who were ordained in Schism too they determined in their Synodical Epistle that they should be received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a more sacred Imposition of hands But it is not agreed whether this implies a Reordination or not Valesius thinks it doth but others take it onely for a simple Benediction or the Laying on of hands upon Reconciliation to the Church And Godfrey Hermant hath at large proved Reordination in this Case to have been against the sense of the Church wherein he hath the advantage of Valesius as is evident to any one that reflects on the Occasion of the Luciferian Schism which began upon the Council of Alexandria's allowing the Ordination of the Arian Bishops And it would be very strange if Schism were more destructive to Orders than plain Heresie But the Novatian Bishop was to have no Jurisdiction where there was one of the Catholick Church Can. 8. Among the Canons which relate to the Settlement and Polity of the Church these three are very material 1. About Election and Consecration of Bishops 2. About Provincial Synods 3. About the Bounds of Jurisdiction For the seventh Canon is but a Complement to the Bishop of Jerusalem giving him the honour of a Metropolitane without the Jurisdiction 1. About Election and Consecration of Bishops The Canon is That a Bishop ought chiefly to be constituted by all the Bishops in the Province But if this be too difficult either through urgent Occasions or the length of the way yet three must be present for that purpose and have the Consent of the absent under their Hands and so to make the Consecration But the Confirmation of all things done in the Province must be reserved to the Metropolitane Can. 4. By this Canon the Government of the Church came now to be settled under Constantine and with his Approbation And here we find That every Province had a number of Bishops within it self who were to take care of the Ecclesiastical Government of it but so as the consent of the Metropolitane were obtained So that the Rights of Metropolitans as to the chief Ecclesiastical Government of every Province are hereby secured For the last Clause doth not merely refer to the Consecration of Bishops But takes in that with other Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Province The onely difficulty lies in the first Clause What is meant by the Bishops of the Province constituting a new Bishop Whether the right of Election is hereby devolved to them or whether it be onely the right of Consecration upon the Election of the People Which is therefore here fit to be enquired into because the ancient Practice of the British Churches may from hence be gathered which we may justly presume was agreeable to the Nicene Canon And because the signification of the Greek word is ambiguous we shall first see what Sense the Greek Writers do put upon it Balsamon interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is chusing by Suffrage And he in plain terms saith by this Canon the right of Election was taken from the People and given to the Bishops of the Province And it is not Balsamon alone as some imagine that was of that Opinion but Zonaras Aristenus Matthaeus Blastares as any one may find But we are told If they are all of that mind they are greatly mistaken because this Council in their Synodical Epistle to those of Alexandria and Egypt declare their Iudgment That if any Bishops decease others reconciled to the Church may be admitted in their room if they be worthy and the People do chuse them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One would think by this That the Council of Nice had put this matter wholly into the Peoples hands but if we look into that Synodical Epistle we shall find it much otherwise For the case was this The Council declares their tenderness towards those that had been made Bishops and Priests in the Meletian Schism allowing their Orders upon due Submission but not to exercise any Jurisdiction to the prejudice of those in Possession But if any Bishops died those Meletian Bishops might succeed but with these three Provisoes 1. That they be judged worthy By whom by the People No certainly For then there had been no need of the following Clause but this Judgment belonged to the Bishops of the Province according to this Canon 2. If the People chuse them What People The Meletian party No They are excluded because of their being in Schism from having any thing to doe in the Choice although they were admitted to Communion For they are forbidden before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put up the names of the Persons to be chosen or to hold up their hands And so all right of Suffrage was taken from them on the account of their Schism So that what right of choice was in the People it was onely in the sound and untainted Party and after all it was no more but a Nomination by the People For the true right of Election was still in the Bishops For 3. all this signified nothing without the consent of the Bishop of Alexandria which immediately follows the other And is it a fair thing to mention that Clause onely in the middle and to leave out the two other which reduce it to a bare Nomination and the Meletian party excluded too Would those who contend among us for popular Elections like them upon these terms It is one thing for the People to propose or nominate Persons to be chosen And another for them to have the right of Election And it is one thing for a Person chosen to have the consent of the People and another for them to have the Power to reject him because he doth not please them And again it is one thing for the People to be allowed to enjoy some Privileges till the Inconveniences of them have made them be taken away by just Laws And another for them to challenge such a right as inherent in themselves and without which there lies no obligation on them to submit If these things were better understood it would allay some mens heats about these matters For granting that in the time of the Council of Nice the People had the liberty of proposing names or objecting against the Persons to be chosen And although their consent were generally desired yet all this doth not put the right of Election in them For all that they could doe signified nothing without the Consent of the Bishops and Metropolitane and none are properly said to chuse but those upon whose Judgment the Determination depends the rest do but propose and offer Persons to be chosen So that the utmost the People could have by this Canon was a right of Nomination Which upon Seditions and Tumults was justly alter'd And there can be no Plea for resuming it unless it be proved to be a divine and unalterable Right which can never be done nor is it so much as pretended by those who
Council of Nice So that all foreign Jurisdiction is excluded by this Canon And the British Churches had a full Power within themselves to end all Causes that did arise within their own Provinces And it was mere usurpation in any Foreign Bishop to interpose in any differences in the British Churches Because the Council of Nice had circumscribed the Liberty of Appeals to Provincial Synods And this was it which made the African Fathers so stout in defence of their just Rights against the manifest incroachments of the Bishop of Rome and the British Churches had as great Privileges and as just Rights in these matters as the African Churches 3. About settling the ancient Bounds of Jurisdiction as to Patriarchal Churches in the famous sixth Canon Which hath been the occasion of so many warm Debates In the former Canon the Nicene Fathers fixed the general Right of Appeals And in this Canon they settle the particular Bounds of Patriarchal Jurisdiction according to ancient Custome So that none ought to violate the Privileges which Churches had hitherto enjoy'd The Words are Let ancient Customs prevail for the Bishop of Alexandria to have Jurisdiction over Egypt Libya and Pentapolis Because the Bishop of Rome hath a like Custome Likewise in Antioch and other Provinces let the Privileges of Churches be preserved Let no man be made a Bishop without the consent of his Metropolitane If Differences arise let the Majority of Votes determine In this Canon there are three things principally design'd 1. To confirm the ancient Privileges of some of the greater Sees as Rome Alexandria and Antioch 2. To secure the Privileges of other Churches against their encroachments upon them 3. To provide for the quiet establishment of Metropolitane Churches which last is so plain that it will need no farther discourse But the other two are of great consequence to our design 1. To confirm the ancient Privileges of some of the greater Sees which had gotten the extent of more than a bare Metropolitane Power to themselves as is plain in the case of Alexandria which seems to have been the occasion of this Canon Not merely from the Schism of Meletius as is commonly thought which the Council took care of another way in the Synodical Epistle to the Churches of Egypt But because so large a Jurisdiction as had been exercised by the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome and Antioch seem'd repugnant to the foregoing Canon about Provincial Synods It is true that Meletius after the Schism did consecrate Bishops in Egypt in opposition to the Bishop of Alexandria But the question between them was not concerning the Bounds of Jurisdiction but about the Validity of Meletius his deposition by Peter of Alexandria Which Meletius not regarding fell into a Schism and to maintain this Schism he consecrated near Thirty Bishops as appear'd by the list he gave in to Alexander after the Council of Nice extant in Athanasius Whereby it is evident That Meletius his Schism could not be the Occasion of this Canon For that Schism did not at all relate to the several Provinceâ— of Egypt here mention'd which would have continued if the Bishop of Alexandria's Authority had been confined to a single Province and what stop could it put to the Schism to say his Authority extended over all the Roman Provinces in Egypt For the question was Who had the Authority not How far it extended But upon the former Canon about Provincial Synods there was a very just occasion to add this concerning the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome For if no Salvo had been made for them as to the largeness of their Jurisdiction the next thing had been for all the Provincial Synods to have immediately cast off all respect to them except onely those of their own Province Now in Egypt here are three distinct Provinces mention'd as subject to the Bishop of Alexandria viz. Egypt Libya and Pentapolis And so the Nicene Fathers reckon them in their Epistle to the Churches of Egypt and in these Athanasius mentions an hundred Bishops But sometimes he names onely Egypt and Libya as in his Epistle to the African Bishops sometimes Egypt and the two Libya's and in both comprehending Thebais under Egypt sometimes he names Thebais and several times as it is here onely Egypt Libya and Pentapolis Which as Justellus saith comprehend the whole Egyptian Diocese But Ammianus Marcellinus reckons them otherwise viz. Egypt Thebais and Libya to which Posterity he saith added Augustamnica and Pentapolis But Pentapolis was not comprehended under Libya being always a distinct Province and by the Division of Augustus was under the Proconsul of Crete by the Name of Cyrenaica However Epiphanius takes in Libya Pentapolis Thebais Ammoniaca and Mareotis And saith plainly That all the Provinces of Egypt were under the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria And this he saith was the Custome before the Council of Nice For he speaks of the quarrel between Peter Bishop of Alexandria and Meletius then Bishop of Thebais of whom he saith That he was next to the Bishop of Alexandria but in subjection to him all Ecclesiastical matters being referred to him For it is the Custome for the Bishop of Alexandria to have the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over all Egypt By which it is plain that the Bishop of Alexandria had then a true Patriarchal power by ancient Custome i. e. an Ecclesiastical Authority over the Bishops in several Provinces answering to the Power which the Praefectus Augustalis had over them in the Civil Government It is not at all material whether the name of Patriarch or Diocese in that sense as it takes in the extent of Patriarchal Jurisdiction were then in use for it is the thing we enquire after and not the use of words And if the Bishop of Alexandria had at that time the Power of Consecration of Bishops of calling Councils of receiving Appeals throughout all Egypt no men of Sense can deny that he had a true Patriarchal power I grant he had no Metropolitanes then under him in the several Provinces But what then the manner of Administration of the Patriarchal power might be different then from following times but the extent of the power is the thing in question Either then the Bishop of Alexandria had a barely Metropolitical power or Patriarchal If barely Metropolitical then it could not reach beyond one Province If it extended to more Provinces with full Jurisdiction then it was Patriarchal And it is a wonder to me some learned men in their warm Debates about this Canon could not discern so plain a Truth But it is often said That there were no such things as Patriarchs at this time in the Church nor any Dioceses here taken notice of as they imply an Vnion of several Provinces under a Patriarchal Jurisdiction Suppose there were not under those Names but a Jurisdiction over several Provinces there was in the Bishop of Alexandria which is a true Patriarchal power and Appeals were
brought to him out of the several Provinces as appears not onely by the plain Testimony of Epiphanius in the case of Meletius but by the Jurisdiction exercised by Dionysius over Pentapolis long before the Council of Nice And Athanasius saith the Care of those Churches then belong'd to the Bishop of Alexandria If it be said That there were then no Metropolitanes under the Bishop of Alexandria but he was the sole Metropolitane and therefore this was no Patriarchal but a Metropolitane power I answer 1. This doth not solve the difficulty but rather makes it greater because it doth more overthrow the Metropolitane Government of the Church here settled by the Council of Nice For then there were several Provinces without Metropolitanes How then could the Canons here made be ever observed in them as to the Consecration of Bishops and Provincial Synods 2. I do confess there was something peculiar in the case of the Bishop of Alexandria For all the Provinces of Egypt were under his immediate care which was Patriarchal as to Extent but Metropolitical in the Administration And so was the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome at the time which is the true reason of bringing the Custome of Rome to justifie that of Alexandria For as it is well observed by Christianus Lupus The Bishop of Rome had then no Metropolitanes under him within the Provinces subject to his Iurisdiction and so all Appeals lay immediately from the several Bishops to him And therein lay the exact parallel between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria So that I do not question but the first part of this Canon was brought in as a Proviso to the former which put the last resort into Provincial Synods For Alexander Bishop of Alexandria could not but think himself extremely concerned in this matter and although he prevailed against Arius in matter of Doctrine yet if he had gone home so much less than he came thither having great part of his Authority taken from him by Provincial Synods this would have weakned his Cause so much in Egypt that for his sake the Nicene Fathers were willing to make an Exception as to the general Rule they had laid down before Which proved of very ill consequence afterwards For upon this encouragement others in following Councils obtained as large Privileges though without pretence of Custome and the Church of Rome though but named occasionally here to avoid envy yet improved this to the utmost advantage And the Agents of the Bishop of Rome had the impudence in the Council of Chalcedon to falsifie the Title of this Canon and to pretend a Supremacy owned by it which was as far from the intention of this Council as a limited Patriarch is from being Head of the Church And it is impossible for them with all their Arts and Distinctions they have used to reconcile this Canon with an universal and unbounded Supremacy in the Bishop of that Church For it would be like the saying that the Sheriff of Yorkshire shall have Jurisdiction over all three Ridings because the King of England hath power over all the Nation What Parallel is there between these two But if the Clause be restrained to his Patriarchal power then we are certain the Council of Nice did suppose the Bishop of Rome to have onely a limited power within certain Provinces Which according to Ruffinus who very well understood the Extent of the Bishop of Romes Jurisdiction was onely to the Suburbicary Churches Which is the greater Diocese mention'd by the Council of Arles it so very much exceeding the Diocese of any Western Bishop besides And it is observable that Athanasius as he calls Milan the Metropolis of Italy i. e. of the Italick Diocese so he calls Rome the Metropolis of Romania i. e. of the Roman Diocese But the Council of Nice fixing the last Appeal to Provincial Synods in other Places utterly overthrows a patriarchal as well as unlimited Jurisdiction where ancient Custome did not then prevail 2. This Canon was designed to secure the Privileges of other Churches For that is the general nature of Exceptions to make the Rule more firm in cases not excepted So that all Churches are to enjoy their just Rights of having the last resort to Provincial Synods that cannot be brought within these Exceptions allow'd by the Council of Nice And here we fix our Right as to the British Churches that they were not under any Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome before the Council of Nice i. e. That he never had the Authority to consecrate the Metropolitanes or Bishops of these Provinces That he never called them to his Councils at Rome That he had no Appeals from hence That the British Bishops never owned his Jurisdiction over them and therefore our Churches were still to enjoy their former Privileges of being govern'd by their own Provincial Synods It was upon this ground the Cyprian Bishops made their Application to the Council of Ephesus Because the Bishop of Antioch did invade their Privileges contrary to the Nicene Canons pretending to a Right to consecrate their Metropolitane which they knew very well was a design to bring their Churches in subjection to him The Council upon hearing the Cause declared their opinion in favour of the Cyprian Privilege and not onely so but declared it to be a common Cause that concerned other Churches which were bound to maintain their own Rights against all Vsurpations And that no Bishops should presume to invade anothers Province And if they did usurp any authority over them they were bound to lay it down as being contrary to the Canons Savouring of Worldly ambition and destructive of that Liberty which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us with his own Bloud And therefore the Council decreed That every Province should enjoy its own Rights pure and inviolable which it had from the beginning according to the ancient Custome This important Canon is passed over very slightly by Baronius and others but Carolus à Sancto Paulo saith it proceeded upon a false suggestion although the Bishops of Cyprus do most solemnly avow the truth of their ancient Privilege Christianus Lupus imputes the Decree to the Partiality of the Council against the Bishop of Antioch although he confesses they insisted upon the Nicene Canons Which even Leo I. in his eager Disputes with Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople pleads for as inviolable and as the Standard of the Rights of Churches And by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus all Churches are bound to stand up for their own Rights against the Usurpations of foreign Bishops But Joh. Morinus apprehending the force of this consequence makes it his business to overthrow it by shewing that this was a particular and occasional thing and therefore not to be made an Example to other Churches A twofold occasion he assigns First the difficulty of Passage by Sea from Cyprus to Antioch especially in Winter when it was very possible a Metropolitane
might die and rather than live so long without one they chose to set up one themselves Another is the fourty years Schism in the Church of Antioch between Euzoius Meletius and Paulinus But these are onely slight and frivolous Evasions For the Cyprian Bishops never alledged the first Inconveniencie nor did the Bishop of Antioch the second No not when Alexander was unanimously chosen as Morinus confesseth and made his Complaint of the Cyprian Privilege to Innocentius I. as may be seen by his 18 Epistle To whom the Pope gave an ignorant Answer as appears by Morinus himself For he pretends that the Cyprian Bishops had broken the Nicene Canons in consecrating their own Metropolitane because saith he The Council of Nice had set the Church of Antioch not over any Province but over the Diocese By which he must mean the Eastern Diocese within which Cyprus was comprehended But there is not one word of the Diocese in the Nicene Canons and these things are refer'd to ancient Customs as Morinus acknowledgeth And he saith the Diocese of the Orient as distinguished from Asiana and Pontica was not settled at the time of the Nicene Council And yet he brings the Testimony of Innocentius to disprove the allegation of the Cyprian Bishops when he confesses that he was so mistaken in the Nicene Canons on which he grounds that Right And the Cyprian Bishops had the Nicene Canons to plead for themselves as the general Council of Ephesus thought who understood them far better than Innocentius seems to have done If what he saith had been true it is not to be thought that the Council of Ephesus would have determin'd in favour of the Cyprian Bishops But Morinus urges against them 1. That they named onely three Bishops Troilus Sabinus and Epiphanius But do they not ayer that it had been always so from the Apostles time 2. That no one pleaded for the Bishop of Antioch What then If they were satisfied of the truth of their Allegation the Nicene Council had already determin'd the case 3. They onely doe it conditionally if it were so But they enjoy'd their Privilege by virtue of it which shews it could not be disproved 4. The Cyprian Privilege was granted in Zeno's time upon finding the Body of St. Barnabas But it is evident they enjoy'd it before by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus And it was not properly a Privilege For that implies a particular exemption But it was a Confirmation of their just Rights And not onely as to them but as to all Provincial Churches So that this Decree is the Magna Charta of Metropolitane Churches against any Incroachments upon their Liberties And so the Council thought it when it appoints all Metropolitanes to take Copies of it and voids all Acts that should be made against it It is necessary now to enquire whether the Bishop of Rome had a Patriarchal power over the British Churches before the Council of Nice And the onely way to doe that is to examine the several Patriarchal rights which were allow'd in the Church And if the Marks of none of them do appear We have reason to conclude he had no Patriarchal power For however some urge the Conversion of Britain by Eleutherius as a Pretence to the Bishop of Rome's Authority yet allowing it to be true no man of understanding can pretend to derive a Patriarchal power from thence unless there were a concurrence of Jurisdiction from that time Neither were it of force if Saint Peter himself had preached the Gospel here and settled the Bishops of these Churches For by the same reason there could have been no Patriarchates at Antioch or Alexandria where he is supposed to have placed Saint Mark but if notwithstanding the Bishops of those Churches had a true Patriarchal power Then so might the Metropolitanes of the British Churches have their proper Rights Although Saint Peter himself had founded these Churches Morinus saith The Patriarchal power consisted in these four things 1. In the Consecration of Metropolitanes and the Confirmation of other Bishops 2. In calling Councils out of the several Provinces under his Iurisdiction 3. In receiving Appeals from Provincial Synods 4. In the Delegation of persons with authority from him to act in the several Provinces The first is that upon which the rest are founded As we see in the case of the Bishop of Antioch and the Bishops of Cyprus For if he could have carried the Point of Consecration of the Bishop of Constance he knew all the rest would follow In the Patriarchate of Alexandria it appears by the Epistles of Synesius That the Bishops of Pentapolis although then under a Metropolitane of their own yet had their Consecration from the Bishop of Alexandria When Justinian advanced the Bishop of Justiniana prima to the dignity of a Patriarch by giving him power over seven Provinces he expresses the Patriarchal power by this That all the Bishops of those Provinces should be consecrated by him and consequently be under his Jurisdiction and be liable to be called to his Council as Justinian elsewhere determines And when the Bishop of Justinianopolis removed from Cyprus thither he not onely enjoy'd the Cyprian privilege there but was allow'd for a Patriarch by the Council in Trullo and consequently the Consecration of the Bishops in the Province of Hellespont belong'd to him And when the Patriarchal power was settled at Constantinople that was the chief thing insisted upon at least as to Metropolitanes The first attempt the Bishop of Constantinople made towards any true Patriarchal power for all that the Council of Constantinople gave him was a mere honorary Title was the Consecrating Bishops in the Dioceses of Asiana and Pontica and Thracia And this was charged on St. Chrysostome as an Innovation in the Synod ad Quercum i. e. in the Suburbs of Chalcedon And his actings in the Council at Ephesus and Consecrating of many Bishops in that Diocese could not be justified by the Canons of the Church The best excuse is what Palladius makes viz. That his going into Asia was upon the great importunity of the Bishops and Clergy there For what Morinus saith That he did this by the Pope's authority is ridiculous It being not once thought of by St. Chrysostome or his Friends And for a Bishop of Constantinople to act by authority from the Bishop of Rome was then as absurd as for the Czar of Muscovy to act by Commission from the Emperour of Germany For it is plain That one stood upon equal Privileges with the other As fully appears by the Council of Chalcedon and the warm Debates which follow'd it between the two Sees And what could have served Leo's turn better against Anatolius than to have produced St. Chrysostome's Delegation from one of his Predecessours But in the Council of Chalcedon where the Right of the Patriarch of Constantinople was at large debated this Act of St. Chrysostome was alledged as
a remarkable Precedent to prove a Patriarchal power And there a Canon was passed That the Metropolitanes of those three Dioceses should be consecrated by the Bishop of Constantinople which was the establishment of his Patriarchal authority over them Upon this Pope Leo insisted on the Council of Nice and the Canons there made and pleaded strongly That this was an unjust Invasion of the Rights of those Churches which ought to be inviolably preserved And we desire no better Arguments against the Pope's pretended Patriarchal power over these Western Churches than what Leo insisted on for the Dioceses of Asia Pontus and Thrace against the Patriarchal power of the Bishop of Constantinople For we plead the very same things That all Churches ought to enjoy the Rights of Provincial Synods And that no Person can be excused in violating the Nicene Canons But if it be pretended That the Bishop of Rome had always a Patriarchal power over the British Churches Let any one Instance be given of it Let them tell us when he consecrated the Metropolitanes or Bishops of the three Provinces of Britain or summon'd them to his Councils or heard their Causes or received Appeals from hence or so much as sent any one Legate to exercise Authority in his Name And if they can produce nothing of this kind there is not then the least appearance of his Patriarchal power We do not deny that the Bishop of Rome had any Patriarchal power in those times But we say It was confined within the Roman Diocese As that did comprehend the Churches within the Suburbicary Provinces And within these he exercised the same Authority that the Eastern Patriarchs did i. e. He consecrated Bishops called Synods and received Appeals which are the main Patriarchal rights But if we go beyond these Provinces Petrus de Marca himself is extremely put to it to prove the exercise of a Patriarchal power He confesses the matter is not clear either as to Consecrations or Councils but he runs to References Consultations and Appeals in greater causes And yet he confesses as to Appeals which onely do imply a just Authority There is no one certain evidence of them before the Council of Sardica So that by the confession of the most learned and judicious of those who plead for the Pope's being Patriarch of the West No proper Acts of Patriarchal power can be proved beyond the Roman Diocese before the Council of Nice And the same learned Archbishop doth grant that the Bishop of Rome did not consecrate even in Italy out of the Roman Diocese as appears by the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia Nor in Africa nor in Spain nor in Gaul And after these Concessions it is impossible to prove the Bishop of Rome Patriarch of the Western Churches Which some late Writers of that Church have been much concerned at and have endeavour'd to shew the contrary Christianus Lupus hath written a Dissertation on purpose But the greatest thing he saith to prove it is That to affirm that the Bishop of Rome had no such authority is an Eusebian and Schismatical Errour and came first from the Council of Philippopolis yet he grants That in the Western Provinces the Metropolitanes did consecrate their Suffragans and they their Metropolitanes But all this he saith was done by special privilege But where is any such privilege to be seen It is evident by the Nicene Canons every Province had its own just Rights for these things And if there were any privilege it must be produced on the other side He doth not deny That Leo disown'd having any thing to doe in the Consecration of the Gallican Bishops in his Epistle to the Bishops of Vienna or that Hincmarus saith The Transalpine Bishops did not belong to the Consecration or Councils of the Bishop of Rome And therefore Ecclesiastical Causes were to be heard and determin'd by Provincial Synods But he thinks to bring off all at last by saying That these were privileges indulged because of distance from Rome Which is a mere Shuffle without any colour for it unless such privileges could be produced for otherwise it will appear to be common Right And yet this is the main which a late Authour Emanuel à Schelstraet hath to say about this matter But this hath been the common Artifice of Rome Where any Bishops insisted on their own Rights and ancient Customs and Canons of Councils to pretend that all came from privileges allow'd by the See of Rome And the Defenders of it are now shamefully driven to these Arts having nothing else left to plead for the Pope's Usurpation But this last Authour the present Keeper of the Vatican Library which makes so great a noise in the World for Church Records having endeavour'd in a set Discourse to assert the Pope's Patriarchal power over the Western Churches I shall here examine the strength of all that he produceth to that purpose He agrees with us in determining the Patriarchal Rights which he saith lie in these three things 1. In the right of Consecration of Bishops and Metropolitanes 2. In the right of summoning them to Councils 3. In the right of Appeals All which he proves to be the just and true Patriarchal Rights from the seventeenth Canon of the eighth General Council And by these we are contented to stand or fall 1. As to the Right of Consecration of Bishops and Metropolitanes throughout the Western Churches He confesses That such a Right was not exercised Because the Metropolitanes in the several Provinces were allow'd to consecrate the Bishops belonging to them upon the Summons of the Provincial Synod And for this he produces the 4 th Canon of the Council of Nice Here then is a plain allowance of the Metropolitane Rights by this General Council But how doth this prove the Patriarchal Or rather is it not a plain derogation from them No saith he The Patriarchal Rights are preserved by the sixth Canon I grant it But then it must be proved That the Patriarchal Rights of the Bishop of Rome did at the time of the Council of Nice extend to all the Western Churches which I utterly deny Yet I grant farther That the Bishop of Rome had all the Patriarchal Rights within the Provinces which were then under his Jurisdiction and were therefore called the Suburbicary Churches But these were so far from taking in all the Western Churches that they did not comprehend the Provinces of Italy properly so called But he offers to prove out of Gratian and from the Testimony of Pelagius Bishop of Rome That by reason of the length of the way the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia did consecrate each other But is such Authority sufficient to prove that the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia were of old subject to the Roman Patriarchate We have nothing to prove this but the bare word of one who was too much concerned to be a competent Witness and too much alone to
the Bishops of Rome did assume to themselves in following Ages a more than patriarchal Power over the Western Churches But we say there are no footsteps of it in the time of the Council of Nice And that what Power they gained was by Vsurpation upon the Rights of Metropolitanes and provincial Synods then settled by general consent of the Bishops of the Christian Church But this Vsurpation was not made in an Instant but by several Steps and Degrees by great Artifice and Subtilty drawing the Metropolitanes themselves under a Pretence of advancing their Authority to betray their Rights And among the Artifices of the Court of Rome this of the Pall was none of the least For by it the Popes pretended to confirm and inlarge the privileges of Metropolitanes which hereby they did effectually overthrow as though they received them merely from the Favour of the Bishop of Rome which did undoubtedly belong to them by ancient Right But that this was a mere Device to bring the Metropolitanes into dependence on the Court of Rome appears by the most ancient Form of sending the Pall in the Diurnus Romanus where it is finely called the shewing their unanimity with St. Peter But what the Nature and Design and Antiquity of the Pall was is so fully set forth by Petrus de Marca and Garnerius that I shall say no more of it Onely that from hence the ancient Rights of the Metropolitane Churches do more fully appear because it was so long before this Badge of Subjection was received in these Western Churches For the Synod which Boniface mentions wherein the Metropolitanes consented to receive Palls from Rome was not till the middle of the 8 th Century And great Arts and Endeavours were used in all the Western Churches before they could be brought to yield to this real Badge of the Pope's patriarchal Power over them Which is particularly true of the British Churches which preserved their Metropolitane Rights as long as their Churches were in any tolerable condition And that without suffering any diminution of them from the Pope's patriarchal Power As will farther appear in this Discourse 2. The next Patriarchal Right to be examined is that of calling Bishops within their Jurisdiction to Councils It is truly observed by de Marca That those who received Consecration from another were bound by the ancient Discipline of the Church attend to his Councils And in the Sense of the old Canon Law those two Expressions To belong to the Consecration or to the Council were all one And so every Metropolitane had a Right to summon the Bishops of his Province and the Primates or Patriarchs as many as received Consecrations from them Thus the Bishop of Rome's patriarchal Council consisted of those within his own Diocese or the Suburbicary Churches Where there being no Metropolitanes the Roman Council did much exceed others in the number of Bishops belonging to it thence Galla Placidia relates how she found the Bishop of Rome compassed about with a great number of Bishops which he had gather'd out of innumerable Cities of Italy by reason of the Dignity of his Place It seems then no Bishops of other Western Churches were summon'd to the Roman Councils But the Bishops of Sicily were then under the Italian Government and reckon'd with the Italian Bishops It may be question'd whether in Ruffinus his time they were comprehended within the Suburbicary Churches But in Leo's time the Bishops of Rome had inlarged their Jurisdiction so far as to summon the Bishops of Sicily to their Councils This is evident from Leo's Epistle to all the Bishops of Sicily where he charges them every year to send three of their Number to a Council in Rome And this he requires in pursuance of the Nicene Canons From whence it seems probable That the Bishop of Rome did by degrees gain all the Churches within the Jurisdiction of the Vicarius Vrbis as his patriarchal Diocese For Sicily was one of the ten Provinces belonging thereto But our Authour saith That the Council of Nice speaks there onely of provincial Councils and not of patriarchal What then Was Sicily within the Roman Province considering the Bishop of Rome merely as a Metropolitane That is very absurd since Sicily was a Province of it self and as such ought to have had a Metropolitane of its own And so all the other neighbour Provinces to Rome whereas we reade of none there but as far as the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction extended it was immediate and swallow'd up all Metropolitane Rights I know Petrus de Marca thinks there were Metropolitanes within the Suburbicary Churches But I see no Authority he brings for it besides the Nicene Canon and the Decrees of Innocentius and Leo which relate to other Churches But any one that carefully reads the Epistles of Leo to the Bishops within those Provinces and compares them with those written to the Bishops without them will as Quesnel hath well observed find so different a strain in them that from thence he may justly infer that there were no Metropolitanes in the former but there were in the latter When he writes to the Bishop of Aquileia he takes notice of his provincial Synod and directs the Epistles of general concernment to the Metropolitane as he doth not onely to him but to the Bishop of Ravenna too And when Eusebius Bishop of Milan wrote to him he gives an account of the provincial Council which he held But there is nothing like this in the Epistles sent to the Bishops within the ten Provinces no mention is therein made of Metropolitanes or of any provincial Synods But here we find the Bishops of Sicily in common summon'd to send three of their number to an annual Council at Rome From whence I conclude That the Pope's Patriarchal Council lay within the compass of these Suburbicary Churches I do not deny but upon occasion there might be more Bishops summon'd to meet at a Council in Rome As when Aurelian gave the Bishops of Italy leave to meet at Rome in the Case of Paulus Samosatenus And when they met with Julius in the Case of Athanasius and such like Instances of an extraordinary Nature and very different from the fixed canonical Councils which were provincial elsewhere but in the Roman Diocese they were Patriarchal yet they extended no farther than to the Bishops within the Suburbicary Churches And whosoever considers the Councils of Italy in Saint Ambrose's time published by Sirmondus will find that the Bishops of the Italick Diocese did not think themselves obliged to resort to Rome for a Patriarchal Council And which is more observable the latter of them extremely differs from Damasus about the same matter which was the Consecration of Maximus to be Bishop of Constantinople For Damasus in his Epistle to Acholius c. bitterly exclaims against the setting up Maximus as though all Religion lay at stake and admonished them at
Bishops were of the Western Bishops meddling in their matters ever since the Council of Sardica of which afterwards but they tell them it was no new thing for the Western Bishops to be concerned when things were out of order among them Non Praerogativam say they vindicamus examinis sed Consortium tamen debuit esse communis arbitrii They did not challenge a Power of calling them to account but they thought there ought to be a mutual Correspondence for the general good and therefore they received Maximus his Complaint of his hard usage at Constantinople Will any hence infer that this Council or St. Ambrose had a Superiour Authority over the Patriarch of Constantinople So that neither Consultations Advices References nor any other Act which depends upon the Will of the Parties and are designed onely for a common good can prove any true Patriarchal Power Which being premised let us now see what Evidence is produced from hence for the Pope's patriarchal Power over the Western Churches And the main thing insisted upon is The Bishop of Rome 's appointing Legates in the Western Churches to hear and examine Causes and to report them And of this the first Instance is produced of the several Epistles of Popes to the Bishops of Thessalonica in the Roman Collection Of which a large account hath been already given And the first beginning of this was after the Council of Sardica had out of a Pique to the Eastern Bishops and Jealousie of the Emperour allow'd the Bishop of Rome the Liberty of granting a re-hearing of Causes in the several Provinces which was the pretence of sending Legates into them And this was the first considerable step that was made towards the advancing the Pope's power over the Western Churches For a present Doctour of the Sorbon confesseth that in the space of 347 years i. e. to the Sardican Council No one Instance can be produced of any Cause wherein Bishops were concerned that was ever brought to Rome by the Bishops that were the Iudges of it But if the Pope's Patriarchal Power had been known before it had been a regular way of proceeding from the Bishops in Provincial Synods to the Patriarch And withall he saith before that Council no instance can be produced of any Iudges Delegates for the review of Iudgment passed in provincial Synods And whatever Privilege or Authority was granted by the Council of Sardica to the Bishop of Rome was wholly new and had no Tradition of the Church to justifie it And was not then received either in the Eastern or Western Churches So that all the Pleas of a Patriarchal Power as to the Bishop of Rome with respect to greater Causes must fall very much short of the Council of Nice As to the Instance of Marcianus of Arles that hath been answered already And as to the Deposition of Bishops in England by the Pope's authority in later times it is of no importance since we do not deny the matter of Fact as to the Pope's Vsurpations But we say they can never justifie the exercise of a Patriarchal Power over these Churches by the Rules established in the Council of Nice But it is said That the Council of Arles before that of Nice attributes to the Bishop of Rome Majores Dioceses i. e. according to De Marca all the Western Churches But in answer to this I have already shew'd how far the Western Bishops at Arles were from owning the Pope's Patriarchal Power over them because they do not so much as desire his Confirmation of what had passed in Council But onely send the Canons to him to publish them But our Authour and Christianus Lupus say that such is the Patriarch's Authority That all Acts of Bishops in Council are in themselves invalid without his Sentence which onely gives Life and Vigour to them As they prove by the Patriarch of Alexandria But if the Bishop of Rome were then owned to be Patriarch over seven or eight Dioceses of the West according to De Marca's exposition how came they to sit and make Canons without the least mention of his Authority So that either they must deny him to be Patriarch or they must say he was affronted in the highest manner by the Western Bishops there assembled But as to the expression of Majores Dioceses it is very questionable whether in the time of the Council of Arles the distribution of the Empire by Constantine into Dioceses were then made and it seems probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice Dioceses not being mentioned there but onely Provinces And if so this Place must be corrupt in that expression as it is most certain it is in others And it is hard to lay so great weight on a place that makes no entire sense But allowing the expression genuine it implies no more than that the Bishop of Rome had then more Extensive Dioceses than other Western Bishops Which is not denied since even then he had several Provinces under his immediate Government which no other Western Bishop had St. Basil's calling the Bishop of Rome Chief of the Western Bishops implies nothing but the dignity of his See and not any Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches It must be a degree of more than usual subtilty to infer Damasus his Patriarchal Power over the West because St. Jerome joins Damasus and the West together as he doth Peter and Egypt Therefore Damasus had the same Power over the West which Peter had over Egypt It seems St. Jerome's language about the different Hypostases did not agree with what was used in the Syrian Churches and therefore some charged him with false Doctrine he pleads for himself that the Churches of Egypt and the West spake as he did and they were known then neither to favour Arianism nor Sabellianism And to make his Allegation more particular he mentions the names of the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome But a Cause extremely wants Arguments which must be supported by such as these If St. Augustine makes Innocent to preside in the Western Church he onely thereby shews the Order and Dignity of the Roman See but he doth not own any Subjection of the Western Churches to his Power since no Church did more vehemently withstand the Bishoâ— of Rome's Incroachments than the Churches of Africa did in St. Augustine's time As is notorious in the business of Appeals which transaction is a demonstration against his Patriarchal Power over the African Churches And the Bishop of Rome never insisted on a Patriarchal Right but on the Nicene Canons wherein they were shamefully baffled It cannot be denied that Pope Innocent in his Epistle to Decentius Eugubinus would bring the Western Churches to follow the Roman Traditions upon this pretence That the Churches of Italy Gaul Spain Africa Sicily and the Islands lying between were first instituted either by such as were sent by St. Peter or his
