop in the whole World presided over those Churches which were long since converted to the true faith as Spelman relates Tomo 1. Conciliorum Angliae ad anum Christi 597. ex vita Gregorii lib. 2. cap. 2. per Bedam conscripta Also at the beginning of the Sixth Age Augustine the first Bishop of Canterbury when he made it his business to restore the Discipline of the English Church consulted Gregory who by vertue of his Apostolical Authority gave Rules according to which the Discipline of the English Church was Established By virtue of this Authority Gregory commanded Augustine to create two Metropolitans the one at London and the other at York together with twenty four Bishops and order'd that they should be subject to Augustine so long as he continued as his Legate All which is a plain evidence that the Bishops exercised a supream
Apostolic Authority over England and that not only the ancient Britains but also the Saxons as soon aâ— they were Converted to the Faith acknowledg'd this with due veneration 9. And so much of some ancient Monuments from whence we have deduced that the British Nation did acknowledge the Popes Authority in the first Ages It now only remains that we return an Answer to the Objections raised from the Manuscript set forth by Spelman and the Acts of the British Synod which our Author cites out of Venerable Bede And first as to the Manuscript set forth by Spelman it doth not seem to be so ancient but that it might have been written since the Schism But saith Spelman at what time this Manuscript was written Spelmans Tom. 1. Conciliorum dugliae or by what Author I cannot learn either from the Manuscript it self or by any other means but I believe the Book may be found in the Cottonian Library Spelman tells us that he had no certainty concerning the Author of this Manuscript But on the contrary plainly intimates that he was in great doubt concerning the matter moreover since he confesses he was ignorant of the time when this Manuscript was written we may easily gather from hence that it was not ancient Nay the Style manifestly discovers that it is modern and could never have been Penned in the time of Augustine the Monk and of Gregory the Great Lastly it is there affirmed that the Britans and Dinoth the Abbot answer'd Augustine that they would own no Subjection to him Monumertum Anglicanum supposititium because they were under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk. Whereas it is manifest that there was no Archbishop of Caerleon upon Vsk at that time and that the Metropolitan Jurisdiction had for above a hundred years before been transferr'd to Menevia As to the acts of the Synod which the Author cites against us out of Venerable Bede others have heretofore made answer that there was no dispute between Augustine and the British Bishops concerning the Primacy of the Bishops of Rome but only about some Traditions of their Church concerning which Augustine argued in this manner with the Bishops Indeed saith he to them Venerab Bedâ—â— lib. 2. Hist cap. 2. Vid. num L. you do not only act contrary to our custom but likewise to that of the Vniversal Church in many things and yet if you will comply with us in these three things the observation of Easter at the right time the administring Baptism in which we are regenerated to God according to the Rite of the Holy Roman and of the Apostolic Church and in the joyning with us to preach the Gospel to the English we will bear with you in all other things wherein you act contrary to our custom But they made answer that they would not do any of these things nor accept of him as their Archbishop Thus far Bede from whose words it is apparent if I mistake not that the question was not concerning the Primacy of the Roman Bishop but about Augustines Metropolitical jurisdiction over them and that the British Bishops only contended that they ought not to pay subjection to Augustine as their Archbishop And although upon this account they refused to receive some other things that were of Ecclesiastical Tradition yet in this they did not oppose the Roman Church only but the Churches throughout the whole World where they were said to act many things inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity concerning which Venerable Bede in his Second Book above mentioned gives us this relation Ibid. Vid. num LI. When after a long disputation held they could not be brought either by the supplications perswasions or reprehensions of Augustine and his Companions to give their assent but rather chose to prefer their own Traditions before those of all the Churches which agree with one another in Christ throughout the whole world besides The Holy Father Augustine put an end to this long and troublesom contention by saying thus Let us beseech God who makes men to live in unanimity in their Fathers house that he would vouchsafe to discover to us by a sign from Heaven which Tradition is to be follow'd and which way we ought to take to arrive at his Kingdom let some Person that labours under an infirmity be brought and let his faith and works be believ'd to be devoted to God and be followed by all by whose prayers he shall be cured Which when his Adversaries although with reluctancy yielded to a certain blind man of English Race was brought who being offered to the British Priests for a cure and obtaining none by their Ministry at length Augustine as obliged upon so just an occasion bends his knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ beseeching him that he would restore the sight of the blind man which he had lost and by enlightning the body of one man irradiate the minds of many Believers with the light of spiritual grace The blind man forthwith had his sight restored and Augustine is by all proclaim'd a Preacher of Divine light Whereupon the Britains confess'd they had plainly found that way of Righteousness to be true which Augustine taught Thus far Venerable Bede who no where mention'd any Controversie about the Popes Supremacy but concerning Traditions viz. the observation of Easter and some certain Rites in the administration of Baptism as is above remark'd 10. But though these things are true and confirm'd to be so by the Testimony of Venerable Bede yet let us suppose that amongst other things the Bishop of Romes Primacy was also controverted who sees not that the acts reorded in Venerable Bede fully confute our Authors Plea The acts testifie that the Britains contended about Traditions which they prefer'd before all Churches which agree amongst themselves in Christ over the world so that if the question was concerning the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome it is manifest that all the Churches in the World did then ackowledge the Primacy of Peters Successor as Gregory the Great also testifies Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Vid. num LII lib. 4. Epist 32. writing to Mauritius For 't is manifest saith he to all that knowthe Gospel that the care of the whole Church was by the word of our Lord committed to S. Peter the Prince of all the Apostles Therefore in the time of Gregory the Great all that were acquainted with the Gospel knew the Successor of Peter the Prince of the Apostles whom the faithful from the very first Ages of Christianity styled the Bishop of Bishops so that the Britains opposed his Primacy against the judgment of the whole Catholic World. Supposing therefore that the Britains amongst other Traditions rejected also that of the Primacy of the Roman Bishop what could be gather'd from hence but that as Baronius the Parent of Annals hath observed after the Saxons had broken in upon them they deserted the Doctrines and Rites of the Catholic