Successours But whosoever considers that Epistle well will not for Innocent's sake lay too much weight upon it For Is it reasonable to think that the double Vnction the Saturday Fast the Eulogiae sent to the several Parishes in Rome were Apostolical Traditions which all the Western Churches were bound to observe because they were first planted by those who were sent from Rome But the matter of Fact is far from being evident for we have great reason to believe there were Churches planted in the Western parts neither by St. Peter nor by those who were sent by his Successours Yet let that be granted What connexion is there between receiving the Christian Doctrine at first by those who came from thence and an Obligation to be subject to the Bishops of Rome in all their Orders and Traditions The Patriarchal Government of the Church was not founded upon this but upon the ancient Custome and Rules of the Church as fully appears by the Council of Nice And therefore the Churches of Milan and Aquileia though in Italy the Churches of Africa though probably the first Preachers came from Rome never thought themselves bound to follow the Traditions or observe the Orders of the Roman Church as is very well known both in St. Cyprian's and St. Augustine's times But if the Pope's power be built on this ground what then becomes of the Churches of Illyricum Was the Gospel brought thither from Rome And as to the British Churches this very Plea of Innocent will be a farther evidence of their exemption from the Roman Patriarchate since Britain cannot be comprehended within those Islands which lie between Italy Gaul Spain Africa and Sicily which can onely be understood of those Islands which are situate in the Mediterranean Sea And if no Instance can be produced of the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchal Jurisdiction over the British Churches why should not we claim the same benefit of the Nicene Canons which Leo urges so vehemently in such a parallel Case Neither can it be said that afterwards Subjection and Consent makes a just Patriarchal Power for neither doth it hold as to the British Churches whose Bishops utterly refused to submit to Augustine the Monk And if it doth all the force of Leo's Arguments is taken away For there were both Prescription pleaded and a Consent of the Bishops of the Dioceses concerned in the Council of Chalcedon But Leo saith the Nicene Canons are beyond both these being dictated by the Spirit of God and passed by the common consent of the Christian Church And that it was a Sin in him to suffer any to break them Either this is true or false If false how can the Pope be excused who alledged it for true If true then it holds as much against the Bishop of Rome as the Bishop of Constantinople And as to the Prescription of 60 years he saith the Canons of Nice were before and ought to take place if the practice had been never so constant which he denies Nay he goes so far as to say Though the numbers of Bishops be never so great that give their consent to any alteration of the Nicene Canons they signifie nothing and cannot bind Nothing can be more emphatical or weighty to our purpose than these Expressions of Pope Leo for securing the Privileges of our Churches in case no Patriarchal Power over them can be proved before the Council of Nice And it is all the reason in the World That those who claim a Jurisdiction should prove it Especially when the Acts of it are so notorious that they cannot be conceal'd as the Consecration of Metropolitanes and matters of Appeals are and were too evident in latter times when all the World knew what Authority and Jurisdiction the Pope exercised over these Churches I conclude this with that excellent Sentence of Pope Leo PRIVILEGIA ECCLESIARVM SANCTORVM PATRVM CANONIBVS INSTITVTA ET VENERABILIS NICAENAE SYNODI FIXA DECRETIS NVLLA POSSVNT IMPROBITATE CONVELLI NVLLA NOVITATE VIOLARI The privileges of Churches which were begun by the Canons of the Holy Fathers and confirmed by the Council of Nice can neither be destroy'd by wicked Usurpation nor dissolved by the humour of Innovation In the next great Council of Sardica which was intended to be general by the two Emperours Constans and Constantius it is commonly said that Athanasius expresly affirms the British Bishops to have been there present But some think this mistake arose from looking no farther than the Latin Copy in Athanasius in which indeed the words are plain enough to that purpose but the sense in the Greek seems to be the same For Athanasius pleads his own Innocency from the several Judgments which had passed in his Favour First by 100 Bishops in Egypt next by above 50 Bishops at Rome thirdly in the great Council at Sardica 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which as some say above 300 Bishops out of the several Provinces there mention'd consented to his Innocency But here lies an insuperable difficulty for Athanasius himself elsewhere affirms that there were but 170 Bishops in all there present and therefore it is impossible he should make 300 there present Which some have endeavour'd to reconcile by saying the latter was the true number present but the former of those Bishops scattered up and down who did agree in the Sentence which passed in favour of Athanasius But then the Greek here cannot be understood of those present in Council and on the other side if it be not so understood then the words do not prove what he designs viz. that he was acquitted in the Sardican Council in which although the number were not so great I see no reason to exclude the British Bishops It is true that in the Synodical Epistle of that Council onely Italy Spain and Gaul are mention'd And so likewise in the Subscriptions But it is well observed by Bucherius that Athanasius reckons up the British Bishops among those of Gaul And Hilary writing to the Gallican Bishops of Germania prima and Germania secunda Belgica prima Belgica secunda Lugdunensis prima Lugdunensis secunda Provincia Aquitanica and Provincia novem populona after he hath distinctly set down these he then immediately adds And to the Bishops of the Provinces of Britain Which makes me apt to think that about that time the Bishops of Britain were generally joyn'd with those of Gaul and are often comprehended under them where they are not expresly mention'd And to confirm this Sulpicius Severus speaking of the Summons to the Council of Ariminum mentions onely of these Western parts Italy Spain and Gaul But afterwards saith That the Bishops of Britain were there present So that Britain was then comprehended under Gaul and was so understood at that time as Sicily was under Italy as Sirmondus shews And Sextus Rufus doth put down the description of Britain under that of Gaul as Berterius hath observed For otherwise who could have
Banchor and the ancient Western Monasteries and their difference as to Learning from the Benedictine Institution Of Gildas his Iren whether an Vniversity in Britain Of the Schools of Learning in the Roman Cities chiefly at Rome Alexandria and Constantinople and the Professours of Arts and Sciences and the publick Libraries there Of the Schools of Learning in the Provinces and the Constitution of Gratian to that purpose extending to Britain Of the publick Service of the British Churches The Gallican Offices introduced by St. German The Nature of them at large explained and their Difference from the Roman Offices both as to the Morning and Communion Service The Conformity of the Liturgy of the Church of England to the ancient British Offices and not derived from the Church of Rome as our Dissenters affirm THE Succession of the British Churches being thus deduced from their original to the times of the Christian Emperours it will be necessary to give an account of the Faith and Service which were then received by them And it is so much the more necessary to enquire into the Faith of the British Churches because they are charged with two remarkable Heresies of those times viz. Arianism and Pelagianism and by no less Authority than that of Gildas and Bede The Charge of Arianism is grounded upon the universal spreading of that Heresie over the World as Bede expresses it and therefore to shew how far the British Churches were concerned we must search into the History of that Heresie from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum where the British Bishops were present It is confidently affirmed by a late Writer That the Arian Faction was wholly supprest by the Nicene Council and all the Troubles that were made after that were raised by the Eusebians who were as forward as any to anathematize the Arians and all the Persecutions were raised by them under a Pretence of Prudence and Moderation That they never in the least appear'd after the Council of Nice in behalf of the Arian Doctrine but their whole fury was bent against the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Athanasius That in the times of Constantius and Constans the Cause of Arius was wholly laid aside by both Parties and the onely Contest was about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Eusebian Cause was not to restore Arianism but to piece up the Peace of the Church by comprehending all in one Communion or by mutual forbearance But if it be made appear that the Arian Faction was still busie and active after the Nicene Council that the Contest about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was with a design to overthrow the Nicene Faith that the Eusebians great business was if possible to restore Arianism then it will follow that some Mens hatred of Prudence and Moderation is beyond their skill and judgment in the History of the Church and the making out of these things will clear the History of Arianism to the Council of Ariminum But before I come to the Evidence arising from the Authentick Records of the Church it will not be unpleasant to observe that this very Writer is so great an Enemy to the design of Reconcilers that it is hardly possible even in this matter to reconcile him to himself For he tells us that the most considerable Eusebians in the Western Churches viz. Valens Ursacius and their Associates had been secret Arians all along that the word Substance was left out of the third Sirmian Creed to please Valens and his Party who being emboldned by this Creed whereby they had at length shaken off all the Clogs that had been hitherto fasten'd on them to hinder their return to Arianism moved at the Council at Ariminum that all former Creeds might be abolished and the Sirmian Creed be established for ever Doth this consist with the Arian Factions being totally supprest by the Council of Nice and none ever appearing in behalf of the Arian Doctrine after and the Eusebians never moving for restoring Arianism but onely for a sort of Comprehension and Toleration In another place he saith the Eusebians endeavoured to supplant the Nicene Faith though they durst not disown it And was the Arian Faction then totally supprest while the Eusebians remained These are the Men whom he calls the old Eusebian Knaves And for the Acacians he saith when they had got the Mastery they put off all disguise and declared for Arianism Is it possible for the same person to say that after the Nicene Council they never appeared in behalf of the Arian Doctrine in the Eastern and Western Churches and yet When they put off their disguise they declared for Arianism What is this but appearing openly and plainly for the Arian Doctrine And if we believe so good an Authour as himself their Contest after the Council of Nice was so far from being merely about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he frequently saith that Controversie did take in the whole Merits of the Cause as will appear from his own words in several places As when he speaks of the Council of Nice he saith The whole Controversie was reduced to the word Consubstantial which the Eusebians at first refused to admit as being no Scripture word but without its admission nothing else would satisfie the Council and good reason they had for it because to part with that word after the Controversie was once raised would have been to give up the Cause for it was unavoidable that if the Son were not of the same substance with the Father he must have been made out of the same common and created substance with all other Creatures and therefore when the Scriptures give him a greater Dignity of Nature than to any created Being they thereby make him of the same uncreated Substance with the Father so that they plainly assert his Consubstantiality though they use not the word But when the Truth itself was denied by the Arian Hereticks and the Son of God thrust down into the rank of created Beings and defined to be a Creature made of nothing it was time for the Church to stop this Heresie by such a Test as would admit of no Prevarication which was effectually done by this word and as cunning and shuffling as the Arians were they were never able to swallow or chew it and therefore it was but a weak part of the Eusebians to shew so much zeal against the word when they professed to allow the thing For if our Saviour were not a mere Creature he must be of the same uncreated substance with the Father because there is no middle between created and uncreated Substance so that whoever denied the Consubstantiality could not avoid the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus which yet the Arians themselves professed to defie for if he were a mere Creature it is no matter how soon or how late he was created And therefore it is not be imagined that the
Theodoret takes notice that after the death of Leontius Eudoxius was the first who pulled off his Vizard and declared openly for Arianism but Leontius his way was to promote onely those in the Church he was before hand sure of and to suffer no other to come into Orders by which means saith he most of the Clergy were Arians and the People still continued sound in the Nicene Faith till Eudoxius his Persecution began This was the miserable Condition of the Eastern Churches under the Prudence and Moderation of the Eusebian Party but the Western Churches continued quiet and very little disturbed with the Arian Heresie while Constans lived who was ready not onely to maintain the true Faith in his own Dominions but to give his Assistence for the Relief of those who suffer'd in the Eastern Parts Which was the Reason of the calling of the Council of Sardica by consent of both Emperours although that happen'd onely to widen and inlarge the Breach However the Sardican Council had such effect in the Western Parts as to the business of Athanasius that as Athanasius tells Constantius Valens and Vrsacius two busie Factours in the Arian Cause freely own the malitious Intrigue that was carried on in the prosecution of him The first Council of Milan is supposed by Petavius to be called the same year that of Sardica ended But Sirmondus thinks it very improbable there should be two Councils in one year and therefore he believes it rather to have been the year before which is the more probable Opinion This Council of Milan was assembled on the occasion of several Bishops there meeting to wait on the Emperour Constans in order to a General Council to put things in order in the Christian Church which the Arian Faction had so much disturbed While they were there the four Eastern Bishops arrived with the long Confession made at Antioch and desire the Western Bishops concurrence with them in it These express their dislike of any New Confession of Faith especially after the Nicene but since they were so free of their Anathema's at the end of their Confession they desired them to make short Work of it to anathematize the Arian Heresie which they utterly refused to doe and so discover'd the Juggle of that seeming orthodox Confession This appears by Liberius his Epistle in the Collection of Church Records in Hilary's Fragments in which he tells Constantius that these four Bishops were so far from anathematizing the Arian Heresie then in order to Peace that upon being pressed to doe it they rose up in a Rage and left the Council From hence the Western Bishops smelt their Design however cover'd over with fair Pretences of Peace and Reconciliation Which they farther discover'd by their own Legates whom they sent into the East who made this Offer to the Bishops there that they would accept of their own Terms of Accommodation provided they would but condemn the Arian Heresie which upon consultation they refused to doe Upon these plain Discoveries the Western Bishops could easily see through all their Proposals for Peace being onely made with a Design to make them betray the Faith So that as long as Constans lived the Arian Faction could make little or no impression on the Western Churches but he being soon after taken off by the Treachery of Magnentius Captain of his Guards and the whole Empire falling to Constantius upon his Victory over Magnentius a sudden alteration here happen'd about these Matters Valens and Vrsacius who had so solemnly retracted their former unjust Sentence of Athanasius now lay it upon their fear of Constans and appear in the Head of the Arian Faction and with them as Severus Sulpicius saith the two Pannonia's declared for Arianism And now they having an Emperour to their mind resolve to lose no time but carry things on with a mighty violence and banish all who would not subscribe to the condemning Athanasius For this stale Pretence must still be made use of to deceive the People and to make way for Arianism and yet this prevailed so far that as Hilary saith in the Preface to his Fragments the People wondred what made so many Bishops go into Banishment rather than condemn one and the Design of those Fragments is to shew that the Matter of Faith lay at the bottom of all this violence against Athanasius Which proceeded so far that in the Council called at Arles Paulinus Bishop of Triers was for opposing the condemning Athanasius and desiring the Matters of Faith might first be settled deposed by the Council and banished by the Emperour And so great then was the Power of Fear upon them that some of those very Persons who had clear'd Athanasius at the Council of Sardica did now subscribe to his condemnation among whom was Vincentius of Capua the Pope's own Legate as Athanasius himself confesses Not long after Constantius summons another Council at Milan where Socrates and Sozomen say above three hundred Western Bishops were assembled Here again the Arian Faction made a great outcry about Athanasius but Dionysius Bishop of Milan and Eusebius of Vercelles laid open the Design so far as to make the Council be broken up and themselves to be banished by the Emperour's Edict While the Emperour continued at Milan Liberius Bishop of Rome was summon'd to attend upon him there in order to his Banishment if he did not condemn Athanasius Theodoret hath preserved the most material passages that happen'd between them One whereof is that if Constantius really designed the Peace of the Church the first thing was to be a general Subscription of the Nicene Faith after which other things would more easily be composed But this would not be hearkned to and so Liberius was banished but afterwards he unworthily complied not onely to the Condemnation of Athanasius but he professed his consent to the Sirmian Creed as appears by his Epistle in Hilary's Fragments for which Hilary bestows his Anathema's very freely upon him But it is of late pleaded on behalf of Liberius that he subscribed onely to the first Sirmian Confession in the Council against Photinus which was express against the Arian Heresie Whereas Hilary who I think knew this matter somewhat better saith in so many Words Haec est perfidia Ariana i. e. that what he subscribed contained in it the Arian Heresie But where doth Hilary or any one else say that Liberius onely subscribed the first Confession of Sirmium and upon that was restored Nay Sozomen saith that Constantius at first required him in terms to renounce the Son 's being Consubstantial to the Father but afterwards they joined together the Confession against Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus with that of Antioch at the Dedication and to these Liberius subscribed So that he struck in wholly with the Arian Faction which undermined the Authority of the Council of Nice and he betray'd the Faith if he did not renounce it The Eudoxians
declared with the Eastern Bishops So that here was a Consent both of the Eastern and Western Churches the Council of Ariminum being approved by a Council at Constantinople the same year What is now to be said when the Bishops assembled in Council both in the Eastern and Western Churches did effectually as far as their Decrees went overthrow the Nicene Council If it be said that the Council of Ariminum decreed nothing positively against the Nicene Faith we are to consider that the reversing the Decree of the Nicene Council was in effect overthrowing the Faith thereby stablished And so St. Hierome saith Tunc Usiae Nomen abolitum est tunc Nicenae Fidei damnatio conclamata est And then these words follow Ingemuit totus Orbis Arianum se esse miratus est and if nothing would ever be able to stop out the Arian Heresie but the Nicene Faith as is confessed and this Council took away the Authority of that Council then it at least made way for the introducing Heresie and left all Men to be Hereticks that had a mind to be so And so St. Hierome saith Valens and Vrsacius after the Council boasted that they never denied the Son to be a Creature but to be like other Creatures from whence St. Ambrose takes it for granted that Christ's being a Creature did pass for good Doctrine in the Council of Ariminum But we are told that St. Jerome onely complains of the World's being cheated and trepan'd into Arianism by the Bishops being so weakly overreached and outwitted by an handfull of Arians Doth not St. Jerome plainly say the Name of Substance was there laid aside and the Council of Nice condemned And could this be a mere Cheat and Trepan to those who were so much aware of it as to declare at first they would never give way to it because they saw the Danger of it and to renew their Protestations against it after the Emperour 's severe Message to them about it So that whatever it was it could be no Cheat or Trepan in those who made such Decrees at first deposed the Arian Bishops sent such Messages to the Emperour as they did Which is a plain Demonstration that they saw and knew what they did and understood the Consequences of it But they were frighted into this Consent at last I grant they were so But what then becomes of the Infallibility of Councils if mere Fear can make so many Bishops in Council act and declare against their Consciences If in such Meetings the Persons were capable of being sway'd by any particular bias from asserting the Truth what Security can there be as to Mens Faith from their Authority any farther than we can be secure they were not influenced by any Temporal Hopes or Fears So that we are not barely to respect the Definitions of Councils but to examine the Motives by which they were acted in passing those Decrees and if it appear they did act freely and sincerely and deliver the general sense of the Christian Church from the beginning as it was in the Case of the Nicene Council then a mighty regard ought to be shewed to the Decrees of it but if Partiality Interest Fear or any other secular Motive be found to sway them in their Debates and Resolutions then every particular Church is at liberty to refuse their Decrees and to adhere to those of more free and indifferent Councils And this was the Case here as to the Council of Ariminum if the Church had been absolutely tied up to the Decrees of Councils however past there had been an utter Impossibility of restoring the true Christian Faith for there was no such Council assembled to reverse the Decrees of it but in every Church the banished Bishops being returned not long after upon the death of Constantius they took care to settle the true Faith in the Western Churches by lesser Assemblies of the several Bishops A remarkable Instance whereof appears in Hilary's Fragments where we find the Gallican Bishops met at Paris renouncing the Council of Ariminum and embracing the Nicene Faith The like we have Reason to believe was done in the British Churches because in Jovian's time Athanasius particularly takes notice of the Britannick Churches as adhering to the Nicene Faith and St. Jerome and St. Chrysostome several times mention their agreeing with other Churches in the true Faith Which is a sufficient Argument to clear them from the Imputation of Arianism which did no otherwise lie upon them than as they had Bishops present in the Council of Ariminum For Severus Sulpicius speaking of the Care Constantius took to provide Lodging and Entertainment for the Bishops at Ariminum out of the publick Charge he faith their Bishops refused to accept it onely three out of Britain not being able to maintain themselves made use of the publick allowance rather than be chargeable to their Brethren Which he saith he heard Gavidius their Bishop blame them for but he rather thinks it a commendation for them in the first place to have been so poor and next that they chose not to be burthensome to their Brethren but rather to live on the Emperour's charge This had been better said of any Place than at the Council of Ariminum where the Emperour's kindness was a Snare to their Consciences unless it be said That the Emperour took greater advantage by their bearing their own Charges to make them sooner grow weary of staying there and that if the rest had followed the Example of the Britains the Emperour might have been weary before them But how came the British Bishops to be so poor above the rest who were not onely able to live at their own Charges but to supply their Brethren Which shews as much the plenty of the rest as it doth the poverty of the Britains What became of all the Endowments of the British Churches by King Lucius The British History published by Geffrey of Monmouth saith That King Lucius gave not onely all the Lands which belonged to the Heathen Temples to the Churches built by him but added very much to them with many Privileges The same is said from him by most of our Monkish Historians whose Authority is no greater than Geffrey's from whom they derive their Information onely inlarging it as occasion serves As Thomas Rudburn doth very particularly for the Church of Winchester who makes the old Lands of the Flamins to be twelve miles compass about the Town And King Lucius added he saith to the New Church all the Suburbs of the City with the Privilege of Dunwallo Molmutius i. e. of a Sanctuary Methinks then the British Bishops might have been in as good a condition as the rest of their Brethren at Ariminum unless their Lands were taken away in the Persecution of Dioclesian as Rudburn seems to intimate which is all as true as that Monks continued there from Lucius to the second year of Dioclesian which was a long
the Fourth Council of Toledo which then took so many of the Gallican Offices into the Service of the Spanish Churches will see Reason to believe that this Creed was originally of a Gallican Composition and thence was carried into Spain upon the Conversion of the Goths from Arianism wherein several Expressions are taken out of St. Augustine's Works Ruffinus shews That those that were to be baptized did at Rome repeat the Creed but that is another thing from its use in the Liturgy which both Baronius and Bona confess was so lately introduced at Rome So that here we have one considerable difference of the Roman Offices from those of other Churches For Isidore saith That the Nicene Creed was then used in the Gothick Churches in the time of Sacrifice As the Church Service was then called For that it had no Relation to that which is called the Sacrifice of the Mass appears by Concil Aurel. 3. can 29. Where we find the name of Sacrifice applied to the Evening Service Sacrificia Matutina Missarum sive Vespertina And so Cassian uses Sacrificia Vespertina in allusion to the Custome of Sacrificing among the Jews And Honoratus in the Life of St. Hilarius of Arles calls it Sacrificium Vespertinae Laudis And Missa was then used for the publick Service as Cassander and others shew In the Rule of St. Benedict Missae are to be taken for the concluding Collects at the Canonical Hours Cassian useth Missa for any publick meeting at Prayers thence he speaks of Missa Nocturna and Missa Orationum and Missa Canonica for the Nocturnal Office among the Monks And in the Concil Agath c. 30. We reade of Missae Vespertinae But afterwards the name was appropriated to the most solemn part of publick Worship viz. the Communion Service In which the Creed was appointed by the third Council of Toledo c. 2. in all the Churches of Spain and Gallaecia or as some Copies have it of Gallia Which is confirmed by an Edict of Reccaredus to that purpose which extended to that Part of Gallia Narbonensis then under the Gothick Power Where a Council met under Reccaredus about the same time In which Gloria Patri was decreed to be used at the end of every Psalm Which was observed by the other Gallican Churches in Cassian's time It seems very probable that the Spanish Churches did follow the Customs of the Gallican in other parts of the Divine Offices as well as this Which appears by the Passage in the Epistle of Carolus Calvus produced by Card. Bona where speaking of the ancient Gallican Offices before the Introduction of the Roman he saith He had seen and heard how different they were by the Priests of the Church of Toledo who had celebrated the Offices of their Church before him Which had signified nothing to this matter unless the Gothick and Gallican Offices had then agreed I do not say that the old Gallican Service can be gather'd from all the Parts of the Mozarabick Liturgy as it was settled by Card. Ximenes in a Chapel of the Church of Toledo or as it is performed on certain days at Salamanca because many Alterations might be in those Offices as well as others in so long time And such no doubt there were as Mariana confesseth by the length of time although it did bear the Name of Leander and Isidore For Julianus Toletanus is said to have review'd the whole Office and to have alter'd and added many things and Johannes Caesaraugustanus and Conantius and after them Petrus Ilerdensis and Salvus Abbaildensis besides such whose Names are not preserved But so far as we can trace the ancient Customs of the Gothick Missal we may probably infer what the Customs of the Gallican Churches at that time were and thereby shew the difference between them and the Roman Offices As besides this of the Creed 2. The Prophetical Lessons were always to be read by the Rules of the Mozarabick Liturgy and accordingly three Books were laid upon the Altar in the Gallican Churches as Gregorius Turonensis observes That of the Prophets and of the Epistles and of the Gospels But nothing but the Epistle and Gospel were read at Rome as is shew'd already Which manifests that the Book under St. Jerome's Name called the Lectionarius or Comes must be counterfeit Because therein Lessons out of the Prophets are set down And the Authorities of Berno Augiensis Micrologus and Radulphus Tungrensis which are the best Pamelius could find are not great enough against so plain Evidence to the contrary to prove this Lectionarius to have been made by St. Jerome And he confesses that Amalarius several times onely mentions the Auctor Lectionarii without St. Jerome's name who lived a good while before them But in this the Roman Church had its peculiar Rites for in the Church of Milan first a Lesson out of the Prophets was read before the Epistle as appears by Sulpicius Severus And in the Greek Church St. Basil saith That Lessons out of the Old as well as the New Testament were read By the Council of Laodicea all the Canonical Books were appointed to be read Zonaras observes on the 16. Canon of that Council That before this Council there were nothing but Prayers before the Consecration But therein he was certainly mistaken For Justin Martyr shews That the Lessons were read long before and that out of the Prophets as well as Apostles But Balsamon and Aristenus restrain this Canon onely to Saturdays And it enjoins the reading of the Gospels then which was not accustomed before There being no Religious Assemblies in those Parts on that day But by the same Canon we find That where the Gospels were read other Scriptures were appointed to be read too It is observed by Dominicus Macer that at the Lessons of the Old Testament the Greeks do sit But stand at those out of the New Sozomen reckons it as a peculiar Custome of Alexandria That the Bishop did not rise up at the Gospels And Nicephorus Callisthus saith It was contrary to the Practice of all other Churches 3. After the Gospel the Sermon follow'd in other Churches But in the old Roman Offices there is no mention at all of any Sermon to the People Card. Bona saith That it hath been the uninterrupted practice of the Church from the Apostles times to our own for the Sermon to follow after the Gospel And he doth sufficiently prove the Antiquity of it from the Testimonies of Justin Martyr and Tertullian and the general practice of it in other Churches especially the Gallican But he offers no proof that it was observed in the Church of Rome But Sozomen observes it as the peculiar Custome of that Church That there was no Preaching in it neither by the Bishop nor by any one else Valesius seems to wonder at it But he saith If it had not been true
Scicambri r. Sicambri 330. l. 12. for when r. whom p. 338. l. 8. for Island r. Iseland THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. Of the first planting a Christian Church in Britain by S. Paul NO Christian Church planted in Britain during the Reign of Tiberius Page 2. Gildas his Words misunderstood p. 4. The Tradition concerning Joseph of Arimathea and his Brethren coming to Glassenbury at large examined p. 6. The pretended Testimonies of British Writers disproved p. 8. St. Patrick's Epistle a Forgery p. 14. Of the Saxon Charters especially the large one of King Ina. p. 17. The Antiquity of Seals in England p. 19. Ingulphus his Testimony explained p. 20. All the Saxon Charters suspicious till the end of the seventh Century p. 18 22. The occasion of this Tradition from an old British Church there p. 10 26 28. The Circumstances about Joseph of Arimathea and Arviragus very improbale p. 29. Sir H. Spelman vindicated p. 30. The state of the Roman Province about that time p. 31. No such King as Arviragus then p. 32. Not the same with Caractacus p. 34. A Christian Church proved to be planted here in the Apostles times p. 35. The authentick Testimonies of Eusebius Theodoret Clemens Romanus to that purpose p. 36. St. Paul in probability the first Founder of a Church here p. 38. The Time and Opportunity he had for it after his Release p. 39. Of Pomponia Graecina and Claudea Rufina Christians at Rome and their influence on his coming hither p. 43. St. Peter and St. Paul compared as to their Preaching here and the far greater probability of St. Paul's p. 45. CHAP. II. Of the Succession of the British Churches to the first Council of Nice The Testimony of Tertullian concerning them cleared p. 50. The National Conversion of the Scots under King Donald fabulous p. 51. Of Dempster's old Annals p. 52. Prosper speaks not of the Scots in Britain p. 53. The Testimony of Severus Sulpicius examined p. 55. Several Testimonies of Origen concerning the British Churches in his time p. 57. The different Traditions about King Lucius p. 58. The state of the Roman Province here overthrows his being King over all Britain p. 60. Great probability there was such a King in some part of Britain and then converted to Christianity p. 62. A Conjecture proposed in what Part of Britain he reigned p. 63. The most probable means of his Conversion and the Story cleared from Monkish Fables p. 66. Of Dioclesian's Persecution in Britain and the stopping of it by means of Constantius p. 70. The flourishing of the British Churches under Constantine p. 74. The Reason of three Bishops of Britain onely present in the Council of Arles p. 75. Of the great Antiquity of Episcopal Government here p. 77. Of Geffrey's Flamines and Archiflamines how far agreeable to the Roman Constitution p. 78. Maximinus his Pagan Hierarchy in imitation of the Christian p. 81. The Canons of the Council of Arles not sent to the Pope to confirm but to publish them p. 83. CHAP. III. Of the Succession of the British Churches from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum Great Probabilities that the British Bishops were present in the Council of Nice p. 89. The Testimonies of Constantine's being born in Britain cleared p. 90. The particular Canons of that Council explained p. 92. Especially those relating to the Government of Churches p. 95. How far the right of Election was devolved to the Bishops p. 96. Of the Authority of Provincial Synods there settled p. 99. Particular Exceptions as to the Bishops of Alexandria Rome and Antioch from ancient Custome p. 101. They had then a Patriarchal Power within certain Bounds p. 103. No Metropolitans under the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria p. 104. The just Rights of the British Churches cleared p. 108. No evidence that they were under the Roman Patriarchate p. 110. The Cyprian Privilege vindicated from all late Exceptions p. 106. The Patriarchal Rights examined and from them the Pope's Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches at large disputed and overthrown p. 111. Pope Leo's Arguments against the Patriarch of Constantinople held for the Western Churches against him p. 132. The British Bishops present in the Councill of Sardica with those of Gaul p. 135. What Authority granted by them to the Bishop of Rome and how far it extends p. 138. CHAP. IV. Of the Faith and Service of the British Churches The Faith of the British Churches enquired into p. 146. The charge of Arianism considered ibid. The true state of the Arian Controversie from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum and some late Mistakes rectified p. 147. Of several Arian Councils before that of Ariminum p. 164. The British Churches cleared from Arianism after it p. 176. The Number and Poverty of the British Bishops there present ibid. Of the ancient endowment of Churches before Constantine p. 177. The Privileges granted to Churches by him p. 178. The charge of Pelagianism considered p. 180. Pelagius and Caelestius both born in these Islands p. 181. When Aremorica first called Britain ibid. What sort of Monk Pelagius was p. 185. No probability of his returning to Britain p. 186. Of Agricola and others spreading the Pelagian Doctrine in the British Churches p. 187. Germanus and Lupus sent by a Council of Gallican Bishops hither to stop it p. 189. The Testimony of Prosper concerning their being sent by Caelestine considered p. 192. Of Fastidius a British Bishop p. 194. London the chief Metropolis in the Roman Government p. 195. Of Faustus originally a Britain but a Bishop in Gaul and the great esteem he had there p. 197. Of the Semipelagians and Praedestinatians p. 199. Of the Schools of Learning set up here by the means of Germanus and Lupus p. 202. Dubricius and Iltutus the Disciples of St. German and of their Schools p. 203. Of the Monastery of Banchor and the ancient Western Monasteries and their difference as to Learning from the Benedictine Institution p. 205. Of Gildas his Iren whether an University in Britain p. 207. Of the Schools of Learning in the Roman Cities chiefly at Rome Alexandria and Constantinople and the Professours of Arts and Sciences and the publick Libraries there p. 210. Of the Schools of Learning in the Provinces and the Constitution of Gratian to that purpose extending to Britain p. 215. Of the Publick Service of the British Churches the Gallican Offices introduced by St. German p. 216. The Nature of them at large explained and their difference from the Roman Offices both as to the Morning and Communion Service p. 217. The Conformity of the Liturgy of the Church of England to the ancient British Offices and not derived from the Church of Rome as our Dissenters affirm p. 232. CHAP. V. Of the Declension of the British Churches Britain never totally subdued by the Romans p. 239. That was the occasion of the Miseries of the Britains in the Province by the Incursions from beyond the Wall p. 240. Of the
he saith That Anno Domini 601. the King of Dompnonia i. e. Devonshire and Cornwall gave to the old Church in Glassenbury the Land called Ynis Withrin or the Island of Avalon Who this King was he saith he could not learn but he concludes him to have been a Britain by calling the Island by the British Name But as to Arviragus that there was a British Prince of that name cannot be denied since Juvenal mentions him in Domitian's time Omen habes inquit magni clarÃque Triumphi Regem aliquem capies aut de Temone Britanno Excidet Arviragus The Authour of the Chronicle of Dover understands this Passage as spoken to Nero which agrees much better with the Tradition of Glassenbury but will by no means agree with Juvenal who saith plainly enough that Satyr related to Domitian and his Flatterers And this was a very insipid Flattery to Domitian unless Arviragus were a considerable Prince then living and an Enemy to Caesar. For what Triumph could he have over a Subject or a Friend as Aviragus is supposed after the reconciliation with Vespasian And no such Enemy could appear at that time in these parts of Britain For Petilius Cerealis had conquer'd the Brigantes and Julius Frontinus the Silures and Agricola after them the Ordovices And in the time of his Government Tacitus saith Even the consederate Cities among the Britains who stood upon Terms of Equality before then submitted themselves to the Roman Power and received Garrisons among them After this Agricola proceeded Northwards against new People and destroyed them as far as the Frith of Taus Tweed Then he fortified the Passage between Glota and Bodotria Dumbretton and Edenborough Frith So that the Romans were absolute Lords of all this side having cast out the Enemy as it were into another Land as Sir H. Savil translates the words of Tacitus From which it is evident there could be no such King as Arviragus at that time in these parts of the Island over whom Domitian could expect a Triumph But suppose there were what is this to the eighth of Nero when Joseph of Arimathea is said to have come hither at what time Arviragus is said to be King in Britain It is possible he might live so long but how comes he to be never mention'd in the Roman Story as Prasutagus Cogidunus Caractacus Togodumnus and Galgacus are Arviragus his name was well known at Rome in Domitian's time why not spoken of before Some think he was the same with Prasutagus but this cannot be for Prasutagus was dead before the Revolt of the Britains under Boadicea which was occasion'd by the Romans ill usage of the Britains after his death And Prasutagus left onely two Daughters what becomes then of his Son Marius whom White would have to be Cogidunus But Marius is said to succeed Arviragus who was alive in Domitian's time and Cogidunus had the Cities conferred upon him before Suetonius Paulinus came into Britain as appears by Tacitus which are things inconsistent Others say that Arviragus was the same with Caractacus for this Opinion Alford contends and Juvenal he saith mentions the name by a Poetical Licence although he lived long before But what reason is there to suppose that Fabricius Veienti should make such a course Complement to Domitian that he should triumph over a man dead and triumphed over once already by Claudius who was never known at Rome by any other name than Caractacus as far as we can find by which he was so famous for his long Opposition to the Romans But it is very probable that in Domitian's time after the recalling Agricola and taking away the Life of Salustius Lucullus his Successour The Britains took up Arms under Arviragus And the Learned Primate of Armagh mentions an old British Coin in Sir R. Cotton's Collections with these Letters on it ARIVOG from whence he thinks his true name was Arivogus which the Romans turned to Arviragus And the old Scholiast there saith that was not his true name The Britains being now up in Arms as far as we can learn were not repressed till Hadrian came over in Person and built the first Wall to keep them out of the Roman Province For before this Spartianus saith The Britains could not be kept in subjection to the Roman Power So that here was a fit season in Domitian's time Agricola being recalled in the beginning of Domitian's Reign for such a King as Arviragus to appear in the head of the Britains and it was then a suitable Complement to him to wish him a Triumph over Arviragus But Alford saith that Claudius sent Caractacus home again and after many years he dyed in Peace being a Friend to the Romans How then comes Tacitus to take no notice of him as he doth of Cogidunus Is it probable the Romans would restore so subtile and dangerous an Enemy as Caractacus had been to them Cogidunus had been always faithfull to them but Caractacus an open Enemy and the Silures still in being over whom he commanded and not over the Belgae as he must have done if he were the Arviragus who gave the Hydes of Land to Joseph of Arimathea and his Companions These things I have here put together to shew for what Reasons I decline the Tradition of Joseph of Arimathea's coming hither to Preach the Gospel And although they may not be sufficient to convince others yet I hope they may serve to clear me from unexcusable Partiality which Mr. Cressy charges on all who call this Tradition into question 2. But notwithstanding I hope to make it appear from very good and sufficient Evidence that there was a Christian Church planted in Britain during the Apostles times And such Evidence ought to be allow'd in this matter which is built on the Testimony of ancient and credible Writers and hath a concurrent probability of Circumstances I shall first produce the Testimony of ancient and credible Writers For it is an excellent Rule of Baronius in such Cases That no Testimonies of later Authours are to be regarded concerning things of remote Antiquity which are not supported by the Testimony of ancient Writers And there is a difference in the force of the Testimony of ancient Writers themselves according to their Abilities and Opportunities For some had far greater judgment than others some had greater care about these matters and made it more their business to search and enquire into them and some had greater advantages by being present in the Courts of Princes or Councils of Bishops whereby they could better understand the Beginning and Succession of Churches And for all these there was none more remarkable in Antiquity than Eusebius being a learned and inquisitive Person a Favorite of Constantine the first Christian Emperour born and proclaimed Emperour in Britain one present at the Council at Nice whither Bishops were summoned from all parts of the Empire and one that had a particular curiosity to examine
find three Bishops subscribing to it Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of London and Adelsius de Civitate Colonia Londinensium So it is in Sirmondus his best Copy And although Mr. Selden seems to question the Antiquity of it yet the other vouches it to be very good and ancient But what then is the Civitas Colonia Londinensium The Learned Primate thinks it to be Colchester that being called in Antoninus Colonia Mr. Selden takes it to be Camalodunum and so written Camalodon which the ignorant Scribes made Col. Londinensium Sir H. Spelman likewise supposes it to be the old Colony of Camalodunum But I think a far more probable sense may be given of it if we consider the way of summoning Bishops to Councils at that time For it is unreasonable to imagine that every Roman Colony or City sent a Bishop For then every Council would have been as full as the Arabick Writers say the Council of Nice was of which Mr. Selden hath discoursed at large or at least as Cummianus and Ado thought this Council of Arles was which they made to consist of 600 Bishops An unreasonable number to be called together on such an occasion as the giving way to the restless importunity of the Donatists to have their Cause heard over again It is not to be presumed that Constantine would summon so great a number to make up a Court Episcopale Iudicium St. Augustine often calls it wherein the main thing to be done was to hear the Parties and to give Judgment And in the former Judgment but 19 Bishops were summoned It is said That St. Augustine makes the number of Bishops at Arles to be 200. But I see no sufficient ground to understand those words of this particular Council but of all the Bishops which had condemned them in several Councils among whom he reckons the Italian Spanish and Gallick Bishops who met at Arles But when I compare the Subscriptions to that Council published out of the most ancient MS. with a Passage in Hilary I am apt to believe that excepting those that were very near about Arles there were no more than a Bishop out of a Province with one or two Presbyters So it is expresly in the Summons to Chrestus Bishop of Syracuse in Sicily the onely one remaining and which Baronius thinks was the same that was to the rest wherein he is required to come out of that Province and to bring two Presbyters with him as Valesius shews against Baronius and Sirmondus the words are to be understood And Hilary speaking of the Councils of his time saith That one or two Bishops were sent for out of a Province and he instanceth in the Council of Ancyra and the great Council at Ariminum So here we meet with Chrestus out of the Province of Sicily Quintasius out of the Province of Sardinia and so in most of the rest the distinct Provinces are set down out of which they came And at that time there were 18 Provinces of Gaul and Britain and so many Bishops appeared at Arles besides Marinus the Bishop of the Place But to supply the defect of some other Provinces there were more out of that Province wherein Arles stood than out of any other In Britain there were then three Provinces according to the MS. Copy of Sextus Rufus saith Mr. Camden therefore in all probability since the other two Bishops were out of the other two Provinces Maxima Caesariensis and Britannia Prima The third Bishop was out of the third Province of Britannia Secunda wherein there were two noted Colonies the one called Colonia Divana in the Coin of Septimius Geta and Civitas Legionum in Beda now Chester the other Civitas Legionis ad Yscam where was a Colony of the 11. Legion which Province is sometimes called Britannica Secunda And therefore this Bishop Adelphius came ex Civit. Col. Leg. 11. which the ignorant Transcribers might easily turn to ex Civit. Col. Londin The onely Objection is that which is suggested by the Learned Primate of Armagh viz. That there were four Provinces of Britain at that time and that Flavia Caesariensis was one of them having its name from Constantine who assumed the name of Flavius But Goltzius his Copy deserves not to be so much preferr'd before Camden's And the name of Flavia Caesariensis might either be taken from Flavius Valentinianus as Berterius thinks or from Fl. Theodosius before whose time Camden saith we never met with Britannia Flavia. There being then but three Bishops present at the Council of Arles is so far from being an Argument that there were no more in Britain that it is rather an Argument to the contrary since it was the Custome to send but one or two out of a Province where they were most numerous And I see no reason to question a Succession of Bishops here from the first founding of a Christian Church To prove this I shall not rely on the Testimony of the Anonymous Greek Authour of the Martyrdoms of Peter and Paul who saith Saint Peter here ordained Bishops Priests and Deacons But upon the Reason of the thing there being no other Church in the Christian World which derived from the Apostles which had not a Succession of Bishops from them too And we cannot trace the History of other Churches farther than we can do that of their Bishops As for instance The first Conversion of the Churches of Africa is much in the dark but as soon as we reade any thing considerable of them we meet with a Council of Bishops viz. of Agrippinus and his Brethren out of the Provinces of Africa Numidia and Mauritania and he was not the immediate Predecessour of St. Cyprian who suffer'd in the Persecution of Valerian Anno Dom. 258. And Tertullian puts the proof of Apostolical Churches upon the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles which were a sensless way of proceeding unless it were taken for granted that whereever the Apostles planted Churches they appointed Bishops to take care of them Although therefore by the loss of Records of the British Churches we cannot draw down the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time for that of the Bishops of London by Jocelin of Furnes is not worth mentioning yet we have great reason to presume such a Succession When upon the first summoning a Council by Constantine three British Bishops appear'd one out of every Province as they did in other Parts But some pretend to give a more punctual and exact account of the settling of our Church Government here viz. That there were twenty eight Cities among the old Britains That in these there were twenty five Flamins and three Archiflamins in whose places upon the Conversion of the Nation by King Lucius there was the like number of Bishops and Archbishops here appointed And for this besides the Rabble of our Monkish Historians who swallow Geffrey of Monmouth whole without
in that Epistle makes it his business to persuade Arsacius to take all things commendable from the Christians and no doubt this was thought so by his Predecessours who first set up this Sacerdotal Government of Provinces among them And if I mistake not it began much later than the first Settlement of Episcopacy in the British Churches For Eusebius saith That Maximinus appointed not onely Priests in the Cities but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chief-priests in the Provinces where Valesius mistakes his meaning for he thinks all the Innovation of Maximinus was the appointing them himself whereas they were wont to be chosen by the Decuriones in the Cities But he speaks of it as a new thing of Maximinus to appoint such an Order and Office among the Priests which had not been known before And that which puts this matter out of doubt is That Lactantius in his excellent Piece lately published out of MS. by Baluzius saith expresly of Maximinus Novo more Sacerdotes maximos per singulas Civitates singulos ex primoribus fecit i.e. That by a new Custome he appointed Chief Priests in the several Cities of the greatest Persons in them who were not onely to doe the Office of Priests themselves but to look after the inferiour Priests and by their means to hinder the Christians from their Worship and to bring them to punishment But as though this were not enough He appointed other Priests over the Provinces in a higher degree above the rest Although then Valesius asserted that such were elder than Maximinus yet Lactantius whose authority is far greater hath determined the contrary I am not ignorant that long before Maximinus his time Tertullian mentions the Praesides Sacerdotales but those do not relate to this matter but to the Spectacula as appears by the place Some insist on the Sacerdotes Provinciales in Tertullian but Rigaltius shews there ought to be a comma between them it being very unlikely the Provincial Priests should have Golden Crowns when those at Rome had not And in a Canon of the African Code we find the Sacerdotes Provinciae but that Council was long after Anno Dom. 407. And these seem to be no other than Advocates who were to appear for the Causes which concerned the Temples and Sacrifices throughout the Province According to which method the African Bishops there desire That the Churches might have Advocates too with the same Privileges Which Request was granted by Honorius and was the first Introduction of Lawyers into the Service of the Church who were called Defensores Ecclesiarum and were afterwards Judges in Ecclesiastical Causes But that which comes nearer to this matter is the Authority of the Asiarchae who in some Coins mentioned by Spanhemius are said to be Priests over thirteen Cities And this in the Law is called Sacerdotium Asiae But these seem to have been no other than those who took care of the publick Solemnities in the common Assembly in Asia when the People met out of these Cities to perform them either at Ephesus or Smyrna or any other of the Cities within this combination as is observed by many Learned Men. And although there were but one Chief at a time yet the Office seem'd to have passed by turns through the several Cities And he in whose City the Solemnities were to be kept was the President for that time and had the Title of Asiarcha But Alb. Rubenius shews from Aristides and Dio That the Asiarchae had a Superintendency over the Temples and the Priests within the Community of the Asian Cities But these were onely he saith For the Temples erected to the Caesars out of the common Stock The Temple of Diana at Ephesus belonging to the Ionian Community and not to that of Asia Herodes Atticus is called in the Inscription at Athens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caesar 's High-priest But that seems to be onely a Title without Power But it appears by the Inscription at Thyatira That the Asiarcha was called the High-priest of Asia and had Power to place Priests in the Cities under his Care But still this falls short of such Chief-priests in the Provinces as Maximinus appointed And thus I have endeavour'd to clear the Antiquity and Original Institution of Episcopacy here by shewing that it was not taken up according to the Monkish Tradition from the Heathen Flamins and Archiflamins But came down by Succession from the first planting of Apostolical Churches For although we cannot deduce a lineal Succession of Bishops as they could in other Churches where Writings were preserved yet assoon as through the Churches Peace they came to have intercourse with foreign Churches as in the Council of Arles they appeared with a proportionable number of Bishops with those of other Provinces And their Succession was not in the least disputed among them they subscribing to the Sentence and Canons as others did And what Canons did then pass did no doubt as much concern the British Churches to observe as any other Churches whose Bishops were there present Which Canons were passed by their own Authority For they never sent to the Bishop of Rome to confirm but to publish them as appears by the Synodical Epistle which they sent to him Their words are Quae decrevimus Communi Concilio Charitati tuae significamus ut omnes sciant quid in futurum obserâ—are debeant Baronius had good luck to find out the necessity of the Pope's confirmation here Whereas they plainly tell him they had already decreed them by common consent and sent them to him to divulge them i. e. As Petrus de Marca saith As the Emperours sent their Edicts to their Praefecti Praetorio Was that to confirm them It is true they say the Pope had a larger Diocese But if these words had implied so much as a Patriarchal Power over the Bishops there assembled how could they assume to themselves this Power to make Canons And onely to signifie to him what they had done and to desire him to communicate these Canons to others Would such a Message from a Council have been born since the Papal Supremacy hath been owned Nay how fancily would it have looked in any Council within the Patriarchats of the East to have done so But these Bishops of Arles knew no other Style then but Charitati tuae And they signifie to the Bishop of Rome what they had already decreed but not what they had prepared for him to confirm And they are so far from owning his Authority in calling them together That they tell him They were assembled at the Emperour's Command and were so far from expecting Directions from him that they tell him they had a Divine Authority present with them and a certain Tradition and Rule of Faith They wished indeed he had been present with them and to have judged together with them Was this to make him sole Iudge or could they believe him
at the same time to be their Supreme Head They could have been glad of the Company of their Brother of Rome as they familiarly call him But since his Occasions would not permit his Absence from home they acquaint him what they had done and so send him an Abstract of their Canons as may be seen at large both in Sirmondus and Baronius By this we see what Opinion the British Bishops and their Brethren had of the Pope's Supremacy But now to their Canons Those may be reduced to three Heads Either to the Keeping of Easter Or to the Discipline of the Clergy Or to Lay Communion 1. As to Easter That Council decreed Can. 1. That it should be observed on the same day and time throughout the World And that the Bishop of Rome should give notice of the day according to custome But this latter part was repealed as Binius confesses by the Council of Nice which referr'd this matter to the Bishop of Alexandria 2. As to the Clergy There were Canons which related to Bishops Priests and Deacons 1. To Bishops and those were four 1. That no Bishop should trample upon another Can. 17. which Albaspineus well interprets of invading another's Diocese 2. As to travelling Bishops that they should be allow'd to perform Divine Offices in the City they came unto Can. 19. 3. That no Bishop should consecrate another alone but he ought to take seven with him or at least three Can. 20. Which shews the number of Bishops then in the Western Provinces and so in Britain at that time The Nicene Canon C. 4. takes notice onely of three Bishops as necessary to be present because many Eastern Provinces had not seven as Christianus Lupus observes on that Canon In an African Council in Cresconius we find That because two had presumed to consecrate a Bishop they desire that twelve may be present But Aurelius Bishop of Carthage refused it for this reason Because in the Province of Tripolis there were but five Bishops Therefore when the Council of Arles appoints seven it doth suppose these Provinces to have a greater number of Bishops 4. That if any were proved to have been Traditores in the Time of Persecution i. e. to have given up the Sacred Books or Vessels or to have betrayed their Brethren and this proved by Authentick Acts Then they were to be deposed However their Ordinations are declared to be valid Can. 13. 2. As to inferiour Clergy 1. Excommunication is denounced against those that put out money to use Can. 12. 2. That they were not to forsake the Churches where they were ordained Can. 2. And Deprivation is threatned on that account Can. 21. 3. The Deacons are forbidden to celebrate the Lord's Supper there called Offering Can. 15. 3. As to Lay Communion 1. Those that refuse to continue in their Employment as Souldiers now the Persecution was over were to be suspended Communion Can. 3. The words are de his qui Arma projiciunt in Pace Of which some do hardly make tolerable sense Binius saith it must be read in Bello But nothing can be more contrary to Peace than War How then should such a mistake happen Albaspineus saith It is against those who refuse to be Souldiers in time of Peace Baronius saith It is against them that apostatize in time of Peace But if a Metaphorical Sense will be allow'd that which seems most probable is That many Christians now the Persecution was over neglected that Care of themselves and that Strictness of Discipline which they used before And therefore such are here threatned if not to be thrown out yet to be debarr'd Communion till they had recover'd themselves And much to this purpose Josephus Aegyptius and Joh. Antiochenus do understand the 12. Can. of the Council of Nice But if a Metaphorical Sense be thought too hard Then I suppose the meaning is against those who renounced being Souldiers as much now in time of the Churches Peace as under Persecution when they could not be Souldiers without committing Idolatry as appear'd in the Persecution of Licinius and others Constantine as Eusebius saith gave them all leave to forsake their Employment that would But the Council of Arles might well apprehend That if all Christians renounced being Souldiers They must still have an Army of Heathens whatever the Emperours were And therefore they had reason to make such a Canon as this since the Christians ever thought it lawfull to serve in the Wars Provided no Idolatrous Acts were imposed which was frequently done on purpose by the Persecutours as Maximianus Licinius Julian c. And this I think the true meaning of this difficult Canon 2. For those who drove the Chariots in Races and acted on Theatres as long as they continued so to doe There being so many Occasions of Idolatry in both of them They were to be cast out of Communion Can. 4 5. 3. That those who were Christians and made Governours of remote places should carry with them the communicatory Letters of their own Bishop and not be debarr'd Communion unless they acted against the Discipline of the Church This I take to be the meaning of Can. 7. 4. That those who were received into the Church in their weakness should have Imposition of hands afterwards Can. 6. 5. That those who brought Testimonials from Confessours should be bound to take communicatory Letters from their Bishop Can. 9. 6. That those who found their Wives in Adultery should be advised not to marry again while they did live Can. 10. 7. That those young Women who did marry Infidels should for a time be suspended Communion Can. 11. 8. That those who falsly accused their Brethren should not be admitted to Communion as long as they lived Can. 14. 9. That none who were excommunicated in one place should be absolved in another Can. 16. 10. That no Apostate should be admitted to Communion in Sickness But they ought to wait till they recover'd and shew'd amendment Can. 22. 11. That those who were baptized in the Faith of the Holy Trinity should not be rebaptized Can. 8. And this was the Canon which Saint Augustine on all occasions pressed upon the Donatists as Sirmondus and Launoy think And therefore they suppose this Council to be called so often a Plenary and Vniversal Council not from the number of Bishops present but from the Provinces out of which they came And so it was the first General Council of the Western Church CHAP. III Of the Succession of the British Churches from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum GReat Probabilities that the British Bishops were present in the Council of Nice The Testimonies of Constantine's being born in Britain clear'd The particular Canons of the Council of Nice relating to the Government of Churches explained How far the right of Election was devolved to the Bishops Of the Authority of Provincial Synods there settled Particular Exceptions as to the Bishops of Alexandria Rome and Antioch from ancient Custome
They had then a Patriarchal Power within certain bounds No Metropolitans under the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria The just Rights of the British Churches clear'd No evidence that they were under the Roman Patriarchate The Cyprian Privilege vindicated from all late Exceptions The Patriarchal Rights examin'd And from them the Pope's Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches at large disputed and overthrown Pope Leo's Arguments against the Patriarch of Constantinople held for the Western Churches against him The British Bishops present in the Council of Sardica What Authority granted by them to the Bishop of Rome and how far it extends HAving deduced the Succession of the British Churches down to the Appearance of the British Bishops at the first Council of Arles I now come to the famous Council of Nice And although the Subscriptions still remaining which are very imperfect and confused in the best Copies do not discover any of the British Bishops to have been there present yet there are many Probabilities to induce us to believe that they were For 1. Constantine declares that his Design was to have as full an Appearance of Bishops there from all parts as he could well get together To that end he sent forth an universal Summons for the Bishops to come out of all Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word used by Eusebius And presently after he saith Constantine's Edict was divulged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all Provinces of the Empire How can this be if there were no Summons in the Provinces of Gaul and Britain And to prevent all Objections as to difficulty and charges of Passage Eusebius adds That he had given order to have the publick Carriages ready and all Expences to be defrayed for them To this purpose Tractoriae were to be given them by the Emperour's Order which secured their Passage and Provision in all Places The form of which is exstant in Baronius And the Classis Britannica lying near to Britain to secure these Coasts from the Franks and Saxons who were then troublesome and over which Carausius so lately was appointed Admiral to clear these Seas the Bishops here could not want conveniency to transport them 2. Constantine expressed great satisfaction in the Numbers that did appear from all parts So that there is no reason to question That they did answer his expectation For in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria he saith He had brought together a great number of Bishops But more fully in his Epistle to the Churches That to the Settlement of the Christian Faith it was then necessary that all the Bishops should meet together or at least the greatest part Therefore he had assembled as many as he could But when it appears by the Council of Arles what numbers of Bishops there were in these Western Provinces how could Constantine use such Expressions as these if they were not summoned to appear And Eusebius saith Those that were summon'd did come according to appointment with great readiness not onely for the sake of the Council but of the Emperour And he after saith That the most eminent Bishops of all Churches as well those of Europe as Asia and Africa did come to Nice Did not Eusebius know of the Churches of Britain Yes most certainly For he mentions their early conversion to Christianity as I have already shew'd And in that very Book of the Life of Constantine he mentions the Churches of Britain as well as those of Gaul and Spain And there Constantine insists upon the consent of the Western and Northern Churches about Easter as well as the Southern and some of the Eastern Now if their Consent were so considerable as to add weight in this matter It is not to be supposed they should be left out when he designed an Oecumenical Council as far as it was in his power to make it so which certainly extended to all the Provinces within the Empire 3. It is not probable the Churches of Britain should be left out considering Constantine's relation to Britain For he was not onely proclaimed Emperour here on the death of his Father But if the Panegyrist who lived in that time may be believed He was born here For comparing Constantius and him together he saith That his Father deliver'd Britain from Slavery Tu etiam Nobiles illic oriendo fecisti The question now is Whether these words relate to his Birth or to his being proclaimed Caesar here Livineius is for the latter after Lipsius But I see no reason to decline the most natural and proper sense viz. That he brought a great honour to Britain by being born in it Eumenius in another Panegyrick applauds the happiness of Britain That had the first sight of Constantine Caesar. This is likewise capable of both senses But he immediately falls into a high commendation of Britain for its Temper Fertility Riches and Length of days If this were Constantine's own Countrey this was done like an Oratour If not to what purpose is all this And then he parallels Britain with Egypt where Mercury was born Which shews that he spake of the Place of Nativity Besides the former Panegyrist made his Oration to Maximianus and Constantine together upon his Marriage of Theodora his Daughter But it is not so probable that he would to him so much own Constantine's being made Caesar in Britain For that was not according to the Rules of Government in the Court of Maximianus and Dioclesian for as Galerius told Dioclesian when he would have had four Augusti No saith he That is against your own Maxim which is to have onely two Augusti and for them to name two Caesars Therefore it is not likely That the Oratour should to Maximianus his face own him to be made Caesar without the consent of those who were then Augusti But if he speaks of his being made Caesar by Galerius it is very doubtfull whether he were then in Britain For Lactantius saith he took time to consider about it and was very hardly brought to it But Nazarius and Praxagoras both say That Constantine went into Gaul soon after his Father's death And therefore Gaul first saw him Caesar according to the constitution of the Empire at that time So that this one Testimony of the Panegyrist weighs more with me than ten Cedrenus's or Nicephorus's who say he was born in the East But I produce this onely as an argument of the improbability That the British Churches should be omitted by Constantine in the Summons to his Oecumenical Council or That they being summon'd should neglect to go 4. They were certainly summon'd and did go to the Councils of Sardica and Ariminum after and to that of Arles before and why should we believe them left out in that of Nice This argument alone prevailed with Mr. Selden to believe them present at the Council of Nice And we are now forced to make use of the best Probabilities
since Athanasius his Synodicon hath been so long lost wherein all their Names were set down who were then present And that Catalogue of them if it were distinct which Epiphanius had seen There being then so much reason to believe the British Bishops present in the Council of Nice we have the more cause to look into the Constitution of the Ecclesiastical Government there settled that so we may better understand the just Rights and Privileges of the British Churches After the Points of Faith and the Time of Easter were determined The Bishops there assembled made twenty Canons for the Government and Discipline of the Church in which they partly re-inforced the Canons of the Council of Arles and partly added new Those that were re-inforced were 1. Against Clergy-mens taking the customary Vsury then allow'd Can. 17. 2. Against their removing from their own Diocese Can. 15. which is here extended to Bishops and such removal is declared null 3. Against Deacons giving the Eucharist to Presbyters and in the presence of Bishops Can. 18. 2. As to Lay Communion The Canon against re-baptizing is re-inforced by Can. 19. wherein those onely who renounced the Trinity are required to be re-baptized and the Canon against being excommunicated in one Church and received into Communion in another Can. 5. whether they be of the Laity of Clergy For the New Canons about Lay Communion they chiefly concerned the Lapsed in times of Persecution As 1. If they were onely Catechumens that for three years they should remain in the lowest Form not being admitted to join in any Prayers of the Church but onely to hear the Lessons read and the Instructions that were there given Can. 14. 2. For those that were baptized and fell voluntarily in the late Persecution of Licinius They were for three years to remain among those who were admitted onely to hear for seven years to continue in the state of Penitents and for two years to join onely with the People in Prayers without being admitted to the Eucharist Can. 11. 3. For those Souldiers who in that Persecution when Licinius made it necessary for them to sacrifice to Heathen Gods if they would continue in their Places first renounced their Employments and after by Bribery or other means got into them again for three years they were to be without joining in the Prayers of the Church and for ten years to remain in the state of Penitents But so as to leave it to the Bishop's Discretion to judge of the sincerity of their Repentance and accordingly to remit some part of the Discipline Can. 12. 4. If persons happen'd to be in danger of Death before they had passed through all the methods of the Churches Discipline they were not to be denyed the Eucharist But if they recover they were to be reduced to the state of Penitents Can. 13. But there was one Canon added of another nature which concerned Vniformity and that is the last of the Genuine Canons It had been an ancient Custome in the Christian Church to forbear kneeling in the publick Devotion on the Lord's days and between Easter and Whitsontide but there were some who refused to observe it And therefore this Canon was made to bring all to an Vniformity in that Practice Can. 20. But there are other Canons which relate more especially to Ecclesiastical Persons and those either concern the Discipline of the Clergy or the Government of the Church 1. For the Discipline of the Clergy they are these 1. None who had voluntarily castrated themselves were to be admitted into Orders Can. 1. For it seems Origen's Fact however condemned by some was as much admired by others and Christianus Lupus thinks the Sect of the Valesii who castrated all came from him But I do not find that Origen did propagate any Sect of this kind And Epiphanius makes one Valens the Authour of it However this great Council thought fit to exclude all such from any Capacity of Church Employments But it is generally supposed and not without reason that the Fact of Leontius a Presbyter of Antioch castrating himself because of his suspicious Conversation with Eustolia gave the particular Occasion to the making this Canon 2. None who were lately Catechumens were to be consecrated Bishops or ordained Presbyters Can. 2. For however it had happen'd well in some extraordinary Cases as of St. Cyprian before and others after this Council as St. Ambrose Nectarius c. yet there was great reason to make a standing Rule against it 3. None of the Clergy were to have any Women to live in the House with them except very near Relations as Mother or Sister c. Can. 3. For some pretending greater Sanctity and therefore declining Marriage yet affected the familiar Conversation of Women who made the same pretence For Budaeus hath well observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Companion of Celibacy So that when two Persons were resolved to continue unmarried and agreed to live together one of these was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the other And Tertullian writing against second Marriages seems to advise this Practice Habe aliquam Vxorem spiritualem adsume de Viduis Ecclesiae c. And it soon grew into a Custome in Africa as appears by St. Cyprian who writes vehemently against it and shews the Danger and Scandal of it And that this Conversation was under a Pretence of Sanctity appears by St. Jerom's words speaking of such persons Sub nominibus pietatis quaerentium suspecta consortia and again Sub nomine Religionis umbra Continentiae But elsewhere he calls it Pestis Agapetarum for it spread like the Plague and was restrained with great Difficulty And at last Laws were added to Canons these being found ineffectual 4. If any persons were admitted loosely and without due Examination into Orders or upon Confession of lawfull Impediments had Hands notwithstanding laid upon them such Ordinations were not to be allowed as Canonical Can. 9. which is more fully expressed in the next Canon as to one Case viz. That if any lapsed persons were ordained whether the Ordainers did it ignorantly or knowingly they were to be deprived Can. 10. 5. If any among the Novatians returned to the Church and subscribed their Consent to the Doctrine and Practice of it their Ordination seems to be allowed Justellus and some others think a new Imposition of hands was required by this Canon If any of the Novatian Clergy were admitted into the Church And so Dionysius Exiguus and the old Latin Interpreter do render it But Balsamon Zonaras and others understand it so as that the former Imposition of hands whereby they were admitted into the Clergy were hereby allow'd If the words of the Canon seem to be ambiguous and their Sense to be taken from the Practice of the Nicene Fathers in a parallel Case then they are rather to be understood of a new Imposition of hands For in the Case of the Meletians
be a sufficient Witness in this matter The length and difficulty of the way was no hindrance afterwards for obtaining the Pope's consent for the Consecration of the Bishop of Milan as appears by the instance of Gregory produced by him Why then should that be alledged as the Reason before For the Ways were not one jot shorter or easier to pass But if we compare the Election and Consecration of St. Ambrose at Milan with that of Deus dedit in St. Gregory's time We shall see an apparent difference in the Circumstances of them For at the first there was a Provincial Synod by the Emperour's appointment as Theodoret relates it who referr'd the choice to the Emperour But he declining it and the City falling into great heats about it St. Ambrose was of a sudden chosen being then Governour of the Province and so was Inthronized by the Bishops there present Not one word here of the consent of the Bishop of Rome required or so much as mention'd And yet Pope Damasus was as ready to assert any thing that looked like a Right of his See as Pelagius or Gregory But at that time St. Ambrose at Milan had as great authority as Damasus at Rome And the Italick Diocese was as considerable as the Roman If the length and difficulty of the Way were the true Reason why St. Ambrose did not go to Rome yet why no Messenger sent Why no Agent from the Pope to declare his consent But then the Extent of the Roman Diocese was better understood wherein all the Bishops were to receive Consecration from the Bishop of Rome having no Metropolitane of their own But this did not reach so far as Milan This Roman Diocese was truly Patriarchal having several Provinces under it and was therein peculiar and made a Precedent for the Bishop of Alexandria all the other Western Churches being then govern'd by their several Bishops and Metropolitanes Jac. Leschassier thinks that five of the eleven Provinces of Italy made up this Diocese I mean the Provinces of Augustus and not of Constantine And within these were about seventy Bishops who belonged to the Consecration of the Bishop of Rome having no other Metropolitane And with this as he observes the old Notitia of the Vatican produced by Baronius agrees wherein the Suffragans of the Bishop of Rome are said to be the Bishop of Campania the Marsi Tuscia Vmbria and Marchia which Notitia is the same with the Provinciale Romanum published by Miraeus and compared by him with four MSS. wherein are set down all the Bishops of the Roman Province as it is there called Ferd. Vghellus reckons up seventy Bishops of those who were immediately under the Bishop of Rome 's Jurisdiction and had no Metropolitane over them These were within the Provinces of Latium Valeria Tuscia Picenum and Vmbria which neither answering exactly to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Prefect nor to that of the Vicarius Vrbis We are not to judge of the Extent of this Diocese from that of the Civil Government but from ancient Custome to which the Council of Nice doth expresly attribute it In the Diurnus Romanus lately published by Garnerius out of an ancient Manuscript there is one Title De Ordinatione Episcopi Suburbicarii à Romano Pontifice where the whole Process as to the Consecration of a new Bishop is set down but from thence it appears that none but the Suburbicary Bishops belonged to his Consecration We freely grant then That the Bishop of Rome had a Patriarchal power over several Provinces as the Bishop of Alexandria was allowed to have by the Council of Nice in imitation of him And that within this Diocese he did exercise this as a Patriarchal right to consecrate Bishops within those several Provinces as the Bishop of Alexandria did But we deny that ever the Bishop of Rome did exercise this part of his Patriarchal power beyond the foremention'd Provinces But to prove the larger Extent of the Pope's Power as to Consecrations the Epistle of Siricius to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica is urged whom the Pope makes his Legate in the Part of Illyricum and charges him that no Consecrations should be allowed which were made without his consent And the same appears by the Epistles of Boniface to the Bishops of Thessaly and Illyricum and of Leo to Anastasius All which are published together by Holstenius out of the Barberine Library or rather out of his Transcripts by Card. Barberine but Hieron Alexander cites a Passage out of the same Collection as in the Vatican Library but from whencesoever it came the Objection seems to be the more considerable because as Holstenius in his Notes observes Blondel had denied that it could be proved by any Monument of Antiquity That the Bishop of Thessalonica was Legate to the Pope before the time of Leo. But to give a clear account of this matter Leo himself in his Epistle to Anastasius 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 that See to the Patriarchal dignity which gave great occasion of Jealousie and Suspicion 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 gained so large an accession by that Council And to prevent his farther Incroachments Westwards his Diocese of Thrace bordering upon Macedonia the subtilest Device they could think of to secure that Province and to inlarge their own Authority was to persuade the Bishop of Thessalonica to act as by Commission from the Bishop of Rome So that he should enjoy the same privileges which he had before And being back'd by so great an Interest he would be better able to contest with so powerfull a Neighbour as the Bishop of Constantinople And if any objected That this was to break the Rules settled by the Council of Nice They had that Answer ready That the Bishop of Constantinople began and their Concernment was to secure the Rights of other Churches from being invaded by him By which means they endeavour'd to draw those Churches bordering on the Thracian Diocese 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 onely involved them in continual Troubles as appears by that very Collection of Holstenius For the Bishops of Constantinople
of the Western Provinces wherein he can trace no Footsteps of the practice and therefore concludes it must be from privileges granted by the Bishops of Rome by reason of distance which the Patriarch of Alexandria would not grant But we are now proving the Right by the Practice and therefore it is unreasonable to alledge a Right without it For this way of proving is ridiculous viz. to prove that the Pope had patriarchal Rights because he did exercise them And then to say Though he did not exercise them yet he had them And so to prove that he had them because he was Patriarch of the West Yet this is in truth the way of proof this late Authour useth He sheweth from Lupus That all Consecrations of metropolitane and provincial Bishops belong to the Patriarch Then to prove a patriarchal Power it is necessary to prove that all the Consecrations within the Provinces do belong to that See But how doth this appear as to the Western Provinces Did all the Consecrations of Bishops within them belong to the Bishops of Rome If not then they were not within the Roman Patriarchate If they did we expect the proof of it by the practice No he confesseth the practice was different But still they had the patriarchal Right How so Yes saith he That is plain because the Bishop of Rome was Patriarch of the West 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 But he attempts something farther viz. That the Bishop of Rome had before the Council of Nice the power of deposing Bishops in Gaul as appears by Martianus of Arles deposed by Stephanus This Martianus had openly declared himself of the Novatian party At which Faustinus Bishop of Lyons and other Bishops in Gaul were very much troubled and expressed their Resentments of it but he slighted their Censures of him Both parties made Applications to St. Cyprian and Martianus desired to preserve Communion with him But he was utterly rejected there for joining in the Novatian Schism But it seems by St. Cyprian's Epistle he had still hopes not to be condemned at Rome although the Schism began there For saith he How ill would it look after Novatian himself had been so lately and universally rejected to suffer our selves to be deceived by his Flatterers St. Cyprian and his Collegues were in no danger for they had already detected and condemned him therefore this must be understood of Stephen which is the Reason he presses him so hard and with some Authority to dispatch his Letters to the People of Arles to chuse another Bishop in the place of Martianus Dirigantur in Provinciam ad Plebem Arelatae consistentem à te Literae c. And a little before he tells him He ought to send his mind at large to their Brethren the Bishops of Gaul That they ought not suffer him to insult over their Fraternity c. And the Reason he gives for this Freedom which he useth with him is Because they held the Balance of the Government of the Church in common among them And being several Pastours they took care of the same Flock who ought all to join in condemning such a Follower of Novatian and thereby preserve the reputation of their Predecessours Cornelius and Lucius who were glorious Martyrs and he especially who succeeded them And so not doubting his compliance in a friendly manner he desires him to let him know who succeeded Martianus at Arles that he might know to whom to write I appeal to any Man of common Sense whether this looks like the Application made to the Western Patriarch to whom St. Cyprian himself owed subjection as such For when the Bishops of Rome began to challenge a patriarchal Power over the Churches of Thessaly they expected Application to be made to them in a Style suitable to that Dignity as is very remarkable in the Roman Collection As in the Petition of Stephanus Bishop of Larissa the Metropolis of Thessaly Domino meo sancto ac beatissimo revera venerando Patri Patrum Archiepiscopo atque Patriarchae Bonifacio data supplicatio à Stephano exiguo And in the very same style Elpidius Stephanus and Timotheus These write like men that knew their distance and what Authority the Bishop of Rome then challenged But the meek and humble St. Cyprian seems to stand upon equal Terms with the Bishop of Rome or rather as if he were upon the higher Ground he takes upon him to tell him his duty and rather checks him for his neglect in it than owns any Authority in him superiour to his So that if any patriarchal Power be to be inferr'd from this Epistle it would be much rather that St. Cyprian was Patriarch of the West than the Bishop of Rome since he is rather superiour who directs what another should doe than he who doeth what is directed And if from hence it follows That the execution of the Canons was in the Bishop of Rome it will likewise follow that the directing that execution was in the Bishop of Carthage But we are told that even in Africa no Consecrations were allow'd without the consent of the Bishop of Rome This is great News indeed of which the African Code gives us no information But Holstenius finds it in an Epistle of Siricius or of Innocentius which he pleases for the same Rules are in both onely in the Canon Law it is taken from Innocentius and the true Sense is given of it Extra conscientiam Metropolitani Episcopi nullus audeat ordinare Episcopum But what is this to the Roman Patriarchate And our Authour doth not seem to rely upon it But he alledges a Passage in Optatus that Eunomius and Olympius two Bishops were sent to Carthage to consecrate a Bishop in the place both of Cecilian and Donatus And Albaspinaeus saith they were sent by the Pope's Authority But this Observation of his he hath not from Optatus by whom it rather appears that they were sent by the Emperour who stopt Cecilian at Brixia And no one that reads the Passages about Milthiades at that time and how Constantine joined Marinus Maternus and Rheticius in Commission with him can ever imagine that the Bishop of Rome was then esteemed the Patriarch of the West and as such to have had Jurisdiction over the Bishops of Africa The last Attempt to prove the Pope's patriarchal Power as to Consecrations in the Western Churches is from his Authority of giving Palls to the Metropolitanes Which he proves from Gregory's Epistles as to the Bishops of Arles and London And from an Epistle of Boniface Bishop of Mentz wherein he saith it was agreed in France That the Metropolitanes should receive Palls from the Roman See But how far are we now gone from the Council of Nice and the Rules of Church-politie then established We do not deny that
the next Council at Constantinople to take care that a fitter Person be chosen in his room And the same he re-inforces in another Epistle to Acholius alone But St. Ambrose and the Bishops of Italy with him in a Conciliar Address to Theodosius justifie the Consecration of Maximus and dislike that of Gregory and Nectarius Now in this Case I desire to know whether this Council own'd the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchal Power For Em. Ã Schelstraet following Christianus Lupus saith That in the Pope's patriarchal Power is implied that the Bishops are onely to consult and advise but the determination doth wholly belong to the Pope as Patriarch And that the Bishop of Alexandria had the same power appears by the Bishops of Egypt declaring they could not doe any thing without the Bishop of Alexandria Let us then grant That the Bishop of Rome had the same Authority within his Patriarchal Diocese doth not this unavoidably exclude the Bishops of the Italick Diocese from being under his Patriarchate For if they had been under it would they have not barely met and consulted and sent to the Emperour without him but in flat opposition to him And when afterwards the Western Bishops met in Council at Capua in order to the composing the Differences in the Church of Antioch although it were within the Roman Patriarchate yet it being a Council of Bishops assembled out of the Italick Diocese as well as the Roman the Bishop of Rome did not preside therein but St. Ambrose as appears by St. Ambrose his Epistle to Theophilus about the proceedings of this Council For he saith He hopes what Theophilus and the Bishops of Egypt should determine in that Cause about Flavianus would not be displeasing to their Holy Brother the Bishop of Rome And there follows another Epistle in St. Ambrose which overthrows the Pope's Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches by the confession of the Pope himself For that which had passed under the name of St. Ambrose is now found by Holstenius to be written by Siricius and is so published in the Roman Collection and since in the Collection of Councils at Paris This Epistle was written by Siricius to Anysius and other Bishops of Illyricum concerning the Case of Bonosus which had been referr'd to them by the Council of Capua as being the neighbour Bishops and therefore according to the Rules of the Church fittest to give Judgement in it But they either out of a complement or in earnest desired to know the Pope's opinion about it So his Epistle begins Accepi literas vestras de Bonoso Episcopo quibus vel pro veritate vel pro modestia nostram sententiam sciscitari voluistis And are these the Expressions of one with Patriarchal Power giving answer to a Case of difficulty which canonically lies before him But he afterwards declares he had nothing to doe in it since the Council of Capua had referr'd it to them and therefore they were bound to give Judgment in it Sed cum hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Capuensis judicium advertimus quod nobis judicandi forma competere non possit If the Bishop of Rome had then patriarchal Power over all the Western Churches how came he to be excluded from judging this Cause by the Proceedings of the Council of Capua Would Pope Siricius have born this so patiently and submissively and declined meddling in it if he had thought that it did of Right belong to him to determine it If the Execution of the Canons belongs to the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Patriarch how comes the Council of Capua not to refer this matter immediately to him who was so near them But without so much as asking his Judgment to appoint the hearing and determining it to the Bishops of Macedonia We have no reason to question the sincerity of this Epistle which Card. Barberine published as it lay with others in Holstenius his Papers taken out of the Vatican and other Roman MSS. by the express Order of Alexander VII And although a late Advocate for the Pope's Power in France against De Marca hath offer'd several Reasons to prove this Epistle counterfeit yet they are all answer'd by a Doctour of the Sorbon So that this Epistle of Siricius is a standing Monument not onely against the Pope's absolute and unlimited Power but his patriarchal out of his own Diocese But to justifie the Pope's patriarchal Power in calling the Western Bishops to his Council at Rome we have several Instances brought As of some Gallican Bishops present at the Council under Damasus Wilfrid an English Bishop under Agatho a Legate from the Council held in Britain with Felix of Arles and others and some others of later times But what do extraordinary Councils meeting at Rome prove as to the Bishop of Rome's being Patriarch of the Western Churches Do the Western Councils meeting at Milan Arles Ariminum Sardica or such Places prove the Bishops of them to be all Patriarchs These things are not worth mentioning unless there be some circumstance to shew that the Bishop of Rome called the Western Bishops together by his patriarchal Power for which there is no evidence brought But there is a very great difference between Councils assembled for Vnity of Faith or Discipline from several Dioceses and provincial Synods and patriarchal Councils called at certain times to attend the patriarchal See as is to be seen in the Diurnus Romanus where the Bishops within the Roman Patriarchate oblige themselves to obey the Summons to a Council at Rome at certain fixed times as Garnerius shews which he saith was three times in the year But he adds this extended no farther than to the Bishops within the Suburbicary Churches who had no Primate but the Bishop of Rome and so this was a true patriarchal Council 3. But the last Right contested for is that of Appeals in greater Causes By which we understand such Application of the Parties concerned as doth imply a Superiour Jurisdiction in him they make their resort to whereby he hath full Authority to determine the matters in difference For otherwise Appeals may be no more than voluntary Acts in the Parties and then the Person appealed to hath no more Power than their Consent gives him Now in the Christian Church for preservation of Peace and Unity it was usual to advise in greater Cases with the Bishops of other Churches and chiefly with those of the greatest Reputation who were wont to give their Judgment not by way of Authority but of Friendly correspondence not to shew their Dominion but their Care of preserving the Unity of the Church Of this we have a remarkable Instance in the Italick Council of which St. Ambrose was President who did interpose in the Affairs of the Eastern Church not with any pretence of Authority over them but merely out of Zeal to keep up and restore Unity among them They knew very well how suspicious the Eastern
thought that Athanasius had meant the Bishops of Britain when he reckons up onely the Provinces of Gaul But he declared that they were present with the Gallican Bishops But it hath been urged with great appearance of Reason that since the British Bishops were present at the Council of Sardica The British Churches were bound to observe the Canons of it and Appeals to the Bishop of Rome being there established they were then brought under his Jurisdiction as Patriarch of the Western Churches To give a clear account of this we must examine the Design and Proceedings of that Council The occasion whereof was this Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria being deposed for some pretended misdemeanours by two Synods of Eastern Bishops and finding no redress there by the prevalency of the Arian Faction makes Application to the Western Bishops and to Julius Bishop of Rome as the chief of them and earnestly desires that his Cause might be heard over again bringing great Evidence from the Bishops of Egypt and other places that he never had a fair Hearing but was run down by the Violence of the Eusebian party at Tyre and Antioch The Bishop of Rome communicating this with the Western Bishops as at large appears by Julius his Epistle in Athanasius he in their name as well as his own sends to the Eastern Bishops That this Cause might be heard before indifferent Judges And to that end that they would come into these Parts and bring their Evidences with them This they decline Upon which and a fuller Examination of the matter they receive Athanasius Marcellus and others into Communion with them This gives a mighty distaste to the Eastern Bishops at last the two Brothers Constantius and Constans agree there should be a general Council called at Sardica to hear and determine this matter The Bishops meet But the Western Bishops would have the restored Bishops admitted to Communion and sit in Council This the Eastern Bishops utterly refuse and upon that withdrew to Philippopolis And declare against their Proceedings at Sardica as repugnant to the Nicene Canons The Western Bishops continued sitting and made new Canons to justifie their own Proceedings This is the true state of the matter of Fact as far as I can gather it out of the authentick Writings on both Sides For the one side insists upon the Justice of re-hearing a Cause wherein there was so great suspicion of soul dealing And the other that the matters which concerned their Bishops were not to be tried over again by others at a distance And that this was the Way to overthrow the Discipline of the Church as it had been settled by the Council of Nice and the ancient Canons of the Church It is apparent by the Synodical Epistle of the Greek Bishops who withdrew to Philippopolis That this was the main Point insisted on by them That it was the bringing a new Law into the Church For the Eastern Bishops to be judged by the Western The ancient Custome and Rule of the Church being That they should stand or fall by their own Bishops The Western Bishops on the other side pleaded That this was a Cause of common concernment to the whole Church That there had been notorious partiality in the management of it That Athanasius was condemned not for any pretended miscarriages so much as for his Zeal against Arianism That the Cause was not heard in Egypt where he was charged but at a great distance and therefore in common Justice it ought to have a new hearing by the Eastern and Western Bishops together But the Eastern Bishops finding that the Western would not forsake the Communion of Athanasius and the rest they look'd on the Cause as prejudged and so went away However the other proceeded to the clearing the Bishops accused which they did by a Synodical Epistle and then made several Canons as against Translations from mean Bishopricks to better Can. 1. and using Arts to procure them Can. 2. Against placing Bishops in such places where a single Presbyter would serve and the absence of Bishops at Consecrations Can. 6. Against their unseasonable Applications to the Court Can. 7 8 9 20. Against being made Bishops per Saltum Can. 10. Against their Non-residence Can. 11 12. Against receiving those who were excommunicated by others Can. 13. About the Appeal of Presbyters Can. 14. Against taking Presbyters out of anothers Diocese Can. 15. Against their Non-residence Can. 16. About the Reception of banished Bishops Can. 17. About Eutychianus and Musaeus and the persons ordained by them Can. 18 19. But the main Canons of this Council are the third fourth and fifth which concern the re-hearing of the Causes of Bishops And the interest the Bishop of Rome was to have therein For the right understanding whereof we are to consider the several steps and methods of Proceeding therein established 1. That the Causes of Bishops in the first Instance were still to be heard and determin'd by the Bishops of the Province That is plain by the first part of Can. 3. Which forbids any Bishop in case of difference with another to call Bishops out of a neighbour Province to hear it This was agreeable to the Nicene Can. 5. Herein it is supposed that they reflect on the Council of Antioch's Proceedings against Athanasius But the Council of Antioch did not proceed upon St. Athanasius in the first Instance but upon this ground viz. That being deposed in the Council of Tyre he afterwards returned to the Bishoprick of Alexandria without being first restored by a greater Synod But this seems to have been very hard usage of so great a man For they first made the Canons themselves Can. 4 12. and out of them they framed an Article by virtue whereof they deprived Athanasius And herein lay the Art of the Eusebian party for if they had framed the Canon so as it is extant in Palladius it would never have passed the Council For it was not a Council of mere Arians as is commonly thought but of many Orthodox Bishops together with them who in some things were overreached by the Artifices of the Eusebian party And they did not meet purposely against Athanasius But 97 Bishops were summon'd by the Emperour to meet at the solemn Dedication of the great Church at Antioch called Dominicum Aureum as they had done before on the like occasion at Jerusalem And Eusebius saith Such Assemblies of Bishops were frequent at such times These being met together framed several Canons for the better Ordering and Government of the Churches out of which being passed by general Consent the Eusebians who hated Athanasius framed sufficient Articles against him For by the fourth Canon if a Bishop being deposed by a Synod doth officiate he is never to be restored By the twelfth If a Bishop deposed makes Application to the Emperour and not to a greater Council of Bishops he is not to be restored But now Athanasius being deposed by the Tyrian Synod
was restored upon his Application to the Emperour without any Synod called to that end and did execute his Office as Bishop of Alexandria and for this reason the Council of Antioch confirmed his Deposition A late Authour goes about to prove That the Canon against Athanasius did not pass the Council of Antioch but that it passed an Assembly of 40 Eusebians when the rest were gone But this is incredible as Baronius his Conceit is ridiculous who takes the 36 Mansions that Antioch was distant from Alexandria for 36 Arian Bishops and there is no Testimony of Antiquity to prove it But there is no reason to imagine any other Canon against Athanasius besides these two for they effectually did his business That which Palladius saith That in the Canon it was said whether the Bishop were deposed justly or unjustly is very improbable But that which gave occasion for him to say so was because the ancient Canon called Apostolical 28. had in it the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justly which they left out the better to effect their Design That so the merits of the Cause might not be enquired into But there was an Errour in the first Instance committed not by the Council of Antioch but by that of Tyre unless the extraordinary Summons of that Council by the Emperour's Command as Eusebius saith be a dispensation as to the regular Proceedings in common Cases But there was scarce any thing regular in the Proceeding of that Council For according to the Rules of the Church this Cause ought to have been heard in Egypt by the Bishops there And they justly complain of the Neglect of this in their Synodical Epistle And Liberius made a reasonable Proposition to Constantius That a Council might be summoned at Alexandria That this Cause which had given so much disturbance should be heard upon the Place all Parties being present Which was the best Expedient at last But the most natural way was to have begun there And therefore the Sardican Council did very well to reduce the Nicene Canon about proceeding within the Province in the first Instance 2. If the Party be grieved at the Sentence passed against him then that there be a re-hearing of it granted Can. 2. This the Council of Antioch allow'd Can. 12. by a greater Synod of Bishops but takes away all hopes of Restitution from him that made his Appeal to the Emperour The meaning of the Canon is not to exclude an Address for a greater Synod but an Appeal to have the Emperour reverse the Sentence without any farther hearing by another Assembly of Bishops So that the final resort was hereby settled in a greater Council from which no Appeal should lie This Canon is supposed to be particularly design'd against Athanasius But I do not find that he made Application to the Emperour to be restored with a Non-obstante to the Sentence of the Tyrian Council But to have a more indifferent hearing by another Council So the Bishops of Egypt testify in their Synodical Epistle extant in Athanasius But their Proceeding against him at Antioch was because after this he took Possession of his See without another Sentence of a greater Synod But the great difficulty is to reconcile this Canon with the fifteenth of the same Council which takes away all Liberty of Appeal from the unanimous Sentence of a provincial Synod Petrus de Marca a Man of more than ordinary Sagacity in these matters was sensible of this appearance of Contradiction and he solves it thus That no Appeal is allow'd from a provincial Synod Can. 15. But notwithstanding by Can. 12. there is a Liberty of proceeding by way of Petition to the Emperour for a re-hearing the Cause by a greater Synod And in this Case the Emperour was to be Judge whether it were fit to grant another hearing or not and although by this Canon in the case of a general Consent no neighbour Bishop could be called in as they might in case of Difference by Can. 14. Yet if the Emperour thought they proceeded partially he might either join Bishops of another Province with them or call a more general Council out of the Province as Constantine did at Tyre This was the undoubted Right of the Emperours to call together Assemblies of Bishops for what Causes they thought expedient But Socrates expresly saith That no Appeal was allow'd by the Canons of the Church For speaking of Cyrill of Jerusalem's being deposed he saith he appealed to a greater Court of Judicature which Appeal Constantius allow'd but then he adds That he was the first and onely person who contrary to the Custome and Canons of the Church made such an Appeal H. Valesius contradicts Socrates because of the Appeal of the Donatists to Constantine from the Council of Arles But this is nothing to the purpose for the actions of the Donatists were not regarded And besides their Appeal was to Constantine to hear the Cause himself But here Cyrill appealed to a greater number of Bishops according to the Canon of Antioch And then appear'd at the Council of Seleucia to have his Cause heard Baronius is much puzzled with this Expression of Socrates because it would take away Appeals to the Pope But the Eastern Bishops never understood any such thing And Cyrill made his Appeal to a greater Synod The Canons of Sardica which Baronius quotes were not received and scarce known in the Eastern Church Athanasius fled to the Western Bishops because he was so ill used in the East not because of any Authority in the Bishop of Rome to receive Appeals But Cyrill went according to the Canons of Antioch making application to Constantius to be heard by a greater Synod Sozomen saith that Constantius recommended the Cause of Cyrill to the Council of Ariminum But that cannot be since he expresly forbad the Western Bishops in that Council to meddle with the Causes of the Eastern Bishops And declares whatever they did in that matter should have no effect Therefore the Council to which Constantius referred this Cause must be that of Seleucia which was assembled at the same time Which seeming to take off from the Right of Provincial Synods established in the Council of Nice Socrates condemns as uncanonical and saith He was the first that proceeded in this method of seeking to the Emperour for a greater Council But then 3. The Council of Sardica made an Innovation in this matter For although it allows the liberty of a re-hearing yet it seems to take away the Power of granting it from the Emperour as far as in them lay and gives it to Julius Bishop of Rome for the honour of St. Peter And if he thought sit he was to appoint the Neighbour Bishops of the Province to hear it and such Assessours as the Emperour was wont to send To which was added Can. 4. That no Bishop should enter into the vacant Bishoprick upon a deposition and application for a new hearing
till the Bishop of Rome had given Sentence in it But then Can. 5. it is said That if the Cause be thought fit to be re-heard Letters are to be sent from him to the neighbour Bishops to hear and examine it But if this do not satisfie he may doe as he sees cause Which I take to be the full meaning of Can. 5. And this is the whole Power which the Council of Sardica gives to the Bishop of Rome Concerning which we are to observe 1. That it was a new thing for if it had been known before that the supreme Judgment in Ecclesiastical Causes lay in the Bishop of Rome These Canons had been idle and impertinent And there is no colour in Antiquity for any such judicial Power in the Bishop of Rome as to re-hearing of causes of deposed Bishops before these Canons of Sardica So that Petrus de Marca was in the right when he made these the foundation of the Pope's Power And if the Right of Appeal be a necessary consequent from the Pope's Supremacy Then the non-usage of this practice before will overthrow the claim of Supremacy In extraordinary Cases the great Bishops of the Church were wont to be advised with as St. Cyprian as well as the Bishop of Rome in the Cases of Basilides and Marcianus But if such Instances prove a right of Appeals they will doe it as much for the Bishop of Carthage as of Rome But there was no standing Authority peculiar to the Bishop of Rome given or allow'd before this Council of Sardica And the learned Publisher of Leo's Works hath lately proved at large That no one Appeal was ever made from the Churches of Gaul from the beginning of Christianity there to the Controversie between Leo and Hilary of Arles long after the Council of Sardica But such an Authority being given by a particular Council upon present Circumstances as appears by mentioning Julius Bishop of Rome cannot be binding to posterity when that limited Authority is carried so much farther as to be challenged for an absolute and supreme Power founded upon a Divine Right and not upon the Act of the Council For herein the difference is so great that one can give no colour or pretence for the other 2. That this doth not place the Right of Appeals in the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church But onely transfers the Right of granting a re-hearing from the Emperour to the Bishop of Rome And whether they could doe that or not is a great Question But in all probability Constantius his openly favouring the Arian Party was the occasion of it 3. That this can never justifie the drawing of Causes to Rome by way of Appeal because the Cause is still to be heard in the Province by the neighbour Bishops who are to hear and examine all Parties and to give Iudgment therein 4. That the Council of Sardica it self took upon it to judge over again a Cause which had been judged by the Bishop of Rome viz. The Cause of Athanasius and his Brethren Which utterly overthrows any Opinion in them That the supreme Right of Judicature was lodged in the Bishop of Rome 5. That the Sardican Council cannot be justified by the Rules of the Church in receiving Marcellus into Communion For not onely the Eastern Bishops in their Synodical Epistle say That he was condemned for Heresie by the Council at Constantinople in Constantine 's time and that Protogenes of Sardica and others of the Council had subscribed to his Condemnation But Athanasius himself afterwards condemned him And St. Basil blames the Church of Rome for admitting him into Communion And Baronius confesses that this brought a great disreputation upon this Council viz. the absolving one condemned for Heresie both before and after that Absolution 6. That the Decrees of this Council were not universally received as is most evident by the known Contest between the Bishops of Rome and Africa about Appeals If these Canons had been then received in the Church it is incredible that they should be so soon forgotten in the African Churches For there were but two Bishops of Carthage Restitutus and Genethlius between Gratus and Aurelius Christianus Lupus professes he can give no account of it But the plain and true account is this There was a Design for a General Council But the Eastern and Western Bishops parting so soon there was no regard had by the whole Church to what was done by one side or the other And so little notice was taken of their Proceedings that St. Augustine knew of no other than the Council of the Eastern Bishops and even Hilary himself makes their Confession of Faith to be done by the Sardican Council And the calling of Councils was become so common then upon the Arian Controversies And the Deposition of Bishops of one side and the other were so frequent that the remoter Churches very little concerned themselves in what passed amongst them Thence the Acts of most of those Councils are wholly lost as at Milan Sirmium Arles Beziers c. onely what is preserved in the Fragments of Hilary and the Collections of Athanasius who gathered many things for his own vindication But as to these Canons they had been utterly forgotten if the See of Rome had not been concerned to preserve them But the Sardican Council having so little Reputation in the World The Bishops of that See endeavoured to obtrude them on the World as the Nicene Canons Which was so inexcusable a piece of Ignorance or Forgery that all the Tricks and Devices of the Advocates of that See have never been able to defend CHAP. IV. Of the Faith and Service of the British Churches THE Faith of the British Churches enquired into The Charge of Arianism considered The true State of the Arian Controversie from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum Some late Mistakes rectified Of several Arian Councils before that of Ariminum The British Churches cleared from Arianism after it The Number and Poverty of the British Bishops there present Of the ancient endowment of Churches before Constantine The Privileges granted to Churches by him The Charge of Pelagianism considered Pelagius and Celestius both born in these Islands When Aremorica first called Britain What sort of Monk Pelagius was No probability of his returning to Britain Of Agricola and others spreading the Pelagian Doctrine in the British Churches Germanus and Lupus sent by a Council of Gallican Bishops hither to stop it The Testimony of Prosper concerning their being sent by Coelestine consider'd Of Fastidius a British Bishop London the chief Metropolis in the Roman Government Of Faustus originally a Britain But a Bishop in Gaul The great esteem he was in Of the Semipelagians and Praedestinatians Of the Schools of Learning set up here by the means of Germanus and Lupus Dubricius and Iltutus the Disciples of St. German The number of their Scholars and places of their Schools Of the Monastery of
time before his Persecution began or there were any such Monks in the World But it seems strange that the British Bishops should be then under such Poverty when Liberius in his Conference with Constantius told him The Churches were able to bear the Charges of their Bishops in going to Councils without the publick Carriages For even before Constantine's time they had endowments besides the voluntary Oblations of the People which in great Churches were very considerable But that there were certain Endowments besides appears both by the Edicts of Maximinus and Constantine By that of Maximinus not onely Houses but the Lands which belong'd to the Christians whether seized into the Emperour's hands or in the Possession of any City or given or sold are all commanded to be restored And that this doth not relate to their private Possessions but to the publick Revenue of their Churches will appear by the following Edict of Constantine and Licinius which in the first place commands all their Churches to be restored and then is added because the Christians are known not onely to have those Places where they assemble but others which likewise of Right belong to their Body i. e. their Churches For so the Words of the Edict in Lactantius are Sed alia etiam habuisse noscuntur ad jus corporis eorum id est Ecclesiarum non hominum singulorum pertinentia These are commanded to be restored without any delay or dispute Which is again inforced by another Edict of Constantine to Anulinus extant in Eusebius with the former and there are mention'd Houses Gardens or whatsoever Possessions they had Those who would have nothing more meant by these Expressions but some Fields and Gardens rather than Lands may consider that when the Church had plentifull Possessions they were called by no other Names So St. Ambrose Agri Ecclesiae solvunt Tributum And in another Law of Constantine directed to the Provincials of Palestine to the same purpose and with as full and large Expressions And howsoever they became alienated the present Possessours were to be satisfied with the mean Profits But by all means he commands a Restitution to be made not onely to particular Persons but to the Churches too But if the Endowments of Churches were not then considerable what need so many Edicts for the Restauration of them But Constantine did not onely take so much care to restore what the Churches had before but in case there were no Heirs at Law to the Martyrs and Confessours he bestows their Lands and Goods on the Churches And after this about four years before the Council of Nice he published the famous Constitution still extant in the Theodosian Code wherein a full Liberty is given to all sorts of Persons to leave what they thought fit by Will to the Catholick Churches of Christians And this as Gothofred saith was the true Donation of Constantine for by means of this Law Riches flowed into the Church and especially at Rome For although as Paulus saith by an Edict of M. Aurelius the Collegia licita Societies allow'd by the Laws were capable of receiving Legacies and Estates yet by the Laws of the Empire the Christians were no legal Society to that purpose before And by a late Constitution of Dioclesian Societies were excluded from receiving Inheritances without a special Privilege yet now by this Law all those Bars being removed Riches came in so fast in some Places that there needed new Constitutions to set bounds to so great liberality And the Privileges which Constantine gave to the Clergy of exemption from publick Services drew so many to take Orders especially in Corporations where the Services were very burthensome That Constantine was forced to publish Edicts to restrain the Numbers of them which were not intended to hinder Persons of Estate and Quality from entring into Orders as some have suggested but onely such whose Estates were liable to the publick Services as those who were Decuriones origine and not merely incolatu were who bore all the Offices and did the publick Duties having Lands given them on purpose in the first Settlement of Colonies which were called Praedia Reipublicae as Pancirol observes And therefore Constantine had reason to forbid such entring into Orders to the Prejudice of the Government And so the Title of the Constitution is De ordinatione Clericorum in Curiarum Civitatum praejudicium non facienda Which was at that time a very just and reasonable Constitution But afterwards Men of great Honour and Dignities came into the Council as not onely St. Ambrose at Milan who was the Consular Governour over Liguria and Aemilia and St. Paulinus a Roman Senatour behind none in Birth saith St. Ambrose having a great Estate in Aquitania was made Priest at Barcelona and Bishop of Nola but many Examples of this kind were in one Age in the Gallican Church as Honoratus Bishop of Arles of a Senatorian and Consular Family St. Hilary of Arles of a very Noble Family and born to great Riches Sidonius Apollinaris whose Father and Grandfather were Praefecti Praetorio Galliarum and himself married to the Daughter of the Emperour Avitus made Praefectus Vrbi Patricius one of the greaest Persons and Wits in Gaul was made Bishop of Auvergn St. German Bishop of Auxerre was of Noble Parents and Governour of a Province Saint Ruricius Bishop of Limoges descended from the Annician Family as Venantius Fortunatus saith which was of that Fame at Rome that St. Hierome saith Very few of it missed the Consulship and two Brothers of it were Consuls together as Claudian saith a thing never seen before or since From this Family Arnoldus Wion proves that the Emperours of Germany are descended And of this same Family another Ruricius succeeded his Grandfather in the same Bishoprick But besides that general Law which gave Permission to others to give liberally to Churches Constantine of his own Revenue allow'd a proportion of Corn to be given to the Clergy of the greater Cities Of which Athanasius speaks when he saith Constantius took it away from him and his Clergy and gave it to the Arians But the Gift it self was continued all the time of Constantius Then it was taken away by Julian and in part restored by Jovian It is then no wonder that the Bishops at Ariminum refused the publick allowance being maintained by the Revenues of their Churches But it seems the British Churches were not then in so Rich a condition to maintain their Bishops so long abroad For Constantine drawing all the Wealth and Trade of the Empire Eastward for the greater Advancement of his New City And this Countrey having been so long harassed with Wars and scarce recovered from the Effects of them For the Scots and Picts had been very troublesome to them both in the times of Constans and Constantius the former came himself over into Britain to
Cassiodore who certainly knew the Customs of that Church would never have repeated it In the Sacramentary of Gregory The Offertory immediately follows after the Gospel And Micrologus saith Finito Evangelio statim est offerendum c. 10. And to the same purpose in the Ordo Romanus But in the Ordo of the Western Churches published by Cassander with the other There the Bishop is to be attended on after the Gospel in order to his Preaching But if he will not Then the Creed is to be sung And according to this Custome the Gemma Animae is to be understood when it saith That after the Gospel the Bishop preaches to the People It is true That in the Church of Rome Leo did make some Sermons on solemn Occasions But he was the first that did it saith Quesnel if Sozomen may be believed It is possible That upon some extraordinary Occasions the Bishops of Rome might speak to the People before his time as Liberius is said by St. Ambrose to have done at St. Peter's But this signifies nothing to the constant Office of Preaching which was not used in the Church of Rome by any Bishop before Leo nor by many after as it was in other Churches In the Gallican Churches as Christianus Lupus observes The Bishops called their Office Praedicationis Officium as appears by the Profession both of Bishops and Archbishops among Sirmondus his Formulae published out of ancient Copies And in the Royal Confirmation they were charged to be diligent in Preaching The same Authour tells us That Charles the Great was so strict in requiring it That he made the Penalty of the neglect of it to be no less than Deposition Which is warranted by the Apostolical Canon 58. The Council in Trullo c. 19. charges the Bishops to preach constantly But especially on the Lord's-days The want whereof was extremely lamented afterwards in the Greek Church by Barlaam and Gregorius Protosyncellus And the neglect of it in the Armenian Churches hath brought the Episcopal Order into so great Contempt as Clemens Galanus reports who was a long time among them that he saith They use their Bishops for little else but to give Orders But the onely Men in esteem are their Vartabret whom he renders Magistri their Preachers Whom the People regard far beyond their Bishops because they say they represent Christ himself as he was Rabbi or the Teacher of his Church But to return to the Western Churches In the Church of Milan St. Augustine saith He heard St. Ambrose every Lord's-day And he saith He accounted it the proper Office of a Bishop to preach Which he performed as in other Churches after the Gospel before the Dismission of the Catechumeni But by the Mozarabick Liturgy the Sermon was after their dismission 4. The Gallican Churches had peculiar Offices after the Sermon So Walafridus Strabo saith That some of those Prayers were still in use among many And Micrologus That the Prayer Veni Sanctificator c. was taken out of the Gallican Ordo But to make this more clear we are to consider that there were some parts of the Communion Service wherein all the Ancient Offices agreed as in the Sursum Corda and Habemus ad Dominum used in the Eastern as well as Western Churches and there are as plain Testimonies of their use in the African and Gallican Churches as the Roman before the Roman Offices came to be imposed on other Churches The Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro and Vere dignum justum est aequum salutare nos tibi semper ubique gratias agere are mention'd by St. Cyril St. Chrysostome St. Augustine and other ancient Writers This latter part in the Mozarabick Liturgy is called Inlatio The Trisagion was generally used I do not mean that which was said to have come by Revelation in the time of Proclus at Constantinople But that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is called Trisagium in the Ambrosian Missal and was used with a more ample Paraphrase in the Eastern Churches All these parts are retained in the excellent Office of our Church not from the Church of Rome as our Dissenters weakly imagine but from the consent of all the ancient Churches in the use of them Which it hath follow'd likewise in the putting them into a Language understood by the People as Cassander fully shews And in the use of the Hymn Gloria in excelsis which with the Addition to the Scripture words was used in the Eastern Churches as appears by the Apostolical Constitutions and a Passage in Athanasius his Works and several Greek MSS. of it this was called Hymnus Angelicus from the beginning of it and Hymnus Matutinus from the ancient time of using it as appears not onely from other MSS. but from the famous Alexandrian Copy of the LXX where it is set down in large Letters and called by the name of the Morning Hymn It s use in the Gallican Church is attested by the ancient MS. in the beginning of this Discourse And Alcuinus makes St. Hilary of Poictou to have been the Inlarger of it The Prayer for the Church Militant For Kings and Princes And all Ranks and Orders of Men The Commemoration of Saints departed The Reading the Words of Institution And using the Lord's-prayer Were in all the ancient Liturgies as parts of the Communion Service And therefore are not to be look'd on as appropriated to the Canon of the Mass in the Church of Rome Wherein then did the Difference consist between the Roman and Gallican Churches at that time as to this Service In Answer to this Question I shall go through the other parts of it and shew the difference 1. The Gallican Office began with a peculiar Confession of Sins made by the Priest Which was called Apologia A form whereof Cardinal Bona hath published out of a very ancient MS. in the Queen of Sweden 's Library And which he proves to have been the old Gallican Office It is true that several Forms of such Confessions are in the Sacramentary of Gregory But all different from the Gallican Form In the old Missal of Rataldus Abbat of Corbey published by Menardus instead of the Apology we reade that Form Suscipe Confessionem meam unica Spes Salutis meae Domine Deus meus c. And then follows a particular enumeration of Sins and a general Confession of them And a different Form is produced by Menardus out of another ancient Missal which he calls the Codex Tilianus and seems most agreeable to the old Gallican mention'd by Bona And There is a great variety of Forms of Confession and Supplication in the old Missal published by Illyricus But I observe That the Form prescribed in the Roman Missal is in none of them viz. Confiteor Deo Omnipotenti B. Mariae semper Virgini B. Michaeli Archangelo c.
this seems to me a senseless and ridiculous Legend For as Bollandus observes if Kentigern went seven times to Rome how came he to put off the Errour of his Consecration to the last If it were good before why not then If naught before then all the Acts performed by him by virtue of his first Consecration were invalid But there is no more Errour supposed in the Consecration of Kentigern by one Bishop than there was in that of Seruanus by Palladius which as Joh. Major saith was good in case of necessity But the Writers of the Legends living long after the times of the Persons framed their Stories according to the Customs of their own times and because such a Consecration was not then held good therefore the Authour of his Legend takes care to have that defect supplied at Rome and to make amends he saith That Kentigern at his death recommended to his Disciples the Decrees of the Fathers and the Customs of the Roman Church But what is this to the necessity of Subjection to the Roman See from the general sense of the British Churches What if Kentigern having been often at Rome were pleased more with the Customs of that Church than of the Britains Doth it hence follow that those Britains who maintained Customs contrary to the Romans did think it necessary to conform to the Church of Rome when the plain Evidence of Fact is to the contrary and which hath far more authority than such Legends as these 3. Ninianus is said to have learnt the Christian Doctrine at Rome who converted the Southern Picts and founded the Church ad Candidam Casam being the first built of Stone But what follows from hence Because Ninianus was made a Christian at Rome therefore the British Churches always own'd the Pope's Supremacy They are indeed to seek for Arguments who make use of such as these 4. He offers to prove the constant Submission of the British Churches to the Roman See from Gildas himself and he makes use of two Arguments 1. From his calling the British Churches Sedem Petri the See of St. Peter I confess Gildas hath these words but quite in another Sense For in the beginning of his Invective against the Clergy among other things he charges them that they did Sedem Petri Apostoli immundis Pedibus usurpare Doth he mean that they defiled St. Peter 's Chair at Rome No certainly but he takes St. Peter's Chair for that which all the Clergy possessed and implies no more than their Ecclesiastical Function and so he opposes it to the Chair of Judas into which he saith such wicked Men fell But if they will carry St. Peter 's Chair to Rome they must carry the Chair of Judas thither too 2. Alford insists on this Passage in Gildas That they were more ambitious of Degrees in the Church than of the Kingdom of Heaven And after a bitter Invective against their Symoniacal Contracts he adds that where they were opposed they ran beyond Sea to compass their ends Now saith Alford whither should this be but to Rome For as Leland observes in the Case of Giraldus Cambrensis sunt enim omnia Venalia Romae all things are bought and sold there and therefore whither should such notorious Symoniacal Persons go but to Rome This is a very surprising Argument and is more wisely past over by Mr. Cressy than insisted on by Alford as being a horrible Reflexion on the Court of Rome in those days But to say Truth there is not one Word of Rome in Gildas but if they will apply it to Rome how can we help it To conclude this Discourse Alford is much displeased with Sir H. Spelman for paralleling the Case of the British Bishops and Augustine with that of the Cyprian Bishops against the Patriarch of Antioch But for what Reason Why saith he The Council of Ephesus did not permit the Cyprian Bishops to decline the Iudgment of their Patriarch but declared the Bishop of Antioch not to be their Patriarch Very well And is not this the very case here The Bishop of Rome challenged a Patriarchal Power over the British Churches and appoints an Archbishop over them but they deny that he had such Authority over them they being governed by their own Metropolitan as the Cyprian Bishops were and therefore by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus they were bound to preserve their own Rights and consequently to oppose that foreign Iurisdiction which Augustine endeavoured to set up over them THE END Ola Rudbeck Atlantic c. 7.23 Historical Account of ancient Church Government in Great Britain and Ireland Letter to Lord Chancellour p. 11. V. Gratian. Lucium in Cambr. Evers p. 248 249. A primo quidem hujus Regni Fergusio filio Ferchardi ad hunc Regem Fergusium filium Erch inclusive 45. Reges ejusdem gentis generis in hac Insula regnaverunt sed horum sigillatim distinguere tempora principatuum ad praesens omittimus nam ad plenum Scripta non reperimus Fordon Scotichr l. 4. c. 2. Defence of the Antiquity c. p. 29. l. 1. f. 6. f. 10.2 p. 6. l. 19. f. 10.2 f. 15. Leslae l. 2. p. 81. Buch. l. 4. p. 29. p. 245. Defence c. p. 110. Just Right of Monarchy p. 26. Leslae Hist. p. 77.79 p. 27. p. 26. p. 28. p. 27. Hect. Boeth Hist. l. 1. f. 62. Leslae Hist. Scot. p. 77. p. 29. (a) Hect. Boeth l. 3. f. 36. l. 40. Leslae p. 92. (b) Hect. Boeth l. 4. f. 59. Leslae p. 97. (c) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 75. Leslae p. 101. (d) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 79. Leslae p. 103. (e) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 81. Leslae p. 103. (f) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 90. Leslae p. 109. (g) Hect. Boeth l. 6. f. 90. Leslae p. 110. Leslae p. 392 396. p. 28. Scotichron l. 1. c. 36. Scotichron l. 10. c. 2. Scotichr l. 4. c. 38. Buchan l. 5. p. 45. Scotichr l. 4. c. 41. c. 45. Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line p. 20 21. p. 22. Scotich l. 5. c. 59. Leslae p. 250. Hect. Boeth Hist. l. 13. f. 295. Gratian. Luc. Cambr. Evers p. 248. Scotichr l. 2. c. 12. Hect. Boeth l. 1. f. 7. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. ◠174. Scotichron l. 1. c. 9. Chap. 5. Leslae Paraen ad Nobil Scot. p. 22. Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line p. 39. p. 32. p. 32. Prodrom Hist. Natur. Scot. p. 13. p. 15. Scotichr l. 3. c. 19. Suffr Petr. de Origine Frisiorum l. 3. c. 2. c. 3. p. 14. p. 13. p. 14. p. 2. * Hoc solum judicamus quae de Scotis corum Regibus ab anno 330. ante caput aerae Christianae cum Alexander Macedo rerum potiretur in Oriente usque ad Fergusium 2. Regem Scotiae quadragesimum cujus initium conjicitur à Scotis Scriptoribus in annum Christi 404. qui ejectos è Britannia Scotos dicitur reduxisse non
exclusion sed Ferlegum recusavit Populus Buchanan saith that he was condemned in his Absence but he would fain reconcile this practice to their former Oath although the Advocate himself saith this Oath did in Law and Reason bind them to obey the Lineal Successour according to the proximity of Bloud but Buchanan's pretence is because the present King during the Minority of the Heir was but a King in trust and the Heir at such an Age was to succeed But how well that was observed appears by this first instance and in truth Hector Boethius and the rest after him do put the whole power as to these Matters in the hands of the People or at least of the Heads of the Clanns as will appear more afterwards It cannot therefore but be very surprising to us to see his Majesty's Advocate so zealously defending this History of the first Succession of their Kings and reflecting upon a Bishop of our Church for calling it in question And yet he cannot deny that this Law was the Occasion of many bloudy Civil Wars between the Uncles and Nephews and he calls it the Dispute betwixt such as were for the Crown and such as were for Popular Elections From whence it follows That Hector Boethius his History of the first Succession from Fergus is to set up the popular Claim And quite through that first Race Hector makes the supreme unaccountable power in all cases of Male Administration to be lodged in the Heads of the People and the Ministerial in the Monarch And therefore we should have thought it had better become his Majesty's Advocate to have overthrown such pernicious Principles to Monarchy as are contained in this account of the first Race of their Kings from Fergus the Son of Ferquard And although Buchanan among the half-learned bear the blame of these Antimonarchical Principles yet it is evident that he onely built on the Foundations laid by those who set up this first Race as the Advocate himself confesseth whose Words are All Buchanan 's Arguments for restraining Kings being founded on the Authority of our Historians who as he saith assert that King Fergus was first elected King by the People And therefore those Historians who set up this Succession in such a manner had no kindness to Monarchy as appears by what Lesly himself saith about King Fergus and his Successours It is true that the learned Advocate hath according to his duty published a Just Defence of the Monarchy of Scotland but I must crave leave to say that it can never be defended upon good grounds unless the Account of Fergus the Son of Ferquard and the Succession of Kings from him as delivered by Hector Boethius and Lesly as well as Buchanan be rejected And this is too plain from the Answers he gives to this Consent of their Historians 1. He saith That Gathelus was not at all elected by the People Whither are we now carried The question was concerning Fergus in Scotland the answer is concerning one who is supposed to have lived I know not how many Ages before him and we know not where And it had been to as much purpose to have said Adam was not chosen by the People But who was this Gathelus In very truth he was no other according to these Historians than a Son of a certain King of Athens who went into Aegypt and married Scota the Daughter of Pharaoh who was drowned in the Red Sea and afterwards setled in Portugal from him called Portus Gatheli as the Advocate observes from whence a Colony of that Race transported it self into Ireland and another into Scotland Now saith he all those who are descended from his Colonies were by Law obliged to obey the eldest Son and Representative of that Royal Family What! by the Law in King Fergus's time For there is none so much as mentioned before that fundamental Contract and was it not well kept after Fergus's death But if there had been any precedent the other had been needless However the question is not concerning Gathelus and his Posterity in Ireland but Fergus and his Successours in Scotland 2. He answers That the Heads of their Tribes acknowledged Fergus for their King But do not these Historians say expresly That they chose him and that he left it to them to chuse what Government they pleased And the Words of Fergus in Hector Boethius are these vestrum erit in hoc Negotio quid utilius ad vestram Rempublicam sit discernere nostrum vestra capessere imperia Did ever Man more own the Supreme Authority of the People than Hector Boethius makes Fergus to doe in these Words Whether these very Words were spoken by him even Hector dares not say but he is sure they were such like And afterwards he saith tandem Fergusio Regnum decernunt And to the same purpose Lesly Fergusio Regnum ab omnibus decernitur Is all this a bare acknowledgment of him for their King what more emphatical Words could be used to express a free Election and that the People gave Fergus the Power than these Historians do use 3. He goes on to give a farther Answer which is very remarkable in his Majesty's Advocate viz. that we reade nothing at all of the consent of the People but of the Heads of the Tribes who had no Commission from the People each of them having by his Birth-right a Power to command his own Tribe and consequently the Royal Power was not derived from the People What is the meaning of all this but onely to shew that the Royal Authority was not derived from the Rabble but from the Nobility or Heads of the several Clanns and consequently the Power of calling their Kings to account lay onely in them No saith he Fergus succeeded in the Right of those Chiefs to command their respective Families Then Fergus had no more Power as Monarch than the Heads of the several Clanns had before But did they according to these Historians part with their Rights of Government to Fergus and his Posterity By what Authority then did they take upon them to imprison and depose Euenus III. and set up Cadalanus as King By what Authority did they take Arms against Dardanus and set up Galdus who took away his Life communi omnium Ordinum consensu saith Lesly By what Authority did they assemble against Lugtachus Galdus his Son and sâ—â—t Souldiers to dispatch him By what Authority did they rise against Mogallus his Successour with a design to destroy him as Hector confesseth which they did effectually as Lesly agrees How came they to take upon them to imprison Conarus and set up Argadus in his room And to dispose of the Government in the time of Ethodius II. and according to Lesly commit him to Prison where he was killed How came they notwithstanding the Law of Regency to set up Athirco while he was uncapable by it I meddle not
printed But to return to Vossius who is not sparing in mentioning any of our MSS. Historians which he found well attested and particularly Aelredus Abbat of Rhieval who wrote the Life of David King of Scots But the Advocate tells us some news concerning him viz. that he was Abbat of Mailros which was called Ryval before King David 's time But Fordon expresly distinguisheth the two Monasteries of Rieval and Melros the one he saith was founded by King David A. D. 1132. and the latter four years after And in the Chronicle of Melros it appears that Richard was the first Abbat there to whom Waltheof succeeded Vncle to King Malcolm A. D. 1148. who succeeded King David A. D. 1153. After Waltheof William was Abbat of Mailros A. D. 1159. after him Jocelin A. D. 1170. In the mean time Aelredus dies Abbat of Rieval A. D. 1167. and Silvanus was chosen in his place From whence it is plain that the Abbies of Melros and Rieval were always distinct from their first foundation and that Alredus was never Abbat of Melros This Aelredus may be called a Scotish Historian for his Lamentation of King David extant both in Fordon and Elphinston but I can find nothing of his writing relating to the Scotish Antiquities I know he wrote a Chronicon which Boston of Bury who calls him Adelredus saith was deduced from Adam to Henry I. but if there had been any thing in it to their purpose those Authours who cite a great deal out of it relating to our Saxon Kings would never have omitted what had been much more material to their History Turgott is likewise mentioned by Vossius though a MS. Historian because he saw very good evidence for his writing some part of the Scotish History He lived saith the Advocate A. D. 1098. I grant that he is frequently cited by Fordon and Elphinston for the Acts of Malcolm and Margaret which he wrote but I can find no more out of him than out of Aelred as to their remote Antiquities although they seem to have left out very little of what Turgott wrote But I wonder how the Advocate came to discover Turgott to have been Arcshbishop of St. Andrews when Dempster could have informed him that there was no Archbishop of St. Andrews till 300 years after And he might have found in Fordon that there was no Archbishop of St. Andrews till after James Kennedy who was Bishop of St. Andrews A. D. 1440. and was Nephew to James I. but after his death Patrick Graham first obtained the Metropolitan Right to the See of St. Andrews but it was not quietly enjoyed till his Successour Will. Sheues came into possession of his place But there is in Fordon an account of the Succession of the Bishops of St. Andrews from the time of the expulsion of the Picts which is wholly left out in Elphinston and there Turgott is said to be consecrated Bishop A. D. 1109. and to continue there seven years St. Andrews was before called Kilremont as appears by Fordon who calls them the Bishops of St. Andrews de Kilremont Kil as appears by the Scotish Historians was a place of Devotion Kilruil was the Church of Regulus as Hector saith St. Andrews was called in the time of the Picts and Kilremont as being the Royal Seat and the principal Church for Remont is Mons Regis and from hence the Clergy of this Church were called Killedees from which title the fiction of the ancient Culdees came as the Bishop of St. Asaph hath truly observed These Killedees had the ancient Right of chusing the Bishop and were first excluded as Fordon saith by William Wishart A. D. 1273. and next by William Fraser after him by William Lamberton upon which William Cumyng Keldeorum Praepositus i. e. Dean of the Church appealed to Rome but was overruled there But the learned Primate of Armagh following Dempster too much calls him Auminus and yet Dempster quotes the Scotichronicon for it where it is plainly William Cumyng But that the Killdees were nothing but the Dean and Chapter of St. Andrews not onely appears by their Right of Election of the Bishop but by the exercise of the jurisdiction in the vacancy of the See which Fordon saith was in them I should not so much have insisted on this mistake of the Advocate in making Turgott Archbishop of St. Andrews if he had not so severely reflected on the Bishop of St. Asaph for making Fordon a Monk as though he did it merely for his own conveniency to shew him interested for the independency of Monks and Caldees from the Bishops I grant it was a mistake but not designed and a very pardonable one since Dempster saith some thought him a Monk and he could not find of what condition he was and yet he saith he read him and Vossius makes Joh. de Fordon a Monk in King John's time Authour of the Scotichronicon This Book of Fordon the Advocate saith was so esteemed that there were Copies of it in most of their Monasteries and he saith did agree with their ancient Annals which I think will appear by the precedent Discourse not to be much to the advantage of his Cause And so much for the Authority of their Annals and Historians from the Original Druids and Bards to Fordon and Elphinston Having thus gone through the most material points which I have not distinctly answered in the following Book there remain onely some few things which stand in need of being farther cleared As 1. The Testimony of Eumenius in his Panegyrick to Constantius from whence the Advocate proves that in the time of Caesar there was another Nation besides the Picts who then inhabited Britain and were a Colony of the Irish and these must certainly have been Scots The question is not whether there were not according to Eumenius Picts and Irish which the Britains fought with in Caesaâ—'s time just as Sidonius Apollinaris saith that Caesar conquer'd the Picts and Saxons in Britain which is such another Prolepsis as Sirmondus observes who makes the coming of the Scots into Britain after the Saxons and he was a judicious Critick and Antiquary but the true question is whether Eumenius affirms that those Irish then dwelt in Britain Yes saith Buchanan soli Britanni are to be understood in the Genitive Case and so these words relate to the Picts and Irish of the British Soil No saith the Bishop of St. Asaph they are to be understood in the Nominative Case and so they set forth the advantage in Constantius his Victory over a Roman Legion above that of Julius Caesar who fought onely with the Britains a rude People and accustomed to no other Enemies but Picts and Irish a half naked People The words are thus printed in the late Paris Edition after the comparing of several MSS. by Claudius Puteanus and therefore more correct than the Plantin Edition Ad hoc Natio etiam
judge whether by Scotia Bede understands the Northern parts of Britain or Ireland But after all doth not Bede say that the Island Hy did belong to Britain as a part of it And what then follows Doth not Bede in the same place say it was given by the Picts not by the Scots to the Scotish Monks who came from Ireland So that upon the whole matter that which Bede understands by Scotia seems to be Ireland although he affirms the Scots to have setled in the Northern parts of Britain and to have set up a Kingdom there From whence there appears no probability of Palladius's being sent to the Scots in Britain Bede saying nothing of their Conversion when he so punctually sets down the Conversion of the South Picts by Ninias a British Bishop and of the Northern Picts by Columba a Scotish or Irish Presbyter But if Palladius were sent to the Scots in Ireland how came St. Patrick to be sent so soon after him To this the Bishop of St. Asaph answers that Palladius might die so soon after his Mission that Pope Celestine might have time enough to send St. Patrick before his own death And this he makes out by laying the several circumstances of the Story together as they are reported by Authours which the Advocate calls a laborious Hypothesis and elaborate contrivance to divert all the unanswerable Authorities proving that Palladius was seâ—t to them in Scotland A. D. 431. What those unanswerable Authorities are which prove Palladius sent to the Scots in Britain I cannot find And for all that I see by this Answer the onely fault of the Bishop's Hypothesis is that it is too exact and doth too much clear the appearance of contradiction between the two Missions 3. As to Dr. Hammond's Testimony who is deservedly called by the Advocate a learned and Episcopal English Divine it is very easily answered For 1. He looks on the whole Story of the Scots Conversionfs as very uncertainly set down by Authours 2. He saith that Bozius applies the Conversion under Victor to Ireland then called Scotia for which he quotes Bede 3. That neither Marianus Scotus nor Bede do take the least notice of it 4. That if Prosper's Words be understood of the Scots in Britain yet they do not prove the thing designed by his Adversaries viz. that the Churches there were governed by Presbyters without Bishops for Prosper supposes that they remained barbarous still and therefore the Plantation was very imperfect and could not be understood of any formed Churches But the Advocate very wisely conceals one passage which overthrows his Hypothesis viz. that they could not be supposed to receive the first Rudiments of their Conversion from Rome viz. under Pope Victor since the Scots joined with the Britains in rejecting the Roman Customs From whence we see that Dr. Hammond was far from being of the Advocate 's mind in this matter and what he proposes as to some Rudiments of Christianity in Scotland before Palladius his coming thither was onely from an uncertain Tradition and for reconciling the seeming differences between Bede and Prosper or rather for reconciling Prosper to himself But I remember the Advocate 's observation in the case of their Predecessour's Apology against Edward I. viz. that they designed as most Pleaders do to gain their Point at any rate and how far this eloquent Advocate hath made good this observation through his Discourse I leave the Reader to determine Having thus gone through all the material parts of the Advocate 's Book I shall conclude with a serious Protestation that no Pique or Animosity led me to this Undertaking no ill Will to the Scotish Nation much less to the Royal Line which I do believe hath the Advantage in point of Antiquity above any other in Europe and as far as we know in the World But I thought it necessary for me to enquire more strictly into this Defence of such pretended Antiquities both because I owed so much service to so worthy and excellent a Friend as the Bishop of St. Asaph and because if the Advocate 's Arguments would hold good they would overthrow several things I had asserted in the following Book and withall I was willing to let the learned Nobility and Gentry of that Nation see how much they have been imposed upon by Hector Boethius and his followers and that the true Honour and Wisedom of their Nation is not concerned in defending such Antiquities which are universally disesteemed among all judicious and inquisitive Men. And it would far better become Persons of so much Ingenuity and Sagacity to follow the Examples of other European Nations in rejecting the Romantick Fables of the Monkish times and at last to settle their Antiquities on firm and solid Foundations As to the following Book it comes forth as a Specimen of a greater Design if God gives me Life and Opportunity which is to clear the most important Difficulties of Ecclesiastical History And because I look on a General Church-History as too heavy a Burthen to be undergone by any Man when he is fit for it by Age and Consideration I have therefore thought it the better way to undertake such particular Parts of it which may be most usefull and I have now begun with these Antiquities of the British Churches which may be followed by others as I see occasion But I hope none will have just cause to complain that I have not used diligence or faithfulness enough in this present Work or that I have set up Fancies and Chimaera's of my own instead of the true Antiquities of the British Churches I have neither neglected nor transcribed those who have written before me and if in some things I differ from them it was not out of the Humour of opposing any great Names but because I intended not to deliver other Mens judgements but my own ERRATA In the Preface PAge 6. line 35. for but he did it reade for doing it p. 23. l. 31. for And r. Surely p. 36. l. 32. for but r. yet p. 38. l. 10. for Cladroe r. Cadroe p. 41. l. 39. after had insert made p. 44. l. 33. for a Generation r. three Generations and for overdoe r. not doe p. 61. l. 37. for foelix r. Salix In the Book PAge 2. l. 10. dele and. p. 25. l. 19. for under floo r. understood p. 59. l. 20. for with r. and. p. 70. for Dioclesian r. Diocletian and so throughout p. 115. l. 14. for Alexander r. Alexander p. 137. l. 7. for put p. 179. l. 11. for Council r. Church p. 194. l. 11. for Frecalphus r. Freculphus p. 209. l. 39. instead of but r. whereas p. 241. l. 7 8. dele But now the Britains were p. 256. l. 26. for Edecus r. Ederus p. 266. l. 35. for Egypt r. Europe p. 276. l. 37. for Erimthon r. Erimhon p. 281. l. 23. for Eanus r. Edanus p. 285. l. 18. for Authemius r. Anthemius p. 306. l. 29.
Picts and Scots their mortal Enemies p. 242. The true original of the Picts from Scandinavia p. 246. That Name given to the new Colonies not to the old Inhabitants p. 241. The Scotish Antiquities enquired into p. 248. Fordon's Account of them compared with that of Hector Boethius and Buchanan p. 250. Of Veremundus Cornelius Hibernicus and their ancient Annals p. 255. The Modern Pleas for their Antiquities considered p. 261 282. An Account of the Antiquities of Ireland and of the Authority of their Traditions and Annals compared with Geffrey's British Antiquities in point of Credibility p. 266. A true Account of the fabulous Antiquities of the Northern Nations p. 277. The first coming of the Scots into Britain according to the Irish Writers p. 280. The first Cause of the Declension of the British Churches was the laying them open to the Fury of the Scots and Picts p. 286. Of Maximus his withdrawing the Roman Forces and the Emperours sending Numbers of Picts to draw them back p. 288. The miserable Condition of the Britains thus forsaken and Supplies sent them for a time and then taken away p. 293. Of the Walls built for their security and the Roman Legions there placed p. 297. The great degeneracy of Manners among the Britains p. 302. Of intestine Divisions and calling in foreign assistence p. 304. Of the Saxons coming who they were and whence they came p. 305. Bede's Account examined and reconciled with the circumstances of those times p. 313. Of the Reasons of Vortigern's calling in the Saxons p. 319. Of the dissatisfaction of the Britains upon their coming and Vortigern's League with them p. 320. Of the Valour of Vortimer and Aurelius Ambrosius against the Saxons p. 322. The different Account of the Battels between the Britains and Saxons among our Historians p. 325. The sad condition of the British Churches at that time ibid. The imperfect Account given by the British History p. 332. Of King Arthur's story and success p. 334. Of Persons in greatest Reputation then in the British Churches and particularly of St. David p. 346. Of the Britains passing over to Aremorica and the beginning of that Colony p. 351. Gildas there writes his Epistle the scope and design of it p. 354. The British Kings he writes to p. 355. The Independency of the British Churches proved from their carriage towards Augustin the Monk p. 356. The particulars of that Story cleared And the whole concluded p. 357. A Catalogue of Books published by the Reverend EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Dean of St. Paul's and sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard A Rational account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. wherein the true Grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England vindicated from the imputation of Schism and the most important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined the second Edition Folio Sermons preached upon several occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the true reasons of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius his Answer to Grotius is considered Folio Origines Britannicae or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph Folio Irenicum A weapon Salve for the Churches Wounds Quarto Origines Sacrae or a Rational account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine authority of the Scriptures and matters therein contained Quarto The Unreasonableness of Separation or an impartial account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England to which several late Letters are annexed of eminent Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Nature of our Differences and the way to compose them Quarto A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it in answer to some Papers of a revolted Protestant wherein a particular account is given of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it the first Part Octavo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the Pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church Octavo An Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a Person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stilling fleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters Octavo Several Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of England being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. Octavo The grand Question concerning the Bishops Right to vote in Parlament in Cases capital stated and argued from the Parlament Rolls and the History of former times with an Enquiry into their Peerage and the three Estates in Parlament Octavo Sermons preached upon several Occasions by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Paul's not yet collected into a Volume THE Reformation justified in a Sermon preached at Guild-hall Chapel Sept. 21. 1673. before the Lord Mayor c. upon Acts XXIV 14. A Sermon preached Nov. 5. 1673. at St. Margaret's Westminster upon Matt. VII 15 16. A Sermon preached before the King at Whitehall Feb. 24. 1674 3. upon Heb. III. 13. A Sermon preached on the Fast-day Nov. 13. 1678. at St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of Commons upon 1 Sam. XII 24 25. A Sermon preached before the King at White-hall March 7. 1678 9. upon Matt. X. 16. The Mischief of Separation a Sermon preached at Guild-hall Chapel May 11. 1680. before the Lord Mayor c. upon Phil. III. 16. Protestant Charity a Sermon preached at S. Sepulchre's Church on Tuesday in Easter Week 1681. before the Lord Mayor c. upon Galat. VI. 9. Of the nature of Superstition a Sermon preached at St. Dunstan's West March 31. 1682. upon Colos. II. 23. A Sermon preached before the King Feb. 15. 1683 4. upon Job XXIII 15. A Sermon preached at a publick Ordination at St. Peter's Cornhill March 15. 1684 5 upon 1 Tim. V. 22. THE Antiquities of Nottinghamshire extracted out of Records Original Evidences Leiger Books and other Manuscripts and authentick Authorities beautified with Maps Prospects and Portraictures by Robert Thoroton Dr. of Physick Folio THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE British-Churches CHAP. I. Of the first Planting a Christian Church in Britain by St. Paul
two Reasons which seem to me to have weight in them 1. Because it refers to other ancient Charters of that Church as to the Exemption of the Monastery And the Benedictin Monks have a long time lain under so great a Suspicion among those of their Religion as to this matter of forging Charters of Exemption that no prudent Persons will think those a sufficient Foundation to build their Faith upon as to any ancient History which must depend upon their Credibility I shall not here mention what Gallonius Launoy Naude and others abroad have said upon this Subject nor what insufficient Answers Mabillon hath lately made to their Objections but it is reasonable for us to consider how much they have been Charged here at home with this Crime by the Bishops of this Church and how ill they have been able to defend themselves It appears by the Epistle of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury to Alexander the Third in Petrus Blesensis that there was a general Suspicion of Forgery in the Charters of Exemptions which the Monasteries pretended to Vt falsitas in omnium ferè Monasteriorum exemptione praevaleat c. And he there particularly instanceth in the Bishop of Salisbury charging the Abbat of Malmsbury with producing false Charters for his Exemption from the Bishop's Right of Election But which is yet more considerable in the time of Gregory the ninth when St. Edmond was Archbishop of Canterbury some Monks of Canterbury were Convicted of Forging a certain Charter of Privileges But the Pope's Legate took up the business and procured a Dispensation from the Pope which put an end to the Cause Which Dispensation Dr. Casaubon declares to the World He read in an Old Manuscript belonging to the Church of Canterbury wherein it was Registred And wherein as both he and Sr. Henry Spelman tell us It is observ'd That that Church enjoy'd all its Lands and Privileges onely by Custome and Prescription sine Cartis vel Munimentis Regiis without any written Charters untill Anno Dom. 694. When Withred King of Kent caused the first to be written which was the same with the Council of Becanceld From hence Sr. Henry Spelman gives a prudent Caution concerning the most ancient Charters which the Monks pretended to that they be not easily believed There being so much Suspicion of Fraud in them And that not onely now but was so of Old as appears by what Gervase reports of the Monks of St. Augustin That they produced very Suspicious and rased Charters The Case was this the Monks of St. Augustine pretended an Exemption from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury as those of Glassenbury did from that of the Bishop of Wells upon an Appeal to Rome a Commission was granted to the Bishop of Durham and the Abbat of St. Albans to inspect their Charters and to let the Archbishop examine them But after great Tergiversation they at last produced two Writings which they called their Originals The first was ancient but rased and subscribed as if it were amended and without a Seal which they called King Ethelbert 's Charter The other was of much later Writing with a Leaden Bull hanging at it and the Figure of a Bishop upon it which they called St. Augustine 's Charter Against the First The Rasure was objected and the manner of Subscription and want of a Seal Against the Second The lateness of the Writing and the novelty of hanging Leaden Bulls to Charters especially by Bishops on this side of the Alpes And besides the Style was very different from the Roman Both these Charters are extant in the Monasticon and a third of Ethelbert with an Inspeximus of 36 Edw. III. But another Charter of Ethelbert is set down together with these in the MS. Chronicle of St. Augustin's the Authour whereof was certainly a Monk there being so zealously concern'd to defend these Charters and to answer some of the former Objections against them As to the want of a Seal to Ethelbert's Charter he answers truly That hanging Seals upon Wax were not then used but onely a Subscription of the Name of the person with a Sign of the Cross before it in token of their Conversion For Ingulphus a very competent Witness declares that the ancient English Charters to the time of Edward the Confessour were attested by Witnesses who set their Names with Golden Crosses or other Marks before them But the Normans brought in the use of Seals by Impressions upon Wax But that MS. Authour will not allow the use of such Seals till after the Conquest except in the time of Cnut who was a stranger Whereas in the Contest between the Bishop of Lincoln and the Abbat of St. Albans before Henry II. When the Saxon Charters were disputed for want of Seals the other Party knew not what to answer But the King insisted on their Confirmation by Henry I. And the Monk who writes the account of this Proceeding alledgeth the Seal of Edward the Confessour to the Church of Westminster But Edward brought in several Norman Customs as Ingulphus shews against the practice of his Predecessours And this the Normans borrow'd from the French whose Seals were generally affixed on the right side of the Charter and not pendent with Labels as they began to be about the Reign of Lewis VI. as Mabillon hath shewed at large And so some of our Learned Antiquaries have thought that pendent Seals were not brought into use here till the time of Edw. I. For in a Charter of Henry I. granted to Anselm the great Seal was affixed on the left side of the Parchment And Brian Twyne affirms that he saw a Charter of William the Conquerour so sealed in the Lumley Library But that this Observation is not certain appears by contrary Instances as of the Pendent Seal to the Charter of Battel Abbey printed by Mr. Selden and of the Charter of Henry II. to Glassenbury Abbey which Dr. Caius saith he saw with a Seal of green Wax hanging to it by a string of red and white Silk But from hence we may see how dangerous it is to make general Rules as to these matters from some particular Examples when the Custome might vary And notwithstanding the Testimony of Ingulphus there might be Seals sometimes used to Charters though not so frequently Mr. Selden hath produced some Instances to that purpose as in that of King Edgar to the Abbey of Persore which he saith had plain Signs of three-Labels by the places cut for their being hanged on which is attested in a Letter from Godfrey Archdeacon of Worcester to Alex. III. And among the Chartae antiquae There are some saith he cum Sigillo and one particularly cum Sigillo of King Cnout which very much confirms what this Historian observes concerning Canutus his using a Seal And our great Lawyer hath produced the Deeds of King Edwin Brother to King Edgar and of King Offa with
of the thing from the Circumstances of St. Peter as I did before from those of St. Paul and I shall endeavour to shew That his business lay quite another way and that there is no probable Evidence of his coming hither I take it for granted that the Apostles were employ'd according to the Tenour of their Commissions viz. That the Apostle of the Circumcision was to attend the Jews and of the Vncircumcision the Gentiles Now St. Paul saith That the Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter This Baronius saith was agreed at the Council at Jerusalem But he will not have it to be such a distribution of distinct Provinces as that the one upon no occasion should meddle with the Gentiles nor the other with the Jews But yet he grants that the Apostleship of the Gentiles was in a particular manner committed to St. Paul as of the Jews to St. Peter And whatever they might doe occasionally This as he proves from St. Jerome was the Principale Mandatum the Main of the Commission to either of them Which being supposed It necessarily follows that St. Peter's chief employment must be where the greatest numbers of Jews were And from hence Petrus de Marca infers That St. Peter having preached to the Jews in Judaea employed himself in converting the Jews abroad both of the first and second Dispersion The latter were chiefly in Aegypt at Alexandria where he settled Mark the Bishop over the converted Iews From thence he went to Antioch from thence to Babylon where the Head of the first Dispersion lived And in this City he saith he wrote his Epistle to those dispersed Jews over whose Synagogues the Patriarch of Babylon had Jurisdiction Clemens Romanus takes no notice at all of St. Peter's Preaching in the Western parts as he doth of St. Paul's But Eusebius from Origen saith That St. Peter preached to the dispersed Jews in Pontus Galatia Bithynia Cappadocia c. And Epiphanius even where he saith That St. Peter and St. Paul did both constitute Bishops at Rome upon their going thence to preach the Gospel in other places yet he adds That St. Paul went towards Spain but St. Peter frequently visited Pontus and Bithynia which was very agreeable to the design of his Commission there being so great a number of Jews in those parts And Pontus and Bithynia seem to have been reserved as the peculiar Province of St. Peter For when St. Paul attempted to go into Bithynia he was forbidden by the Spirit which then commanded him to come into Europe And so he made for Macedonia Baronius grants that St. Peter spent the greatest part of his time in the Eastern parts but about Anno Dom. LVIII he finds him employed in the West and particularly among the Britains But what ancient authority according to his own Rule doth he produce for it He names none but Metaphrastes and yet as it falls out unluckily when the same Metaphrastes his authority is produced for St. Paul 's preaching in the Western parts he is apparently slighted by him and for the very same Reason which holds against the former Testimony viz. for quoting things out of Eusebius which are not to be found in him And elsewhere he saith he is of no authority in these matters But Metaphrastes his Testimony serves to a good purpose in St. Peter's Case viz. to clear a considerable difficulty how St. Peter if then Bishop of Rome should not be taken notice of by St. Paul when he wrote his Epistle to the Romans To which he answers That Saint Peter came to Rome the second of Claudius but being banished thence with other Jews the ninth of Claudius he spent the time then in preaching the Gospel in other places and so very conveniently finds him in Britain when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans which he placeth in the second of Nero. But it is by no means probable saith Valesius That St. Peter should come to Rome before the death of Herod Agrippa And Baronius saith That after his being delivered out of prison he went to Caesarea Laodicea and Antioch according to his own Authour Metaphrastes and then into Cappadocia Pontus Galatia and Bithynia and so returned by Antioch to Jerusalem So that if Metaphrastes his authority be good for any thing St. Peter could hardly come to Rome the second of Claudius And if the death of Agrippa followed soon after the delivery of St. Peter as Valesius thinks and St. Luke seems to intimate then he could not be at Rome till the fourth of Claudius for all agree that Agrippa died that year So that there is no certainty of St. Peter's coming to Rome the second of Claudius Yet let that be supposed And that St. Peter went from Rome on the Edict of Claudius What makes him so long absent from thence as to the second of Nero when St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans salutes Aquila and Priscilla as then present at Rome who certainly left it before on the Account of that Edict So that this Edict could be no reason of his being absent from Rome at the time of this Epistle But it falls out unhappily That though St. Peter be made by Baronius and others Bishop of Rome for twenty five years yet he can never be found in his own Diocese in all that time before his Martyrdom But one excuse or other is still found for his absence when there were several remarkable Transactions which must have discovered him if he had been at Rome As not onely upon St. Paul's writing this Epistle to the Romans but upon St. Paul's coming to Rome upon his writing so many Epistles from thence upon the defence he made for himself when he saith that all forsook him What St. Peter too So that upon the whole matter the Opinion of Lactantius in his late published Book seems most agreeable to truth That St. Peter came not to Rome till the Reign of Nero and not long before his Martyrdom And this Baluzius confesses to have been the most ancient and received Opinion in the Church since Lactantius never disputes it And what he saith of the twenty five years wherein the Apostles planted Churches was in likelihood the Occasion of that mistaken Tradition concerning Saint Peter 's being twenty five years Bishop of Rome So much may suffice to shew the greater probability That the Christian Church in Britain was rather founded by St. Paul than by St. Peter or any other Apostle CHAP. II. Of the Succession of the British Churches to the first Council of Nice THE Testimony of Tertullian concerning them cleared It extends onely to Britains The National Conversion of the Scots under King Donald fabulous Of Dempster's old Annals Prosper speaks not of the Scots in Britain Tertullian to be understood of the Provincial Britains as well as others The Testimony of Sulpitius Severus
among the Britains is onely spoken of the Maeatae and Caledonii in their great Confusion when all the Reins of Government were cast off and the People did what they list as Tacitus describes them in his time saying That they were drawn off from their former obedience to their Kings by the Heads of several Factions among them So that although in the most ancient times here was Monarchical Government yet it was not extended over all Britain as the Monkish Tradition pretends concerning King Lucius and I know not how many Predecessours of his even from the coming of Brutus to his days But neither our Religion nor our Government need such Fictions to support them Supposing then that King Lucius succeeded Cogidunus though not immediately in the Government of that part of Britain committed to his care I see no inconvenience in allowing that King Lucius hearing of the Christian Doctrine either by the old British Christians such as Eluanus and Medwinus are supposed to have been or by some of M. Aurelius his Souldiers coming hither after the great deliverance of the Roman Army by the Prayers of the Christians which had then lately happen'd and occasion'd great discourse every where the Emperour himself as Tertullian saith giving the account of it in his own Letters might upon this be very desirous to inform himself throughly about this Religion and there being then frequent Intercourse between Rome and Britain by reason of the Colonies that were settled and the Governours and Souldiers passing to and fro he might send Eluanus and Medwinus to Eleutherius to be fully instructed in this Religion And either the same persons alone or two others with them called Faganus and Duvianus commonly coming into Britain might have so great success as to baptize King Lucius and many others and thereby inlarge the Christian Church here The old Book of Landaff gives a much more modest account of this whole matter than either Geffrey of Monmouth or any of his followers There we find onely that King Lucius sent Eluanus and Medwinus to Eleutherius the twelfth Bishop of Rome to desire that he might be made a Christian through his Instruction Upon which he gave God thanks that such a Heathen Nation did so much desire Christianity And then by the Advice of the Presbyters of the City of Rome they first baptized these Embassadours and being well instructed they ordained them making Eluanus a Bishop and Medwinus a Teacher And so they returned to King Lucius who with the chief of the Britains were baptized And then according to the Instructions of Eleutherius he settled the Ecclesiastical Order caused Bishops to be ordained and the Christian Religion to be taught There is nothing in all this account but what seems to have great probability in it The same account is in Capgrave out of John of Tinmouth in the Life of Dubricius and this seems to have been the original Tradition of the British Church Which Geffrey of Monmouth hath corrupted with his Flamins and Archiflamins and others afterwards made an Epistle for Eleutherius to King Lucius but could not avoid such Marks in the way of Writing as evidently discover the Imposture and when the Monks hands were once in they knew not how to give over For some of them carry Faganus and Diruvianus as some call him to Glassenbury others make them Consecrate the Church at Winchester to which they say King Lucius had a particular kindness and gave all the Lands and Privileges which the Flamins had to the Bishop and Monks A Gift that would never make them the richer or the safer Others make King Lucius to found St. Peter's Church at Westmister the Church in Dover Castle St. Martin's by Canterbury St. Peter's in Cornhill where the Metropolitan Church they say was placed by him and Theanus made the first Bishop who was succeeded by Eluanus who went on the Embassey to Eleutherius and besides these they make him to found and endow so many Churches with such unlikely Circumstances as hath made others question whether there was ever such a Person in the World as King Lucius That being the common effect of saying much more than is true to make what is really true more doubtfull and suspicious But there is one Difficulty yet to be cleared For all this Story in its best Circumstances seems to imply that there was no Christian Church here before For if there had been what need he to have sent as far as Rome to be instructed unless the Bishop of Rome were then known to be the Head of the Church which were a sufficient Reason for it To this I answer That if the Contest lay beâ—ween these two things Whether it be more credible that Christianity was planted here before King Lucius Or that King Lucius was baptized by order from Eleutherius I should very much prefer the former because the Authority of Gildas as to the British Christianity is to be relyed on before the later Writers and Gildas asserts the one and although he had as much reason as Bede or any after him he never takes the least notice of King Lucius and Eleutherius And if a Negative Argument will hold any where it is where a person hath as much reason to know as any that follow him and as great occasion to discover what he knows both which will hold in the case of Gildas compared with Bede or later Writers It were worth while for us to know whence Bede had his first Information of this matter for he professes to follow other Writers about the British Affairs and in many places he follows Gildas exactly but in this he passes by what Gildas saith about the Primitive Christianity of Britain and instead thereof puts in this Story of King Lucius Bale saith that Eluanus Avalonius was a Disciple to those who were the Disciples of the Apostles and that he preached the Gospel in Britain with good Success But King Lucius being persuaded by his Druids would not come to any resolution but to satisfie himself lest he should be deceived by his Countreymen he sent Eluanus and Medwinus to Eleutherius And Eluanus upon his return wrote a Book De Origine Ecclesiae Britannorum Of the first beginning of the British Church And Pits is sure to follow him where he hath no reason But Leland never mentions this Book nor the Writings of Medwinus Belgius and of King Lucius himself all relating to this matter But Leland onely takes notice that Eluanus and Medwinus were employ'd upon an Embassey to Eleutherius that by his means he might become a Christian which saith he is very unreasonable to suppose unless he were first informed what Christianity was which he thinks was preached to King Lucius by them being two of the old British Christians And there he relates how by chance he met with an old MS. of the British Affairs joyn'd with Geffrey of Monmouth wherein this Story is told exactly as it is in the Book
were not negligent in promoting their own Authority in the Provinces of Illyricum nor in withstanding the Innovations of the Bishop of Rome To which purpose they obtained an Imperial Edict to this day extant in both Codes which strictly forbids any Innovation in the Provinces of Illyricum and declares That if any doubtfull Case happen'd according to the ancient Custome and Canons it was to be left to the provincial Synod but not without the advice of the Bishop of Constantinople The occasion whereof was this Perigenes being rejected at Patrae the Bishop of Rome takes upon him to put him into Corinth without the consent of the provincial Synod This the Bishops of Thessaly among whom the chief were Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus look upon as a notorius Invasion of their Rights and therefore in a provincial Synod they appoint another Person to succeed there Which Proceeding of theirs is heinously taken at Rome as appears by Boniface's Epistles about it both to Rufus of Thessalonica whom he had made his Legate and to the Bishops of Thessaly and the other Provinces But they make Application to the Patriarch of Constantinople who procures this Law in favour of the ancient provincial Synods and for restraint of the Pope's Incroachments but withall so as to reserve the last resort to the Bishop of Constantinople At this Boniface shews himself extremely nettled as appears by his next Epistle to Rufus and incourages him to stand it out to the utmost And gives him authority to excommunicate those Bishops and to depose Maximus whom they consecrated according to the ancient Canons But all the Art of his management of this Cause lay in throwing the Odium of it upon the Ambition of the Bishop of Constantinople And thus the Contention between the Bishops of the two Imperial Cities proved the destruction of the Ancient Polity of the Church as it was settled by the Council of Nice It is said by Petrus de Marca and Holstenius That all this attempt of Theodosius was to no purpose Because afterwards the Bishops of Macedonia submitted to the Pope's power And that Rescript was revoked by another of Theodosius published in the Roman Collection It cannot be denied That for some time the Bishop of Rome prevailed but it appears that it was not long by the sad Complaint made to Boniface II. of the Prevalency of the Patriarch of Constantinople in those parts made by Stephen Bishop of Larissa the Metropolis of Thessaly and his Brethren Theodosius Elpidius and Timotheus And our Author himself confesses that it appears by the Notitiae That these Provinces were at last wholly taken away from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and made subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople From which account of the matter of Fact we have these things very observable 1. That there was no Precedent could be produced as to the Pope's interposing in their Consecrations before the time of Siricius It is true Damasus his Epistle to Acholius is mention'd sometimes by the following Popes But any one that reads both his Epistles in the Roman Collection will find that neither of them do relate to this matter And the former is not onely directed to Acholius but to several other Bishops And the Design of it is To advise them to take care that a worthy person be put into the See of Constantinople in the approaching Council And to the same purpose is the following Epistle to Acholius But what is this to the Pope's power about Consecrations in the Provinces of Illyricum And how was Acholius more concern'd than Euridicus Severus Vranius and the rest of the Bishops 2. That the Bishop of Rome's interposing in their Consecrations was disliked and opposed as an Innovation by the Bishops of those Provinces Which appears by the Epistles of Pope Boniface about the Case of Perigenes For by the Canons of the Church the Consecration and Designation of the Bishops of the Province was left to the provincial Synods And therefore they did not understand on what account the Bishop of Rome should interpose therein 3. That the Law of Theodosius was principally designed to restore the Canonical Discipline and the Authority of provincial Synods For the words are Omni innovatione cessante vetustatem Canones pristinos Ecclesiasticos qui nunc usque tenuerunt per omnes Illyrici Provincias servari praecipimus Which cannot be well understood of any other Canons than such as relate to the Ecclesiastical Government of Provinces and not of any peculiar Customs there as Gothofred mistakes the meaning of them And in case any difference did arise it was to be left Conventui sacerdotali sanctóque Iudicio i. e. To the provincial Synod and not to any Legate of the Bishop of Rome Whose incroachment was that Innovation which was to be laid aside as is now plain by the Roman Collection without which this Law was not rightly understood as appears by the several attempts of Baronius Peron and Gothofred 4. That although by the means of Honorius upon the importunity of the Bishop of Rome this Rescript was recalled by Theodosius Yet the former onely was enter'd into the Codes both of Theodosius and Justinian which hath all the formality of a Law being directed to the P. P. of Illyricum and hath the date by Consuls annexed but the Revocation is onely a Rescript from Theodosius to Honorius and refers to an Edict sent to the P. P. of Illyricum which not appearing the other being enter'd into the Code gives great ground to believe that this Revocation was voided and the former stood as the Law Which ought rather to be presumed to be the Act of Justinian himself the Privileges of Constantinople being concerned herein than merely the Pique of Tribonian and the Collectours of the Laws against the Roman See as Holstenius suggests So that from this whole matter it appears what Opposition the Pope's interposing in foreign Consecrations met with not onely from the Bishops of those Provinces but from the Imperial Laws But let us now see what Patriarchal Authority as to Consecrations the Bishops of Rome exercised in these more Western Churches As to Gaul our Authour confesseth That the Bishops of Rome did not challenge the practice of Consecrations to themselves as appears by the Words of Leo to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna which he produces Non nobis Ordinationes vestrarum Provinciarum defendimus for so he understands these Words of Consecrations although they are capable of another meaning viz. That he did not take upon him to manage the Affairs of the Gallican Churches but onely took care that they should doe it themselves according to the Canons which was Leo's Pretence in that Epistle but then he distinguisheth between the Right it self and the Exercise of it which may be parted with by particular privileges granted but the Right it self may be still reserved And the same he after saith in general
the same Mind with the Nicene Fathers onely leaving out the word Consubstantial But he would not undertake to determine himself whether he should be received into Communion upon this but he referr'd the whole matter to the Bishops then met a Jerusalem who faith Sozomen unanimously approved this Confession of Faith and wrote a Circular Letter upon it for receiving Arius and his Adherents into Communion notwithstanding the peremptory Decree of the Council of Nice to the contrary Which Epistle is extant in Athanasius who looks on it as the first Blow given to the Authority of the Council of Nice And he understands it of that Arius who was Author of the Heresie and not of the other Arius as some modern Writers do And here Athanasius saith they began to open their Design in favour of the Arian Heresie which till then they had concealed For they knew that Work was not to be done at once but this was a good step towards the lessning the Authority of the Nicene Council which being once removed the Faction did not question they should be able to set up Arianism speedily They were not so plain hearted to declare presently for what they aimed at nor to put it to the Vote whether the Nicene Faith should be destroyed or not For that having the great Advantage of so publick a Settlement and such a general Consent of the Christian World it was not to be overthrown at once nor by open violence but to be taken in pieces by degrees and the generality were to be cheated into Arianism under other pretences and insinuations And the first thing was to persuade the World that the Arians had been hitherto misunderstood and their Doctrine misrepresented by such factious and busie Men as Athanasius and a few others therefore it was absolutely necessary to weaken the Authority of the Council as being influenced by a small number of Men who overswayed the rest Neither was it safe to begin with the Matter of Faith for that would give too great an Alarm but it was a much more plausible way to bring the Arians into Communion as being much misrepresented and not owning the Doctrines which the Athanasian Party did charge them with and being once joined in Communion together it would be fit to lay aside all Terms of Discrimination as tending to Faction especially such as were lately set up to put a distinction between the Arians and others And when these things were done by other Councils the Authority of the Council of Nice would fall to the Gound and as they supposed the Nicene Faith together with it But such Dâ—signs could not be carried on so secretly and subtilly but the wiser sort suspected what was doing as Athanasius saith and therefore they soon called another Council at Antioch where they made vehement Protestations to the contrary We say they are no followers of Arius for being Bishops how can we follow a Presbyter As though the World could be deceived by such pitifull Reasonings But after they declare That they embraced none but the ancient Faith but withall confess they had received Arius to Communion and then make a Profession of their Faith very agreeable to that of Arius and Euzoius delivered to Constantine wherein they assert the Coeternity of the Son with the Father but leave out his being of the same Substance But fearing this would not give satisfaction they added another wherein they owned the Son to be God of God Lord of Lord the unchangeable Image of his Deity Substance Will Power and Glory but after they express themselves more fully when they say they believe three distinct hypostases and an unity of consent which overthrows the Nicene Faith it being built on the unity of Substance and not of Will It cannot be denied that the crude expressions of Arius in the first Heat of the Controversie were here rejected viz. that there was a time before the Son was or that he was a Creature like other Creatures for they knew these expressions would not then be born and therefore they were forced to refine Arianism to the utmost degree to make it pass down the better till the prejudice against it by the Council of Nice were wholly removed To which end they set forth several other Confessions of Faith to prevent the suspicion of what they aimed at but these were in the time of Constantius I return therefore to the Reign of Constantine which excellent Prince would suffer no alteration to be made in the Nicene Faith in his time and therefore the Secret Arians were forced to great dissimulation and hypocrisie and to carry on their design under other pretences So Theodoret saith That Eusebius and his Party outwardly complied in the Council of Nice out of fear and he applies to them the saying of the Prophet This People honoureth me with their lips but their heart is far from me And elsewhere he saith The Arians in the Council subscribed to the Nicene Faith that being in Sheeps clothing they might devour like ravening Wolves Sozomen saith It was reported that Eusebius and Theognis after their return from Banishment corrupted the Person to whom the Subscriptions of the Council of Nice were committed and rased out their own Names and then openly declared against the Son's being of the same Substance with the Father and that even to Constantine himself But that doth not seem credible to me It being much more probable which Socrates relates viz. That Eusebius and Theognis having recover'd the possession of their Churches upon their return from Banishment had frequent access to the Emperour who honoured them as his Converts and under that Pretext of embracing the Nicene Faith did more mischief than otherwise they could have done and so made a very great Disturbance in the Church which he imputes partly to their love of Arianism and partly to their hatred of Athanasius but the latter as Athanasius at large proves was on the account of the former For it being their Design to introduce Arianism without owning it next to their lessning the Authority of the Council of Nice the most effectual means they could think of was by all possible Arts to blacken and render odious those Persons who most vigorously defended the Nicene Faith And from hence began the great quarrel against Eustathius Bishop of Antioch and Athanasius As to the former he gives an Account in the Fragment of a Homily extant in Theodoret what shuffling the Arians used in the Council of Nice to preserve their Bishopricks and for that Reason subscribed to the Decree of Faith and so having escaped the Censures they deserved they did sometimes secretly sometimes openly propagate the Opinions there condemned One of their great Arts he faith was to decline such as well understood the Controversie and made it their business to oppose them And so Eustathius himself found to his sorrow For Eusebius of Nicomedia and his Party meeting together at Antioch
which being once effected it would be an easie matter to set up Arianism which was the thing they designed This Intrigue was not discovered fully till after the Council of Ariminum but was certainly carried on all along by the Eusebian Party who without these Artifices could never have deceived the Eastern Bishops who joined with them till they more openly declared themselves in the Council of Seleucia and then the difference was not between the Acacians and Eusebians as some have weakly conjectured but between the old Eusebians who now appear'd to be Arians under the Name of Acacius and the Followers of Basilius of Ancyra who stuck chiefly at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom Athanasius speaks before Now to draw in these Men and to hold them fast who had great sway in the Eastern Churches the Eusebians were forced to comply in words with them and in all probability to suffer them to draw up these Creeds provided onely that they left out the Nicene Decree and Anathema's which would doe their business at last So that the Eusebians were forced to the utmost Dissimulation and Hypocrisie to be able to carry on the Arian Design in the Eastern and Western Churches But whatever their Words and Pretences were their Actions sufficiently manifested their Intentions For they set themselves with the utmost violence against all who constantly adhered to the Council of Nice and openly favoured and preferr'd all the declared or secret Friends to Arianism They caused Athanasius to be banished a second time from Alexandria and appointed Gregory in his Place who continued there saith Theodoret with great Cruelty for six years and then was murthered himself by the Alexandrians but that seems to have been a mistake for George of Cappadocia who succeeded him For Athanasius saith he died a natural death but he at large describes the horrible Persecution both of the Clergy and Laity then in Egypt who would not comply with the Arians for his business was to set up Arianism as Athanasius saith After his Death Constantius finding so little success in those violent courses sends for Athanasius with great earnestness to come to him and gives him free Liberty to return to Alexandria and solemnly swears to him he would never more receive any Calumnies against him and writes several Letters on his behalf and one very kind one to himself after the death of his Brother Constans who was a true Friend to Athanasius and then his greatest Enemies courted him and begg'd his Pardon for what they had done being forced to it by the violence of the Torrent against him and even Vrsacius and Valens two warm Men of the Eusebian Party publickly recanted what they had done against him without his seeking and then anathematized the Arian Heresie But this was done while Constans was alive and so great a Number appeared in the Western Churches on his side but Constans being dead the Eusebian Party persuade Constantius to take heart once more and to try what he could doe to restore Arianism then Valens and Vrsacius recant their recantation and lay it all on the Fear of Constans and now to shew the Emperour's zeal for Arianism the publick allowance is taken from Athanasius and his Party and given to the Arians and the Magistrates threatned if they did not communicate with them and not onely the People banished that refused but the Bishops were summoned to appear in the Courts and were there told they must immediately subscribe or lose their Places But all this while Toleration was granted to all but to the followers of the Council of Nice And thus all Places were fill'd with Tumult and Disorder and the People forced their Bishops to the Tribunals for fear of being punished themselves And the Reason of this Violence was because the Arian Heresie was so much hated by the People and they hoped by this means to bring them to own it Heraclius the Emperour's Lieutenant declared in his Name that Athanasius was to be cast out and the Churches given to the Arians and required the People to receive such a Bishop as he should send viz. George of Cappadocia a violent Arian But the tragical Account of all the Persecutions which the orthodox Christians then underwent in Egypt from these Men of Prudence and Moderation is at large set down by Athanasius himself and in the concurrent Testimony of the People of Alexandria so that nothing seems to have been more violent and cruel in the Heathen Persecutions than was acted then under Syrianus and Heraclius in Egypt And that it was wholly for the sake of Arianism Athanasius evidently proves by this Argument That if a Man were guilty of never so great Crimes if he professed himself an Arian he escaped but if he were an Opposer of Arianism the greatest Innocency could not protect him But this was not the Case of Egypt alone but in other Places The best Qualification for a Bishop was to stand well inclined to Arianism as Athanasius affirms But otherwise though the Persons were never so well deserving one fault or other was found with them to cast them out So saith he it was with Eustathius Bishop of Antioch a Man famous for his Piety and Zeal yet because he appeared against Arianism feigned Accusations are brought against him and he is ejected with his Clergy and none but favourers of Arianism placed in their room and the like Examples he brings at Laodicea Tripolis Germanicia Sebustea Hadrianople and many other places insomuch that a considerable Bishop scarce any where appear'd against Arianism but they found some pretence or other to put him out and where they could alledge no other Cause they said It was the Pleasure of Constantius But their dealing with Paulus the Bishop of Constantinople was very remarkable He being chosen by the Anti-Arian Party and standing in the Way of Eusebius of Nicomedia whose heart was set upon that Bishoprick being so near the Imperial Court he first procured Paulus his Banishment to Pontus then he was sent in Chains to Singara of Mesopotamia thence to Emesa thence to Pontus thence to Cucusus where he was at length strangled by the Eusebian Party as Athanasius saith he had it from the Persons there present But although Macedonius who succeeded at Constantinople were of a temper violent enough as Sozomen shews yet Theodoret observes that even he was expelled Constantinople because he would not hold the Son of God to be a Creature For although he denied Christ to be Consubstantial with the Father yet he asserted him to be like the Father in all things and made the Holy Ghost to be a Creature by which he seem'd to deny the Son to be so and therefore could not keep the Favour of the Arian Party which then governed all in the Eastern Churches but yet in such a manner as by no means yet to declare for Arianism And therefore
suppress them and the latter sent Lupicinus his General who arrived at London about the time the Council of Ariminum was dissolved and therefore in a time of such Confusion in the British Province it is not strange that these Churches should not be in so plentifull a condition as those which were the Seat of Trade and Government And Ammianus Marcellinus observes that the Provincial Bishops lived in a much meaner condition than those of the greater Cities especially of Rome And although a Heathen he very much commends them for their Temperance Humility and Modesty But Arianism was not the onely Heresie the British Churches were charged with For Gildas from hence makes every following Heresie to find a passage hither among which the chief was Pelagianism And Bede doth insinuate That Pelagius being a Britain and spreading his Doctrine far and near did corrupt these Churches with it which some late Writers having taken up have affirmed that both Pelagius and Coelestius after their Repulse at Rome came over into Britain and dispersed their Doctrine here Leland sadly laments the Condition of the Church of God that had no sooner recover'd it self from Arianism but a new Heresie sprung up to disturb the Peace and infect the minds of Christians But as Egypt brought forth the Authour of the former Heresie so did Britain the Authour of this which took his name from hence And is supposed to have been Morgan in British which by his conversation at Rome he turned into Pelagius And St. Augustine saith He was commonly called Pelagius Brito to distinguish him as he supposed from another Pelagius of Tarentum Leland observes that some made him a Britain as being born in that Bretagn which was called Aremorica on the Continent But I do not find that it had then lost its name of Aremorica The first time we find the name of Britannia given to that Countrey is in the Subscription of Mansuetus to the Council of Tours where he is named Episcopus Britannorum after which time it was frequently called Britannia Cismarina Minor Celtica c. Dempster not a Jesuit but a Lawyer takes it very ill of Browerus the Jesuit that he makes Pelagius a Scot But not as Dempster understands him For he explains himself That he meant one that came out of Ireland and therefore was Scoticae Originis For which he quotes Saint Jerome But Archbishop Vsher hath observed That he speaks there not of Pelagius but of Coelestius whom he makes the Cerberus to the Pluto according to his usual way of complementing his Adversaries But both he thinks came out of the British Islands The late Publisher of Marius Mercator endeavours to shew That our learned Primate was herein mistaken And that Saint Jerome doth not speak of Coelestius but of Pelagius himself And that by Pluto he means Ruffinus dead in Sicily three years before St. Jerome 's writing these Words But notwithstanding he did still bark through Pelagius his Mouth whom he compares to a great Scotch Mastiff from which Countrey he is derived in the Neighbourhood of Britain If these Words relate onely to Ruffinus and Pelagius it is certain that St. Jerome would have it believed That Pelagius came out of Ireland That which makes it most probable that he means them is That in the Preface to his Commentaries on Ezekiel he mentions the death of Ruffinus and then saith he hoped now he should be quiet to go on with his Commentaries on the Scriptures But not long after he complains That there were others which in his Room open'd their Mouths against him In the beginning of his Commentaries on Jeremiah which he undertook after he had finished those on Ezekiel he mentions one who carped at his Commentaries on the Ephesians and calls Grunnius i. e. Ruffinus his Forerunner And saith he was Scotorum pultibus praegravatus made fat with Scotch Flummery All this agrees very well with Pelagius whom Grosius describes as a very corpulent Man But there is one thing which makes the former Opinion not improbable which is That St. Jerome himself takes so much notice that Pelagius at that time wrote little or nothing about these matters but Coelestius was the Man who appeared especially in the two main Points about Original Sin and the Possibility of Perfection In his Epistle to Ctesiphon he saith That the Author of the Sect still held his Peace and his Disciples wrote for him Magistrorum silentia profert rabies Discipulorum Methinks Rabies agrees well enough with Cerberus and here it is meant of the Disciple Coelestius and not of Pelagius Which Expression answers very well to the other Mutus Magister latrat per Albinum Canem And he speaks as if he designed to draw him from his closeness and retirement Which doth far better agree to the mute Person than to the barking Cerberus There is then no Improbability that Coelestius and Pelagius may be both meant But if any other Countrey hath a mind to challenge Coelestius to themselves I think they may be allow'd to put in their Claim notwithstanding these Expressions But it is very unworthy in the same Author to prove Pelagius to have been an Irish Scot and at the same time to charge his Vices on the British Nation He cannot deny That Pelagius had a great natural sharpness of Wit since St. Augustine and his other Adversaries allow it But then he saith it was fierce and contentious after the fashion of his Countrey and which he could not shake off by his long Conversation at Rome He grants that his Exhortations to Piety were vehement and earnest but written in an uncouth and imperious Style more Gentis according to the humour of his Nation But why must the British Nation be reproached for the particular faults of Pelagius It is a very ill way of confuting Pelagius to attribute Mens Vices and Vertues to their Countries And is contrary both to the discretion of a Philosopher and to the Grace of a Christian Pelagius might have had the same temper if he had been so happy as to have been born in a Neighbour Countrey And I do not see how his Way of writing doth affect the British Churches Where the Christians might be very wise and humble notwithstanding this severe and unjust Character of the British Nation Which as all National Reproaches is not so great a Reproach to any as to him that gives it But the greatest Adversaries to Pelagius did not give him so ill a Character Saint Augustine saith he had the esteem of a very Pious man and of being a Christian of no mean rank Was this Pro more Gentis too And of his Learning and Eloquence St. Augustine gives sufficient Testimony in his Epistle to Juliana the Mother of Demetrias to whom Pelagius wrote an Epistle highly magnified for the Wit and Elegance of it But Garnerius will not allow that Pelagius was able to write it
was like that Pontacus calls Lodunense had that Name in the Title of it But Pontacus his had the Title of Prosper Aquitanus where he is said to be Episcopus Regini and great debate hath been whether he was Bishop of Regium Lepidum in Italy or of Regium Riez in Gaul But Sirmondus proves he was neither one nor the other By the Testimonies of Gennadius Victorius Marcellinus and others And by Faustus immediately succeeding Maximus in that See And so leaving no room for Prosper between them But there was a Prosper Bishop of Orleans at that time and another Prosper Bishop of Regium Lepidum in Italy as Vghellus shews which might occasion the Mistake But besides these Sirmondus tells us there was another Prosper in Gaul who wrote a Chronicon too and ended at the same time with Tyro Prosper with this difference that the one was onely an Appendix to St. Jerome the other an entire Chronicon as Gennadius expresses it Which is supposed to be that published by Labbe out of several MSS. But those who have carefully examin'd it have found such a difference in the Computation used in the several parts of it That they cannot think them written by the same Authour And therefore conclude that published by Pithaeus to be the genuine Chronicon of Prosper as far as it reaches And that the first Part which should make it entire is not yet discover'd So that it remains uncertain whether this Passage be in the true Prosper or not Our Learned Primate of Armagh was of opinion That the Chronicon published by Pithaeus was not written by Prosper but by Gennadius because Boston of Bury saith That Gennadius added a Chronicon to St. Jerome And I confess the Passage in it about the Heresie of the Praedestinati doth better agree with Gennadius than Prosper And for that Reason Sirmondus hath found out another Prosper But the President Mauguin saith it was counterfeited by the Semipelagians in Prosper 's name And that there is no mention in any Authours of another Prosper who published a Chronicon which ended at the time the true Prosper did viz. Anno Domini 444. Sirmondus saith All the ancient Copies had the Name of Prosper upon it And it is so quoted by Sigebert But if he had a mind to pass for the other Prosper he would never have differ'd so materially as he doth from him So that this whole matter is very dark and obscure yet 3. Suppose it be granted that Prosper wrote so yet there is greater Reason to believe Constantius than Prosper in this matter For Constantius was not onely living in that Age but a Person of great Reputation as appears by Sidonius Apollinaris his Epistles to him and one that wrote with great fidelity saith Baronius And therefore it cannot be supposed that he should not expresly set down by whom St. German was sent into Britain Besides Constantius is not alone but the Authour of the Life of St. Lupus gives the same account and so doth Bede with whom Paulus Diaconus Frecalphus Erricus and Ado Viennensis agree And he places their coming after the Reign of Theodosius And therefore it was impossible that Celestine should send them St. Germanus and Lupus being thus employ'd by the Bishops of Gaul in a solemn Conference at Verulam they disputed with the Pelagians and had so great Success therein and by their Preaching up and down in many places That they left the Britains well settled as they supposed in the ancient Faith But no sooner were they returned but some of the Pelagians got ground again which occasion'd another Message to St. German who then took with him Severus Bishop of Triers And then they prevailed so far as to procure the banishment of these Heretical Teachers according to the Edict of Valentinian And from thence forward Bede observes that the British Churches continued sound and orthodox But here it will be proper to consider how justly two British Bishops have been charged with Pelagianism the one is Fastidius and the other Faustus As to Fastidius Leland confesses that his memory had been lost but for the mention which Gennadius makes of him who saith of him that he was Britannorum Episcopus And wrote a Book to one Fatalis De vita beata wherein the Doctrine was very sound and good Trithemius highly commends him as a man of great Wit and Eloquence an excellent Preacher and very pious Man Bale saith that being made Bishop he preached over all Britain and was as is reported Metropolitane of London What Bale speaks upon report Pits affirms with confidence that he was Archbishop of London Archbishop Vsher thinks they had no other ground for this but a different reading in Gennadius Britanniarum Episcopus From whence they concluded He must be Archbishop of London that being as they supposed the Metropolis of Britain But he rather inclines to the opinion of Berterius That York was then the Metropolis of Britain Not onely because it was a Roman Colony but because the Praetorium and Emperour's Palace was there But these Arguments are not sufficient to overthrow London's being the chief Metropolis of the Roman times For every Province had its Metropolis And the superiority of one Metropolis above another depended on the Residence of the Roman Governour the Vicarius Britanniarum I grant that in the time of the Wars with the Northern Britains York was the chief Seat of the Emperour when he was here as in the times of Severus and Constantius but that was for the conveniency of attending the Wars and being near to give Directions and send Supplies But the Preheminence of Places in the Roman Account did depend more upon the Civil than the Military Officers These being more uncertain than the other and where the Supreme Court of Judicature was that was the chief Metropolis and that was where the Supreme Governour of those Provinces had his residence Thus every Province had a President in the Metropolis but where there was a Superiour Officer over these Presidents as the Vicarius Britanniarum was over the five Provinces the Place of his residence was the highest Metropolis because the Presidents Courts were in Subordination to his whether they were consular or presidial and therefore the solemn Conventus out of the Provinces were appointed there Of these things we have a clear instance in the Case of Arles where by the Constitution of Honorius the seven Provinces over which that was the Metropolis were to have an annual Assembly there where the chief Magistrate resided and the Reasons there given are the great conveniency of that City being upon the River Rhosn both for other business and trading into all parts The same Reasons will hold to make London the chief Metropolis in the Roman times because of its admirable situation for Trade and Commerce and the opportunity of sending into or receiving Dispatches from
the foreign Provinces and the Emperour's Court where ever it was So that I see no reason to question London's being the chief Metropolis among the Romans The Argument from York's being a Colony signifies nothing after Antoninus gave the Jus Civitatis to the whole Empire and London was a Colony before York as I may shew elsewhere and of a higher nature when it was called Augusta which shews that it was then the Imperial City of Britain that name being given to no other City in Britain besides And it is observed by the learned Marc. Velserus That those Cities which had the Title of Augusta conferred upon them were the Capita Gentium the chief Metropoles of the Provinces And since by the general Rule of the Church the Ecclesiastical Government did follow the Civil There is no reason to question but if Fastidius were then Bishop of London he was the chief Metropolitane over the Churches of Britain But whether Fastidius were Metropolitane or onely a British Bishop his Doctrine is of late charged to be inclinable to Pelagianism For Holstenius found in ancient MS. the Book Fastidius wrote De Vita Christiana with his name to it and so published it but it is not directed ad Fatalem but to a certain Widow In this Book a late Augustinian hath discovered as he thinks some Tincture of Pelagianism but to any candid Reader his Exceptions will appear very frivolous and there is so much of true Primitive Christianity in the rest of it as makes good the Character which Gennadius and Trithemius give of him Out of which Book and no great one Bale hath made four one De Vita Christiana a second De Doctrina Spiritûs a third De Viduitate servanda a fourth Admonitiones Piae Pits keeps the same number but lest he should seem to take all out of Bale he alters the Title of one of them And because Gennadius saith his Doctrine was Deo digna therefore Pits very artificially makes the Title of his second Book to be De Doctrina Deo digna vel spirituali Boston of Bury makes him the Authour of two Books by mistaking Gennadius but as far as we can find there is but one exstant Dempster hath found Fastidius to have been born upon the Mountains of the Western parts of Scotland and he makes him Authour of a fifth Book called Chronicon Scotorum which is a Strain beyond Pits He possitively affirms that he lived An. Dom. 440. Trithemius saith about An. Dom. 420. As to Faustus his Case is much harder That he was originally a Britain I find not denied by any For although Facundus calls him a Gaul yet that was because of his being a Bishop so long there as Sirmondus observes he being Ortu Britannus habitaculo Regiensis as Alcimus Avitus saith in his Epistle to Gundobadus King of the Burgundians to whom he saith Faustus was known In his Epistles to Ruricius Faustus speaks of his living in a State of Banishment and the Comforts he found in it This our Learned Primate understood of his living out of his own Countrey But Hen. de Noris of a Banishment by Euaricus an Arian King then in Gaul which he supposes he underwent for writing against the Arians If he had produced any Testimony of such Banishment there might have been Reason to have understood his Expression so But since there is none and his Words are general as to his Countrey I see no cause to take them in any other sense For Men do not use to call that their Countrey where they live as Strangers and he speaks of the kindness of Ruricius so to him that he did Patriam in peregrinatione facere which cannot well bear any other sense than that he made up the want of his own Countrey to him Sirmondus grants he was a Britain but he adds he was one of those Britains who dwelt upon the Loir i. e. in the parts of Aremorica There is no question but in the time of Faustus there were great numbers of Britains there for Jornandes saith That Riothamus their King or General went with 12000 Britains against Euricus King of the Visigoths Which Riothamus Sidonius Apollinaris writes to and mentions the Britains with him But it may be justly a question whether there were any Colonies of Britains on the Continent before Faustus his birth For Faustus was made Abbat of Lerins before the Saxons came first into Britain For he was Abbat when St. Caprasius died as the Authour of his Life affirms which was about Anno Domini 430. But their coming was not till Anno Domini 449. and it will be hard to make out any Settlement of the Britains on the Loir before It is then most probable that Faustus went at first out of Britain into Gaul where he attained to a wonderfull Reputation both for Piety and Learning He was worshipped as a Saint saith Noris in the Church of Riez and his Name was preserved in the Calendar of the Gallican Church Molanus was the first who durst adventure to strike out his name Baronius follow'd him but upon admonition restored it as Bollandus observes who likewise takes notice that he was called a Saint by Cl. Robertus by Ferrarius and by Pet. Galesinius in his Martyrology who adds that his Books are piously and learnedly written and that Miracles are said to be wrought by him It is certain he was a Person in mighty esteem in his own time as appears by the Passages of Sidonius Apollinaris of Ruricius and others concerning both his Eloquence Learning and Piety Of whom Sidonius Apollinaris gives that excellent Character that he had learnt to speak better than he was taught and to live better than he spake He was Bishop of Riez Anno Domini 462. for at that time he was joined with Auxanius in determining the Controversie between Leontius of Arles and Mamertus of Vienna But nothing can more manifest the esteem he was then in among the Gallican Bishops than that in the Council of Arles he was pitched upon as the fittest Person to draw up their sense in the great Points then so much agitated about Predestination and Grace as appears by his Preface to Leontius At this Council thirty Bishops were present and there Lucidus presented his Recantation of the Errours he held about Predestination and after this Faustus wrote his Books of Grace and Free-will to which he saith another Council at Lyons caused some things to be added In these Books it is thought that under a Pretence of confuting those Errours he sets himself against St. Augustine's Doctrine as seems clear by one Expression in his first Book That if it be true that some are predestinated to Life and others to Destruction ut quidam Sanctorum dixit non judicandi nascimur sed judicati But these words may refer to what follows as well as to what went before As a certain holy Man
condemned But if this had been done by Gelasius is it probable that Hormisdas his Successour would have stuck so much at it as Maxentius saith that he did But he refers them for the sense of the Church to St. Augustine and Prosper and Hilary And the Definitions of his Predecessours Maxentius rails against this Answer as unsatisfactory and next to heretical and sets St. Augustine's Sayings against those of Faustus Afterwards Caesarius Bishop of Arles not onely wrote against Faustus his Doctrine but by his means chiefly it was condemned in the Second Council of Orange Which asserted the Necessity of Preventing Grace The denying whereof was the main Errour charg'd on Faustus not so much as to good Works for Jansenius hath at large proved That the Semipelagians did yield the Necessity of Internal Grace as to them but Faustus and Cassian and Gennadius denied it as to Faith or Good Inclinations But to return to St. Germanus and his Companions into Britain If we give Credit to our Antiquaries they did other Kindnesses to the British Churches besides the confuting Pelagianism whereof two are most considerable 1. The Institution of Schools of Learning among the Britains 2. The Introduction of the Gallican Liturgy into the use of these Churches 1. As to Schools of Learning none were more famous among the Britains than those of Dubricius and Iltutus who are both said to have been the Disciples of St. German The Anonymous Authour of the Chronicle in Leland saith that St. Germanus and Lupus having rooted out Pelagianism consecrated Bishops in several parts of Britain and among the rest they placed a Cathedral at Landaff and made Dubricius Archbishop who disposed of his Disciples to several Churches He made Daniel Bishop of Bangor and sent Iltutus to a Place from him called Lan Iltut or the Church of Iltutus Camden saith to this day it is called Lantuit where the Foundations of many Houses are still to be seen Near the Place called Bovium in the Itinerary now Boverton But there is another Place near Nidum or Neath whose name comes very near it Llanylted The old Register of Landaff after it hath mention'd the frequent Messages the Britains sent to the neighbour Bishops of Gaul for assistence against the Pelagians and the coming of Germanus and Lupus sent by them it adds that they consecrated Bishops in many Places and made Dubricius Archbishop over all the Britains Dextralis partis Britanniae Of the right hand part of Britain With which John of Tinmouth and Capgrave agree What this Right hand part of Britain was at the time of the Consecration of Dubricius is not so easie to understand Archbishop Vsher takes it for South Wales it being the custome of the Britains to call the South the Right hand side so Asserius Menevensis calls Sussex the Region of the Right hand Saxons But it is observable that Asserius there makes Demetia or South Wales to be but a part of what he calls Dextralis pars Britanniae For when he saith in general That all the Countrey of the Right hand of Britain submitted to King Alfred he then instanceth particularly in Hemeid King of Demetia and Houil and other Kings of Guent by which North Wales is as much understood as South Wales is by the other And therefore I rather think Dubricius was made Archbishop over all the Britains in those parts For Ranulphus Cestrensis saith The Bishop of Caerleon had seven suffragan Bishops under him And Matt. Westminster saith That Dubricius was made Archbishop of Caerleon although he might have a Seat at Landaff as the Register of that Church affirms by the Gift of Mouricus But it appears that he had then Archiepiscopal Power And possibly upon the Disturbance of those times the See might for a time be removed to Landaff From whence it was again removed by St. David to the Town bearing his Name But the Bishops of Landaff who succeeded were so unsatisfied with it That the Register of that Church saith That from Oudoceus the second from Dubricius for he succeeded Teliaus in that See They chose rather to be consecrated by the Archbishops of Canterbury than by their own Metropolitan of St. David 's as appears by the Protestation made by the Bishop of Landaff to Calixtus II. in the Council of Rhemes Anno Dom. 1119. But I confess it doth not seem very probable that a British Bishop should go for Consecration to Augustine the Monk or his Successours For the British Bishops did all look on them as Intruders And if any should have done it how would they have been received by the British Churches at that time It is therefore far more probable either that they went over to the British Archbishop at Dol in Britannie or that there was a Succession preserved for some time of the Archbishops of London among the Britains after the retirement of Theonus and Thadiocus the two other Metropolitans of London and York who as Matt. Westminster saith did withdraw when their Churches were destroyed by the Saxons with many of their Clergy into Wales where as long as that Succession continued they might exercise some parts of their Function leaving the main to the Archbisbop of Caerleon to whom of right it belonged And Ranulphus saith That Province extended as far as the Severn and so took in Chester Hereford and Worcester But before Dubricius was so much advanced the Authours of his Life speak of the great number of Scholars which flocked to him from all parts of Britain Not the Rude and Vulgar onely but Persons of greatest Reputation among whom they name St. Theliaus Samson Aidanus and many others Two Places they mention where he received and instructed his Disciples one at Hentlan on the River Wye where they say he had a Thousand Students with him whom he brought up in humane and divine Literature And the other was at Moch-rhos where he had a Place for Study and Devotion Iltutus by Vincentius and the Authour of the Life of Samson is said positively to have been a Disciple of St. Germanus And the Authour of the Life of Gildas saith That in the School of Iltutus many Noblemens Sons were brought up among whom he reckons as the chief Samson afterwards Archbishop of the Britains viz. at Dol in Britannie Paulus Bishop of the Oxismii the most Northern of the Aremorici which Bishoprick is since divided into three Treguier St. Pol de Leon and St. Brieu and Gildas called Sapiens of whom afterwards Leland to these adds David and Paulinus And saith his School flourished like an Vniversity among the Britains Bollandus and Henschenius make a very probable Conjecture That when St. German came into Britain and found the decay of Learning to have been the great occasion of the spreading of Pelagianism he appointed Dubricius and Iltutus to undertake the Education of the British Clergy And that by these means as Bede saith these Churches continued
afterwards pure and free from this Heresie Which was a wise and seasonable Institution And hereby we see the British Churches were not defective in Learning in their lowest Condition when the Britains were forced to leave their Habitations and to fly into Corners Of which besides these Nurseries of Dubricius and Iltutus we have a famous Instance in the Monastery of Banchor which even Bede saith was furnished with learned Men at the coming of Augustine into England This Banchor was distant but ten or twelve miles from Chester as Ranulphus Cestrensis and Bradshaw in his Life of St. Werburg say Leland in his Itinerary describes the Place as standing in a Valley and having the compass of a walled Town and two Gates remaining half a mile distant from each other Camden supposes it to be the Bomium in Antoninus being ten miles distant from Deva i. e. Chester That which was most observable in this British Monastery was that Men there were bred up to Learning and Devotion together and so more resembling our Colleges than the Egyptian Monasteries where men were brought up to Ignorance and Labour as much as to Devotion Wherein the Benedictines followed them according to their first Institution For St. Benedict himself not onely despised Learning as the Writers of his Life say But he takes no care about it in the Rule of his Order And when Boniface gave an account to Zachary of his setting up a Benedictine Monastery at Fulda he sets the Monks out by their Abstinence and hard Labour with their own Hands without Servants It is true that Trithemius speaks much of the Schools of Learning in the Benedictine Monasteries but not before Anno Dom. 890. which was after the Constitutions of Charles the great who appointed Schools for instructing Youth both in Monasteries and Cathedrals Which gave the first Countenance and Encouragement to Learning at that time And Lupus Ferrariensis saith That the reviving of Learning was then owing to him But although these Constitutions extended no farther than to Grammar Schools yet from hence those who were inclined to Learning in the Monasteries applied themselves more to it and by degrees gained a great Reputation by it as Rabanus Maurus at Fulda whose esteem drew Lupus thither and many others Which example prevailing and the Monks finding such resort to increase their Wealth as well as Reputation as Aub. Miraeus observes from that time the Monasteries were desirous to have some of their Number to be eminent for Learning which had been before so much neglected by them as wholly besides the Rule of their Order But the Monasteries of the Western Churches before St. Benedict's time such as that of St. Ambrose St. Eusebius of Vercelles St. Augustine in Africa St. Martin in Gaul were chiefly intended as Nurseries to the Church and the Persons educated therein were brought up with a design to doe the Church service afterwards This method of Education taking so much in other Churches as in Gaul where so many eminent Bishops were taken out of the Monastery of Lerins according to the Rule of Caprasius St. German who was so well acquainted with St. Honoratus St. Hilary of Arles and others of that Education might probably be the first Instrument of setting up this way in the British Churches And to confirm this St. Patrick who carried over this Monastick Education into Ireland spent many years under the Discipline of St. German as Probus and Jocelin the Writers of his Life do agree And those who have written of St. German have mention'd him as one of his Disciples as Erricus of Auxerre And William of Malmsbury saith he was not onely a Disciple of Saint German but being made Bishop by Celestine he was sent by St. German into Ireland And in the Irish Monasteries there were Schools like those of Dubricius and Iltutus for the breeding of Youth in Learning For therein as Rouse an Antiquary in Edward IV. time saith The Masters did teach secundum formam Studiorum antiquorum according to the ancient method of Learning Which our learned Primate understands of joining the Studies of humane Learning with divine of which he produces an Instance in a MS. of the Library of Worcester Being a Commentary of an Irish Bishop upon Martianus Capella's Astrology which he read to his Disciples in the Monastery of St. Remigius in Down And the Authour of the Opus Tripartitum of the Life of St. Patrick saith That he set up at Armagh Summum studium literale Which in the Language of that time is the same with an Vniversity onely this is a Law-term and implies a Legal Society incorporated for the Profession of Learning which the Civilians tell us None but the Supreme Authority of a Nation can doe In this School at Armagh Caradoc of Lancarvan in his Life of Gildas saith That he was a Professour Studium regens praedicans in Civitate Ardmaca But the Anonymous Authour of his Life published out of an ancient MS. by Joh. Ã Bosco saith That Gildas going over into Ireland in the time of Ammeric i. e. about Anno Dom. 566. found both Religion and Learning much decay'd there and that he built many Churches and Monasteries and brought up many Noble Mens Sons therein In his younger days he saith Gildas went to Iren and visited the Schools of many Learned Men and enquired their Opinions in Philosophical and Divine matters Some question hath been made by Learned Men what this Authour means by Iren The most easie and obvious sense is to take it for Ireland where there were so many Schools of Learning in the Monasteries of St. Patrick's foundation And Iris is used by Diodorus Siculus for Ireland And Ierne in the Book de Mundo and Apuleius and the Inhabitants are called Irenses by Ordericus Vitalis and the Countrey is called Erin by the Inhabitants as Archbishop Vsher observes But the marginal Note of Joh. Ã Bosco hath led some quite out of their way in seeking for this Place Which is That Iren was an Vniversity then in Great Britain And from hence they have proceeded to prove our famous University of Oxford to be meant by it First Iren say they was mistaken for Icen and that for Ychen and Ychen for Rydychen and Rydychen in the British Tongue signifies the same with Vadum Boum and that is the same with Oxford I cannot think Learned Men write these things any otherwise than as Sports of Wit which are intended for the diversion and not for the conviction of the Reader As likewise when the same Authours produce out of Constantius his Life of St. German Regionis illius Vniversitas to prove the Antiquity of their Vniversity But that Passage in the Copy of Asserius printed by Camden is more material viz. That St. German staid half a year in Oxford and approved the Orders made by Gildas Melkin Nennius and
Professours of all Arts and Sciences And at Sicca Veneria in Africa Arnobius was Professour of Rhetorick Near Lyons in Gaul the 60 Cities had dedicated an Altar to Augustus where the Rhosn and the Arar meet there Caius Caligula appointed Prizes to be plaid both in Greek and Latine Eloquence And not that onely but Philosophy was there taught Thence Odilo Abbat of Clugney about Anno Dom. 1020. calls Lyons of old the Mother and Nurse of Philosophy In the time of Dioclesian and Maximianus the Nobility of Gaul were brought up to Learning at Augustodunum Autun and there Eumenius was both Rectour and Professour as appears by his Speech to Constantius where he celebrates so much the Scholae Moenianae Quondam pulcherimo opere studiorum frequentiâ celebres which having suffer'd very much in the Rebellion of the Bagaudae under the latter Claudius he was extremely concerned to have them rebuilt which is the design of his excellent Oration But long before in Tiberius his time Tacitus saith The Sons of the Nobility did there Liberalibus studiis operari improve themselves in Learning Eusebius mentions in the time of Nero Statius Vrsulus of Tholouse a famous Professour of Rhetorick And Ausonius reckons up many of those who had been famous there and at Bourdeaux and other Places But to spare our pains in particular Places there is extant in the Theodosian Code an Edict of Gratian requiring all the chief Cities of these Parts of the Roman Empire to settle and maintain in them Professours of Learning both of the Greek and Roman Languages This Edict was directed to the Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum and was commanded to be observed through all his Diocese which Gothofred restrains to the Provinces of Gaul excluding Britain for which I see no reason Since Ausonius who was himself in that Office in Gratian's time comprehends the Britains under his Jurisdiction And the Notitia Imperii places the Provinces of Britain under him after Gratian's time Which Notitia he thinks was made about Anno Dom. 426. By virtue of which Edict we are to search for the ancient Schools of Learning among the Britains in the chief Cities of the Provinces at that time especially at London which was the Caput Gentis being Augusta or the Imperial City and so at York and Caerleon So that the British Churches as long as the Roman Power continued here had the same advantages for Learning which they had in other Provinces But when the Roman Forces were withdrawn and nothing but Miseries and Desolation follow'd then St. German's Care proved a most seasonable Relief to them in providing such Schools as those of Dubricius and Iltutus for the breeding up of Persons qualified for the Service of the Church as far as the Miseries of those times would permit The last thing to be considered is The Publick Service of the British Churches And in an ancient MS. in the Cotton Library about the Original of Divine Offices Germanus and Lupus are said to have brought into the use of the British Churches Ordinem Cursûs Gallorum By which Archbishop Vsher understands the Gallican Liturgy For Cursus in the Ecclesiastical use of the Word is the same with Officium Divinum as Dominicus Macer in his late Hierolexicon shews thence Cursum celebrare is to perform Divine Offices And so the word Cursus is often used in Fortunatus his Life of St. German Bishop of Paris and in our Saxon Writers But this Cursus Gallorum is there distinguished from the Cursus Orientalis and the Cursus Ambrosii and the Cursus Benedicti which little differs he saith from the Cursus Romanus And this was that which Germanus and Lupus had learnt in the Monastery of Lerins where it was used by Cassianus and Honoratus as the Authour of that Book affirms which I find to have been the same which Sir H. Spelman commends for its great Antiquity And that Authour derives the Gallican Liturgy from St. John by Polycarp and Irenaeus Which MS. Mabillon was inclined to think to have been the Book which Gregorius Turonensis wrote de Cursibus Ecclesiasticis but for the quoting the Life of Columbanus and Attala which was not written till after his Death This will oblige us to enquire what the Gallican Liturgy at this time was and how far different from the Roman It is agreed on all hands that there was a material difference between them but wherein it lay is not so easily understood When Gregory sent Augustine the Monk into England to settle the Saxon Churches and he was consecrated by the Archbishop of Arles one of the Questions Augustine proposed was since there was such difference between the Offices of the Roman and Gallican Churches Which he should follow Gregory answered That he should chuse what he thought most proper for the English Church Which implies That there was a diversity still between them And that the Pope did not oblige him to follow the Example of the Roman Church chiefly I suppose Because the Queen being a Christian before and using the Gallican Liturgy in the Publick Service and her Bishop being of the Gallican Church it would have given great Offence to them to have had it taken away as likewise to all the British Churches which had been accustomed to it If the Books of Musaeus mention'd by Gennadius were extant we should easily understand wherein the difference lay For he being a Presbyter of the Church of Marseilles and a Man Learned in the Scriptures was desired by Venerius the Bishop there to draw up a Form of Publick Service consisting of two Parts viz. The Morning Service and the Communion Service The first he finished in the time of Venerius and is highly commended by Gennadius for its Order Vsefulness and Decency The second in the time of Eustathius his Successour which he likewise commends for its great weight and exactness And there was great Reason at that time to bring the Church Service into Order because Cassian and others endeavour'd to introduce the Monastick Customs which he had observed in Egypt and elsewhere as appears by the design of his Monastick Institutions especially the second and third Books which he dedicated to Castor Bishop of Apta Iulia at the same time that Venerius was Bishop of Marseilles where Cassian lived This Musaeus was therefore employ'd to draw up the most convenient Order for the Publick Service from whence we may be able to judge of the difference in both parts between the Gallican and Roman Offices I begin with the first viz. the Morning Service which consisted of Lessons Hymns and Psalms agreeable to the Lessons and short Collects after them In the Church of Rome for a long time viz. for above 400 years they had nothing before the Sacrifice as the old Ritualists agree besides the Epistle and Gospel then Celestine appointed the Psalms to be used or as Walafr Strabo and Micrologus say caused
Edw. I. destroy'd all their ancient Histories how came Turgott's to be preserved He was Bishop of St. Andrew's in the time of Malcolm III. and Queen Margaret whose Lives he wrote And whose History Hector saith he had So that not onely Turgott's History of the Church of Durham is preserved in the Cotton Library with his own Name written in an ancient Character the same that is printed under the Name of Simeon Dunelmensis with some Alterations as Mr. Selden hath shewed But if Hoveden be so much to blame as Leland saith for concealing what he borrow'd from Simeon Dunelmensis Simeon himself is at least as much to blame for assuming to himself the proper work of Turgott But it seems Hector had seen what he wrote in relation to the Scotish History And Bale and Pits say he wrote of the Kings of Scotland But Dempster saith he wrote onely the Annals of his own time i. e. I suppose the Lives of Malcolm and Margaret If so Hector mentions him to little purpose with respect to the Scotish Antiquities But however from the forementioned Authours Hector pretends to give an Account of the Institution of the Great Council by Finannus of the Order of the Druids and their Chief Seat in the Island Mona which he would have to be the Isle of Man to the great regret of Humphrey Lluyd who hath written a Book on purpose to disprove him and Polydore Virgil about it Of the Tyranny and violent Death of King Durstus Of the choice of Euenus his Kinsman to succeed him and his first requiring an Oath of Allegeance Of the Disturbances by Gillus his natural Son and his flying into Ireland And his Death by Cadallus And Euenus his setting up Edecus the Grandchild of Durstus with which he ends his Second Book In his Third Book he gives an Account of the Troubles from Ireland by Bredius a Kinsman of Gillus Of Cassibellan's Message to Ederus for Assistence against Julius Caesar And the Speech of Androgeus before the Council and Ederus his Answer and sending 10000 Men under the Command of Cadallanus Son to Cadallus Who with the British Forces quite overthrew Caesar by the help of Tenantius Duke of the Cambri and Corinei for which as we may easily conceive there was wonderfull rejoicing in Scotland And great Friendship upon it between the Britains the Picts and the Scots But next Summer they hear the sad News of Caesar's coming again And then the Britains refused the Scots assistence and it is easie to imagine what must follow the poor Britains were miserably beaten And Cassibellan yields himself to Caesar and Caesar marches towards Scotland but before he enters it he sends a more Eloquent Letter to them than that in Fordon And the Scots and Picts returned a resolute Answer But it seems Caesar had so much good Nature in him as to send a Second Message to the Scots which was deliver'd with great Eloquence but it did not work upon them For saith Hector had it not been for the Law of Nations they had torn the Messengers to pieces But it happen'd luckily that while Caesar was making Preparations to enter Scotland he received Letters from Labienus of the Revolt of the Gauls upon which Caesar returns having scarce so much as frighted the Picts and the Scots And here again Hector vouches the Authority of Veremundus and Campbell But notwithstanding Buchanan very wisely leaves all this out which Lesly believing Veremundus or rather Hector before Caesar keeps in But here Hector becomes very nice and critical rejecting the vulgar Annals which it seems were not destroy'd by Edw. I. which say that Caesar went as far as the Caledonian Wood and besieged Camelodunum and left there his Pretorian House which he used to travell with called Julis Hoff. But for his part he would write nothing that might be found fault with and therefore he follows Veremundus again That this was the Temple of Victory built by Vespasian not far from Camelodunum Onely the Inscription was defaced by Edw. I. Buchanan in the Life of King Donald saith This was the Temple of the God Terminus being near the Roman Wall It was a round Building made of square Stones and open onely at the top 24 Cubits in height 13 in breadth as Camden describes it Nennius saith It was built by Carausius in token of his Triumph But this looks no more like a Triumphal Arch than Caesar's travelling Palace And therefore Buchanan's opinion seems most probable since Hector saith That there was within it a Stone of great magnitude which was the Representation of the God Terminus especially if the hole in the top were over the Stone as it was in the Capitol at Rome Then follow the wicked Life and tragical End of Euenus III. the good Reign of Metellanus and his Friendship with Augustus which he goes about to prove from Strabo But he had better kept to Veremundus After him succeeded Caratacus born at Caractonium a City of the Silures saith Hector and that he might be sure to confound all he saith his Sister Voada was married to Arviragus King of the Britains But he divorced her and married Geuissa a Noble Roman upon which Caratacus joined the Britains against the Romans and was at last beaten by them and betrayed by Cartumandua his Mother-in-law who after his Father's death was married to Venusius and was by Ostorius carried in Triumph to Rome from whence he saith he returned to Scotland and remained to his death a Friend to the Romans After Caractacus Corbred his Brother was chosen King who joined with Voada against the Romans And partaking of her misfortune returned into Scotland and there died His Sons being under Age Dardannus succeeded Who designing to destroy the right Heirs of the Crown was himself taken off And thereby Way was made for Galdus the true Heir to succeed Who was the same saith Hector with Tacitus his Galgacus and he confesses was beaten by Petilius Cerealis This King Buchanan thinks was the first of their Kings who fought with the Romans What becomes then of the Credit of Hector and Veremundus from whom we have such ample Narrations of their engaging with the Romans so long before From hence it is plain that Veremundus his Authority signified nothing with him And yet he follows Hector where he professes to rely upon his Authority For Buchanan evidently abridges Hector as to the Scotish Affairs leaving out what he found inconsistent with the Roman History Hector begins his Fifth Book with the short Reign and dolefull End of Luctacus Galdus his Son who was succeeded by Mogallus his Sisters Son who continued for some time a brave Prince but at last degenerating was killed by his Subjects After him Conarus his Son who was confined for ill management and the Government committed to Argadus Upon his death the Kingdom fell to Ethodius Nephew to Mogallus who was strangled in his Bed by an Irish Harper And so was Satrael that succeeded him
makes use of no other but where he follows Hector's own inventions The remainder of his Story is That things being quieted here Arthur goes over into Lesser Britain and leaves the Government to his Nephew Mordred But while he was abroad some had prevailed with him to declare Constantine the Son of Cador his Successour being born in Britain which being done Mordred set up for himself and in a Battel about Humber saith he Mordred was killed and Arthur mortally wounded Thus Buchanan having picked what he thought fit out of Hector concludes with a bitter Invective against the fabulous Relations about Arthur But he gives him an extraordinary Character saying he was certainly a great Man of mighty Courage and wonderfull kindness to his Countrey preserving them from Slavery and keeping up or restoring the true Religion And that is the Subject I am now to consider viz. The State of Religion here in King Arthur 's days It was under great Persecution almost whereever the Saxons came who were cruel both to the Bodies and Souls of the poor Britains Most of the Southern and Western parts were under their Tyranny and Brian Twyne quotes a passage out of Matt. Westminster which is not so full in the printed Copies concerning the Persecution of the British Christians in the Eastern parts of the Land For saith he Anno Dom. 527. The Pagans came out of Germany and took possession of the Countrey of the East-Angles omni crudelitatis genere Christianos affecerunt They tormented the Christians with all sorts of Cruelty Although this be wanting in other Copies yet it may be reasonably presumed The Saxons using the British Christians in such a manner in the most places where they prevailed It is true that Malmsbury saith many of the Britains submitted to Cerdic and it is probable they were the better used for doing so Tho. Rudburn saith That Cerdic allow'd Liberty of professing the Christian Religion to the Cornish upon a certain Tribute I rather think that Cerdic never went so far but left that part to the Britains who still continued there For in Gildas his time Constantine is said to be King of the Danmonii and Camden observes out of Marianus Scotus that Anno Dom. 820. the Britains and Saxons had a terrible Fight at Camelford in Cornwall which Leland thinks to have been Camlan where King Arthur fought with Mordred and near which is a Stone saith Mr. Carew which bears Arthur 's Name but now called Atry To prove what I have said that the West-Saxon Kingdom did not extend to Cornwall we may observe that William of Malmsbury saith That Ceaulin Granchild to Cerdic was the first who took Gloucester Cicester and Bath from the Britains and drove them thence into the Rocky and Woody places And in the time of Athelstan above 400 years after the coming of the Saxons the Cornish Britains did inhabit in Exceter and were driven thence by him beyond the River Tamar and confined by that as the other Britains were by the Wye This shews that the Britains in Cornwall and thereabouts were free from the Yoke of the West-Saxon Kingdom As to the Northern Britains they came to some agreement after a while with Oeca and Ebusa whom Hengist sent thither and that they had their own Government and the Christian Religion among them appears by the History of Ceadwalla a Prince of these Britains in Bede But these were but small remnants in the Northern and Western parts As to the Eastern we have had the Testimony of Matt. Westminster already And although the Kingdom of the East-Angles did not begin till afterwards about Anno Dom. 575. yet in the ninth year of Cerdic about Anno Dom. 517. Huntingdon observes That many Angles or Saxons were come out of Germany and took possession of the Countrey of the East-Angles and Mercia and whereever they prevailed the poor British Christians suffered to the highest extremity Which is enough to considering Men to overthrow the credit of the supposed Diploma of King Arthur to the Vniversity of Cambridge which bears date Anno Dom. 531. But Brian Twyne hath brought no fewer than 15 Arguments against it which are far more than needed For I cannot think that Dr. Cajus in earnest believed it for he goes not about to prove the Diploma but King Arthur And I cannot think it any honour or service to so famous and ancient an Vniversity to produce any such sespected Diplomata or Monkish Legends to prove its Antiquity It is not certain in whose possession London was at that time from whence the Charter is dated For the Kingdom of the East-Saxons was then set up by Erkinwin and London commonly was under that and that Kingdom as Malmsbury observes had the same limits which the Diocese of London now hath viz. Essex Middlesex and part of Hartfordshire Matt. Westminster agrees that Middlesex was under the Kingdom of the East-Saxons but he will not yield that Theonus Bishop of London did retire with his Clergy into Wales till Anno Dom. 586. and then he confesses that he and Thadioc Bishop of York when they saw all their Churches demolished or turned into Idol Temples did for their security retire thither And there was the freest Exercise of their Religion kept up even in the Reign of King Arthur There flourished the Schools of Literature set up by Dubricius and Iltutus and there were the Persons of greatest Reputation for Learning and Sanctity in the British Churches such as Dubricius Iltutus Paulinus Gundleus Cadocus Sampson Paternus Daniel and St. David above the rest whose Reputation continues to this day and was preserved in the Saxon Churches of Britain as appears by the Breviary of Salisbury where nine Lessons are appointed upon his day And Maihew observes that this was by a Provincial Constitution in the Province of Canterbury But the nine Lessons were taken out of the first Chapter of the Legend of his Life a little being added at the end concerning his Death It is the just complaint of Bollandus that there is nothing extant concerning him which was written near his own time and what is extant hath many fabulous mixtures so that it is hard to find out the Truth The oldest MS. of his Life he saith is that of Vtretcht which he hath published the next he accounts is that in Colganus which he would have thought to be the Life written by Ricemarchus quoted by Archbishop Vsher whom he supposes to have lived before Giraldus Cambrensis who transcribed much out of him But Colganus withall intimates That the Life was taken out of an old Book wherein Augustin Macraidin the Authour of the Annals of Ulster had written many things and probably might write that too and to confirm this Bollandus observes onely a little difference in Style between this and the Vtretcht MS. But if we add to these Giraldus his Life with that of John of Tinmouth or Capgrave we
shall after all find the Life of St. David not much clearer than that of his Nephew Arthur for he is supposed to have been Uncle to him by the Mother's side whose Name is said to be Nonnita in Capgrave Nonna in the Utrecht MS. Nemata in Colganus Melari in the Life of St. Kenna so Colganus and Bollandus say But in Capgrave I find Melari said to be the Mother to the Father of St. David i. e. to Xantus King of the Provincia Ceretica i. e. Cardiganshire so called from Ceretus Father to Xanctus say some from Caraticus who ruled here as Camden seems inclinable to believe That Melari was one of the 12 Daughters of Braghanus King of Brecknock from whom Giraldus saith the County took its Name And he said from the British Histories that he had 24 Daughters but Capgrave saith he had 12 Sons and 12 Daughters D. Powell in his Notes on Giraldus saith this Brachanus his Father was Haulaphus King of Ireland and his Mother a Britain viz. Marcella Daughter to Theodoric Son of Tethwaltus King of Garthmathrin afterwards called Brecknock Another Daughter of Brachanus he saith was Wife to Congenus Son to Cadel King of Powisland and Mother of Brochmiel who killed Etheldred King of Northumberland and routed his Army about Anno Dom. 603. By this we see what a Number of Petty Princes there was about that time among the Britains but whether St. David were Vncle by the Mother to King Arthur or not we have not light enough to discover I shall pass over all the Legendary parts of his Life and consider onely what relates to the Church-History of those times His Domestick Education is said to have been under Pauleus or Paulinus a Disciple of St. German with whom he continued ten years in the Isle of Wight saith Giraldus but it seems more probable to have been Whiteland in Caermardenshire the School of Iltutus being not far off in Glamorganshire at Lantwitt i. e. Fanum Iltuti and in his Life it is said that he came to the King of Glamorgan and after that Sampson Paulinus Gildas and David were his Scholars But Bollandus shews that there must be a mistake as to David and that instead of him it should be read Daniel who was a Disciple of Iltutus and consecrated first Bishop of Bangor by Dubricius After this it is said that David and Eliud or Teliaus and Paternus went to Jerusalem and David was there consecrated Bishop by the Patriarch And it is not to be wondred that in such a distracted time at home they should go to Jerusalem when Saint Jerome in his time mentions the Britains going thither especially such as were more inclined to Devotion which humour spread so much that Gregory Nyssen wrote against it as a thing very much tending to Superstition if not arising from it But it was most excusable in such a troublesome time at home Not long after his return the famous Synod at Brevy was held at a place called Lhandewy-brevy the Church of Saint David at Brevy Here the Vtrecht MS. saith was a Synod assembled of all the Bishops of Britain upon the account of the Pelagian Controversie then revived Giraldus saith It was a general Convention of Clergy and Laity But the former MS. saith there were present 118. Bishops besides Abbats and others One would think it hard to find so many Bishops in Britain at that time And Bollandus startles at it but Colganus undertakes to defend it having premised that Giraldus and Capgrave leave it out But he saith there were more Bishops at that time than afterwards and more Bishops than Bishopricks Dioceses not being then so limitted as afterwards And every Monastery almost having a Bishop its Superiour By which means he justifies Saint Patrick 's consecrating as Jocelin saith 350 Bishops with his own hands But after all this Giraldus did much better to omit such a number in such a time unless there were better Testimony concerning it However there was a considerable number there present yet St. David was absent and first Paulinus was sent to him but he prevailed not then Daniel and Dubricius went upon whose intreaty he came and by his Authority and Eloquence put an effectual stop to Pelagianism And before the end of the Synod it is said That by general Consent he was chosen Archbishop of Caerleon Dubricius desiring to retire on the account of his Age. But here we meet with a considerable difficulty concerning the Succession to Dubricius viz. That Teliaus is said to succeed Dubricius at Landaff and to have power over all the Churches of the Western parts of Britain How can this be consistent with St. David's succeeding Dubricius in the See of Caerleon which had the Metropolitan Power over those Churches Bishop Godwin out of Bale and as he supposeth out of Leland saith That St. Dubricius was first Bishop of Landaff being there consecrated by Germanus and Lupus and that afterwards he was removed by a Synod to Caerleon and Teliaus placed in Landaff But this by no means clears the difficulty for although Bale doth there exactly follow Leland yet Leland himself did not seem to have consulted the Book of Landaff Where it is said That when Dubricius was made Archbishop he had the See of Landaff conferr'd upon him by the Gift of Mouricus then King and the three Estates i. e. the Nobles Clergy and People and all the Land between the Taff and Elei And Leland himself out of another Authour saith That when Dubricius was made Archbishop Landaff was made his Cathedral Church After Dubricius his time Teliaus is said to be Archbishop several times in the Book of Landaff and after him Oudoceus is called Summus Episcopus and the Bishop of Landaff in 〈◊〉 Sermon to Calixtus 2. Anno Dom. 1109. saith That it appears by the hand writing of St. Teliaus That the Church of Landaff was superiour in dignity to all other Churches in Wales That which seems to me the most probable account of this matter is That when Landaff was given to Dubricius then Archbishop he fixed his See there and so Landaff was the Seat of the Archbishop of Caerleon But afterwards when St. David removed the Archiepiscopal See to Menevia a remote barren and inconvenient place as Giraldus himself confesseth The Bishops of Landaff assumed the Archiepiscopal Power which had been in that See and would not submit to the Bishops of St. Davids This is apparent from that passage of Oùdocëus who succeeded Theliaus in the Book of Landaff that he would not receive Consecration from the Bishop of St. Davids as his Metropolitan but had it from the Archbishop of Canterbury This is a very improbable thing at that time considering the hatred the Britains did bear to the Saxons and their Bishops to Augustin the Monk It is far more likely that they received it from the Archbishop of Dole in Britany or from the Archbishop of London then resident in those parts
confined to the Corners of the Land For our Historians say That the Saxons left not the Face of Christianity whereever they did prevail This is a very sad Subject which ought not to be passed over without that Reflexion which St. Paul made on the Church of the Jews and Gentiles Behold the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off It remains onely that we consider the Liberty or Independency of the British Churches of which we can have no greater Proof than from the Carriage of the British Bishops towards Augustin the Monk when he came with full power from the Pope to require Subjection from them And this material point relating to the British Churches I shall endeavour to clear from all the Objections which have been made against it In order thereto we are to understand That Augustin the Monk by virtue of the Pope's Authority did challenge a Superiority over the Bishops of the British Churches which appears not onely by Gregory's Answer to his Interrogations but by the Scheme of the Ecclesiastical Government here which Gregory sent to him after he had a fair prospect of the Conversion of the Saxons which was at the same time that he sent Mellitus Justus Paulinus and Rufinianus with the Archiepiscopal Pall to him There he declares that there were to be two Archbishops Sees one at London which out of honour to Ethelbert or Augustin was fixed at Canterbury or rather by Ethelbert's own Authority and the other at York which had been a Metropolitan See in the British times and both these Archbishops were to have twelve Suffragan Bishops under them The Bishop of London was to be consecrated by his own Synod and to receive the Pall from the Pope But Augustin was to appoint the first Bishop of York who was to yield Subjection to him for his time but afterwards the Sees were to be Independent on each other But by all this it should seem that he had Authority given him onely over those Bishops who were consecrated by him And the Archbishop of York what then becomes of those Bishops in Britain who were Consecrated by neither and such they knew there were Concerning these Gregory gives a plain Answer That they were all to be subject to the Authority of Augustine and to govern themselves in Life and Doctrine and Church Offices according to his Direction 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 Where this place was is very uncertain and not at all material Camden could find nothing like it and the Conjectures of others since have no great probability either as to Austric or Haustake or Ossuntree but at this place the British Bishops gave Augustine a Meeting where the first thing proposed by him was That they would embrace the Vnity of the Catholick Church and then join with them in Preaching to the Gentiles for saith he they did many things repugnant to the Vnity 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 obtained from them was onely 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 Abbat And the Result of this Meeting was That they utterly refused Submission to the Church of Rome or to Augustine as Archbishop over them And for the Account of this we are beholding to Bede whose Authority is liable to no exception in this matter But against this plain Matter of Fact there have been three Objections made which must be removed 1. That Augustine did not require Subjection from the British Bishops but onely treated with them about other matters in difference between them 2. That their refusing Subjection to the Bishop of Rome depends upon the Credit of a Spurious British MS. lately invented and brought into light as the Answer of Dinoth 3. That if they did refuse Subjection to the Pope it was Schismatical Obstinacy in them and contrary to the former Sense of the British Church To all these I shall give a clear and full Answer 1. As to the matter of their Conference it cannot be denied that other things were started as about the Paschal Controversie and some Rites of Baptism c. but this was the main point which Augustine did not in plain Terms insist upon because it would look too invidiously to require Subjection to himself but he cunningly insinuates it under the Name of Ecclesiastical Vnity For I dare appeal to any Man 's common sense whether upon the Principles of the Church of Rome the British Bishops complying in other things and rejecting the Pope's Authority would have been thought sufficient If so then Submission to the Pope is no necessary term of Communion and Men may be in a very safe Condition without it But if it were necessary then Augustine must imply it within the terms of Catholick Peace and Ecclesiastical Vnity It is therefore ridiculous in Alford and Cressy and such Writers to say That Augustine did not insist upon it For it is to charge him with Ignorance or Stupidity that he should leave out so necessary an Article of Communion And yet Gregory had so great an opinion of him as to make him the Directour of the British Churches And therefore it cannot be supposed that he should offer terms of Communion without requiring Submission to the Pope's Authority if those were in a state of Schism who denied it But it is said That in the Conclusion of the second Meeting Augustine did not insist upon nor so much as mention any subjection to him from the British Churches but onely required Compliance in three Points viz. the time of the Paschal Solemnity agreeable with the Church of Rome following the Roman Customes in Baptism and joining with them in Preaching to the Saxons and upon these they brake up the Meeting To which I Answer That these things were required by Augustin not as Conditions of Brotherly Communion but as the Marks of Subjection to his Authority which appears from Bede's own Words Si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis c. Which Cressy very unfaithfully renders If they would conform in three points onely Whereas the meaning is If they would own his Authority in those three things and therefore the British Bishops answered very appositely when they said we will neither doe the things nor submit to you as Archbishop over us Why should they deny Subjection if it had not been required of them Which shews
they very well understood his meaning and gave Answer in short to the main point And upon this Account I suppose it was that the Anchoret's advice was followed about observing Whether he rose up to the British Bishops at their entrance Not that they were so offended for want of a Complement as Mr. Cressey suggests but this was look'd on by them as a Mark of that Superiority which he challenged over them And therefore they had reason to take so great notice of it and to infer harder usage from him when they should be under his Authority They could not be ignorant what Authority the Pope had given Augustin and that made them more Observant of his whole Behaviour and finding it so agreeing to the Character of an Archbishop over the British Churches They give him that Resolute Answer That they would not own any Authority he had as Archbishop over them Which is a sufficient proof that this was really the main point contested between them 2. As to the British MS. which contains Dinoth's Answer more at large I Answer 1. Leland observes That the British Writers give a more ample account of this Matter than is extant in Bede who is very sparing in what concerns the British Affairs But from them he saith That Dinoth did at large dispute with great Learning and Gravity against receiving the authority of the Pope or of Augustin and defended the Power of the Archbishop of St. Davids and affirmed it not to be for the British Interest to own either the Roman Pride or the Saxon Tyranny And he finds fault with Gregory for not admonishing the Saxons of their gross Vsurpations against their Solemn Oaths And adds that it was their duty if they would be good Christians to restore their unjust and Tyrannical Power to those from whom they had taken it For Dinoth out of his great Learning could not but know that the Pope under a pretence of bringing in the true Faith could not confirm them in their unjust Vsurpation For if that should be admitted no Princes could be safe in their Dominions And no doubt the British Bishops looked upon this attempt of Augustin upon them to be the adding one Vsurpation to another Which made them so adverse to any Communication with the Missionaries which otherwise had been inexcusable 2. The certainty of the British Churches rejecting the Pope's Authority and Augustin's jurisdiction doth not depend upon the Credit of this British MS. for this is sufficiently clear from Bede's own Words wherein they declare they would not own Augustin as Archbishop over them But if they had owned the Pope's Authority they ought to have Submitted to him who acted by virtue of his Commission And it was not possible for them at such a distance from Rome to express their disowning his Authority more effectually than by rejecting him whom he had sent to be Archbishop over them And Nich. Trivet in his MS. History cited by Sir H. Spelman saith expresly that Augustin did demand Subjection from the Britains to him as the Pope's Legate but they refused it So that if this MS. had never been heard of the Matter of Fact had been nevertheless fully attested 3. The Objections against this MS. are not sufficient to destroy the Authority of it Sir H. Spelman who sets it down at large in Welsh English and Latin tells from whom he had it and exactly transcribed it and that it appeared to him to have been an Old MS. taken out of an Older but without Date or Authour 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 The substance of it is That the Abbat of Banchor in the Name of the British Churches declares That they owe the Subjection of Brotherly Kindness and Charity to the Church of God and to the Pope of Rome and to all Christians but other obedience than that they did not know to be due to him whom they called Pope And for their parts they were under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk who was under God their Spiritual Overseer and Directour But say the Objectors There was then no Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk and had not been since the time the Metropolitan Jurisdiction was by St. David transferr'd to Menevia I grant that from the time of Dubricius the See was transferr'd first to Landaff and then to St. Davids but this latter Translation was not agreed to by all the British Bishops And it appears by the foregoing Discourse That the Bishops of Landaff did at that time when Oudocëus lived challenge the Metropolitical Power of Caerleon to themselves and therefore would not be consecrated by the Bishop of St. Davids And Caerleon having been the ancient Metropolitical See it was no absurdity at all to mention that in a Dispute which depended upon ancient Right For the Authority over the British Churches was not upon the account of St. Davids or Landaff but the Metropolitan Right which belonged to the See of Caerleon As if in the British times the Metropolitan See had been removed from London to Canterbury what incongruity had it been in a dispute of Superiority to have alledged that the British Churches of these parts were under the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of London although at that time the See were removed to another place And if this be all to make it appear to be a Forgery as Mr. Cressy pretends for all that I can see it may be a very ancient and genuine MS. But Alford goes deeper for he disproves it because it contradicts the Sense of the British Churches before which professed subjection to the Roman See This is indeed to the purpose if it be well proved which in the last place comes to be considered 3. To this purpose he alledges 1. The Confirmation of St. David 's Synod by the Pope's Authority But from whence hath he this From no other Testimony than that of Giraldus Cambrensis cited by Bishop Vsher who in the same place confesses That there was no Monument of those Synods at all remaining nor of the Pope's Confirmation of them and the other MSS. and Legends of St. David's Life say not a Word of this How then came Giraldus to affirm it We are to remember that Giraldus had a Cause depending in the Court of Rome about the Bishoprick of St. David's and he knew well enough what Doctrine was pleasing there and therefore the Testimony of such a one having no concurrent Evidence to support it is of very little force in this matter 2. He mentions the Respect Kentigern shew'd to the Church of Rome going seven times thither and having at last his uncanonical Ordination purged or confirmed by the Pope as the Authour of his Legend relates But
the History of all Churches designing an Ecclesiastical History out of the Collections he made The Testimony of a Person so qualified cannot but deserve great Consideration especially when it is not delivered by way of Report but when the force of an Argument depends upon it And Eusebius in his third Book of Evangelical Demonstration undertakes to prove that the Apostles who first preached the Gospel to the World could be no Impostours or Deceivers and among other Arguments he makes use of this That although it were possible for such men to deceive their Neighbours and Countreymen with an improbable Story yet what madness were it for such illiterate men who understood onely their Mother Tongue to go about to deceive the World by preaching this Doctrine in the remotest Cities and Countries And having named the Romans Persians Armenians Parthians Indians Scythians he adds particularly that some passed over the Ocean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those which are called the British Islands From whence he concludes that some more than humane power did accompany the Apostles and that they were no light or inconsiderable men much less Impostours and Deceivers Now unless this had been a thing very well known at that time that Christianity was planted here by the Apostles why should he so particularly and expresly mention the British Islands It cannot be said that they are onely set down to denote the most remote and obscure places For long before that time the British Islands were very well known all over the Roman Empire Britain having been the Scene of many Warlike Actions from Claudius his time The Occasion of Emperours additional Titles and Triumphs The Residence of Roman Lieutenants and Legions The Place of many Roman Colonies Cities and Ways But especially about Constantine's time It was the talk of the World for the Revolt of Carausius and Allectus The Victory and Death of Constantius here The Succession of Constantine and his being declared Emperour by the Army in Britain So that scarce any Roman Province was so much interested in the several Revolutions of the Empire as Britain and therefore Constantine going from hence and being so much in the esteem of Eusebius it is not to be conceived that he should speak these Words at random but that he had made a diligent Enquiry both of Constantine himself to whom he was well known and of others of his Court concerning the State of the British Churches of what continuance they were and by whom planted After all which Eusebius affirms it with so much assurance That some of the Apostles preached the Gospel in the British Islands Much to the same purpose Theodoret speaks another learned and judicious Church Historian For among the Nations converted by the Apostles he expresly names the Britains and elsewhere saith That St. Paul brought Salvation to the Islands that lie in the Ocean after he had mention'd Spain and therefore in all probability the British Islands are understood by him And in another place he saith That St. Paul after his Release at Rome went to Spain and from thence carried the Light of the Gospel to other Nations What other Nations so likely to be understood as those which lay the nearest and are elsewhere said to be converted by the Apostles as the Britains are by him St. Jerome saith That St. Paul having been in Spain went from one Ocean to another imitating the motion and course of the Sun of Righteousness of whom it is said his going forth is from the end of Heaven and his circuit unto the ends of it And that his diligence in Preaching extended as far as the Earth it self Which are more indefinite Expressions But elsewhere he saith That St. Paul after his Imprisonment preached the Gospel in the Western parts By which the British Islands were especially understood As will appear by the following Testimony of Clemens Romanus who saith St. Paul preached Righteousness through the whole World and in so doing went 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the utmost bounds of the West Which Passage will necessarily take in Britain if we consider what was then meant by the Bounds of the West Plutarch in the Life of Caesar speaking of his Expedition into Britain saith He was the first who brought a Fleet into the Western Ocean By which he understands the Sea between Gaul and Britain And Eusebius several times calls the British Ocean the Western and joins the British Ocean and the Western parts together And elsewhere he mentions Gaul and the Western parts beyond it by which he understands Britain And Theodoret reckons up the Inhabitants of Spain of Britain and Gaul who saith he lie between the other two as those who dwell in the bounds of the West And among these the Britains must be in the utmost bounds because the Gauls lie in the midst Herodotus saith the Celtae are the most Western of all the Europeans Now the ancient Greek Geographers knew of but two Nations in Europe besides themselves the Celtae and the Scythae these latter comprehended all in the most Northern parts of Europe and the Celtae the Western And among these the remotest were the Britains Thence Horace calls them Vltimos Orbis Britannos As Catullus before him Vltimósque Britannos For before the discovery of Britain the Morini who lived over against it were said to be the utmost People of the Earth So Virgil calls them Extremos hominum Morinos And Pliny VltimÃque hominum existimati Morini Aethicus saith they were Gentes Oceani Occidentalis But Britain being throughly made known in the time of Claudius The utmost bounds of the West must be understood of Britain especially since Catullus calls Britain Vltimam Occidentis Insulam And Arnobius setting down the bounds of the Gospel East and West for the East he mentions the Indians and for the West the Britains I cannot but wonder what so Learned a man as Joh. Launoy means when being urged by his Adversaries with this place of Clemens his Epistle to prove the Apostolical Antiquity of the Gallican Churches He fairly rejects the authority of this Epistle which hath been so universally received by all Learned men since the first publishing of it But then he argues well that if this passage holds for Gaul it will much more hold for Britain So that from this undoubted Testimony of Clemens it follows not onely That the Gospel was preached in Britain in the times of the Romans but That St. Paul himself was the Preacher of it Which is affirmed by Venantius Fortunatus where he describes St. Paul's labours Transit Oceanum vel quà facit Insula Portum Quásque Britannus habet terras quásque ultima Thule But because this may look onely like a Poetical Expression 3. To make this out more fully I shall consider the concurrent probability of Circumstances together with these Testimonies And I shall make it appear 1. From
at Antioch he saith gave out that both Osius and Liberius had renounced the Nicene Faith and declared the Son to be unlike the Father but Liberius clear'd himself by rejecting the Doctrine of the Anomaeans i. e. the open and professed Arians and this Vrsacius Valens and Germinius then at Sirmium were willing to accept of having a farther Design to carry on in these Parts which was like to be spoiled by the Anomaeans appearing so openly and unseasonably in the East And for the same Reason they were willing to call in that which Hilary calls the Blasphemy of Osius and Potamius as being too open and giving Offence to the Followers of Basilius of Ancyra in the East For now the Emperour having banished so many Bishops and struck so much terrour into the rest thought it a convenient time to settle the Church-affairs to his mind in these Western Parts and to that end he summoned a General Council but justly fearing the Eastern and Western Bishops would no more agree now than they did before at Sardica he appoints the former to meet at Seleucia in Isauria and the latter at Ariminum whose Number saith Severus Sulpicius came to above four hundred and to the same purpose Sozomen When they were assembled Valens and Vrsacius acquainted them with the Emperour 's good Intentions in calling them together and as the onely Expedient for the Peace of the Church they proposed that all former Confessions of Faith should be laid aside as tending to dissension and this to be universally received which they had brought with them from Sirmium where it was drawn up by several Bishops and approved by the Emperour Upon the reading this New Confession of Faith wherein the Son is said to be like the Father according the Scriptures and the Name of Substance agreed to be wholly laid aside the Bishops at Ariminum appeared very much unsatisfied and declared they were for keeping to the Nicene Faith without alteration and required of the Arian Party there present to subscribe it before they proceeded any farther which they refusing to doe they forthwith excommunicated and deposed them and protested against all Innovations in matters of Faith And of these Proceedings of theirs they send an account by several Legates of their own wherein they express their Resolution to adhere to the Nicene Faith as the most effectual Bar against Arianism and other Heresies and they add that the removing of it would open the Breach for Heresie to enter into the Church They charge Vrsacius and Valens with having once been Partakers of the Arian Heresie and on that account thrown out of the Church but were received in again upon their Submission and recantation but now they say in this Council of Ariminum they had made a fresh Attempt on the Faith of the Church bringing in a Doctrine full of Blasphemies as it is in Socrates but in Hilary's Fragments it is onely that their Faith contained multa perversae Doctrinae which shews that they looked on the Sirmian Creed as dangerous and heretical And in the same Fragments it appears by the Acts of the Council that they proceeded against Valens Vrsacius Germinius and Caius as Hereticks and Introducers of Heresie and then made a solemn Protestation that they would never recede from the Nicene Faith Their ten Brethren whom they sent to Constantius to acquaint him with the Proceedings of the Council he would not admit to speak with him For he was informed beforehand by the Arian Party how things went in the Council at which he was extremely displeased and resolved to mortifie the Bishops so as to bring them to his Will at last He sends word to the Council how much his thoughts were then taken up with his Eastern Expedition and that these matters required greater freedom of Mind to examine them than he had at such a time and so commands the Legates to wait at Hadrianople till his Return The Council perceived by this Message that his Design was to weary them out hoping at last as Theodoret expresses it to bring them to consent to the demolishing that Bulwark which kept Heresie out of the Church i. e. the Authority of the Council of Nice To this smart Message the Council returned a resolute Reply That they would not recede from their former Decree but humbly beg leave to return to their Bishopricks before Winter being put to great hardships in that strait Place This was to let the Emperour know how he might deal with them and he sends a charge to his Lieutenant not to let them stir till they all consented And in the mean time effectual means were used with their Legates in the East to bring them to terms an account whereof we have in Hilary's Fragments which were to null all the former Proceedings and to receive those who were there deposed to Communion Which being done they were sent back to decoy the rest of the Council who at first were very stiff but by degrees they were so softned that they yielded at last to the Emperour 's own Terms The very Instrument of their Consent is extant in Hilary's Fragments wherein they declare their full Agreement to the laying aside the Terms of Substance and Consubstantial in the Creed i. e. to the voiding the Authority of the Council of Nice which was the thing all along aimed at by the Arian Party And Athanasius saith it was there declared unlawfull to use the word Substance or Hypostasis concerning God It is time now to consider how far those Churches can be charged with Arianism whose Bishops were there present and consented to the Decrees of this Council It is a noted Saying of St. Jerome on this Occasion that the World then groaned and wondered at its being become Arian Which a late Authour saith is a passage quite worn out by our Innovatours Whom doth he mean by these Innovatours The Divines of the Church of England who from time to time have made use of it Not to prove an Apostasie of the Catholick Church from the true Faith which no Man in his Wits ever dreamt of but from hence to overthrow the pretended Infallibility of General Councils or such as have been so called And notwithstanding the opprobrious Name of Innovatours which as we find in those of the Church of Rome often belongs to those who give it to others it is very easie to prove that this one Instance of the Council of Ariminum doth overthrow not onely the Pretence to the Infallibility of General Councils but the absolute binding Authority of any till after due examination of the Reasons and Motives of their Proceedings For it is apparent by the whole Series of the Story as I have faithfully deduced it that the whole Design of the Arian Party was to overthrow the Authority of the Council of Nice which they were never able to compass by a General Council till this of Ariminum agreeing as they
Antiphonae to be made out of them and sung The Epistle was constantly taken out of St. Paul as Walafr Strabo proves out of the Pontifical Book But in process of time he saith other Lessons were taken out of the Old and New Testament agreeably to the time Which might be borrow'd from the Gallican Church as other Inlargements of their Offices by the Ritualists Confession were and in probability the Distribution of the Lessons was first begun by Musaeus which we have digested according to the Roman Custome in the Lectionarius published by Pamelius by some attributed to St. Jerome After the Lessons follow'd the Responsoria or Proper Hymns for so Isidore saith they were called because one singing the whole Choire did answer and Rhabanus Maurus calls such an Anthem Responsorius Cantus and these differ'd from the Antiphonae because in them the whole Choire sung each Verse alternatim But Rupertus thinks they had their Name because they answered to the Lessons being sung immediately after them for the refreshment of the Hearers mind saith Amalarius But besides the Lessons and Hymns he methodiz'd the Psalms so as to be read agreeably to the times and the Lessons and not in the Order wherein they stand which seems to have been peculiar to the Gallican Church The most ancient Custome of the Church as Menardus proves from Justin Martyr and others was to begin the publick Service with the Lessons And St. Ambrose in one Place seems to mention no more in his Church at Milan besides the Lessons and the Sermon before his expounding the Creed to the Competentes But in the same Epistle he speaks of the Psalms that were read in the Morning Service And elsewhere of the People's answering to the Psalms and it is generally said by the ancient Ritualists that St. Ambrose brought into the use of the Western Church the custome of Singing the Psalms Verse by Verse in turns by both sides of the Choire so Isidore Rabanus Walafridus Strabo and Radulphus Tungrensis And so Paulinus in his Life saith he brought up the use of Antiphonae in the Western Church And Sigebert adds that he took it from the Greeks And St. Augustine sets down the occasion of it viz. when the People at Milan were persecuted by the Arians and resolved to abide in the Church And therefore to keep them well employ'd he thought upon this Custome of the Eastern Churches Which not onely continued there but from thence spread into other Churches not without opposition in some Places as St. Augustine confesses it met with some at Carthage But withall he saith he wrote in Vindication of it In the Eastern Church it was of ancient use if Socrates say true for he saith it begun upon a Divine Vision to Ignatius at the Church of Antioch But Theodoret saith Flavianus and Diodorus brought it up there But the words of Theodorus Mopseustenus in Nicetas seem to intimate that they took this Custome from the Syriack Churches However Theodoret attributes the beginning of Singing the Psalms of David in that manner in the Greek Churches to them From whence he saith it spread into other Parts But we find by St. Basil it was very hardly received in the Church of Neocaesarea because it was not introduced by Gregory who first settled the Church there Neither saith he were the Litanies which they then used brought in by him And for that Custome of Singing he saith it was practised in the Churches of Egypt Palaestine and Syria as far as Euphrates But it came later into the Western Church Card. Bona saith That Damasus first commanded it to be used in all Churches by his Apostolical Authority But Card. Baronius saith It is a plain falshood which the Pontifical Book affirms of Damasus his appointing the Psalms to be sung in all Churches and he adds that the Epistles of St. Hierome and Damasus about it are counterfeit Yet those are the Authorities which as appears by Pamelius the ancient Ritualists rely upon All that Baronius will allow to be done in the time of Damasus was that St. Jerome 's Psalter was then introduced at Rome And yet we are told that to this day the old Translation of the Psalter is used in St. Peter 's and is called Psalterium Romanum in the Rule of St. Francis which he forbids to be used in Divine Service But the same is onely used in the Ambrosian Office And Card. Bona observes that St. Gregory composed the Antiphonae at the Introitus and at the Responsoria c. out of the old Version before St. Jerome's time Of which he gives this reason That the People at Rome were so accustom'd to it that they would not learn the New Testament of St. Jerome And the same Authour observes likewise That the old Italick Version was not onely used in Rome but in all the Suburbicary Churches and other Churches Gaul onely excepted And from thence St. Jerome's Translation was called Versio Gallicana because it was immediately received into the use of the Gallican Churches So that I see not how Baronius can make good his own Assertion That St. Jerome 's Translation of the Psalter was introduced by Damasus But the use of Alleluja by St. Jerome's means as St. Gregory saith was brought from the Church of Ierusalem Which Baronius thinks is rather to be understood of some particular manner of using it But how he can justifie the ancient use of the Singing Psalms at Rome either before or after Damasus his time till Celestine was Pope I cannot imagine if the Pontifical Book say true for that expresly affirms that Celestine appointed David 's Psalms to be sung Antiphonatim before the Sacrifice and that it was not done before but onely the Epistles of St. Paul and the holy Gospel were read Which words are repeated by Alcuinus Amalarius Rabanus Maurus Walafridus Strabo Berno Augiensis and several other Ritualists and Historians as may be seen in Pamelius his Collection and Cassander's besides the Authours themselves But Baronius saith the use of Singing the Psalms was from the beginning in the Roman Church which we are to take upon his Word for he brings no proof of it It is true that St. Augustine saith That we have the Precept and Example of Christ and his Apostles for singing in our Assemblies But he speaks not of David's Psalms nor of the Church of Rome And he saith The Customs of Churches were very different about this matter In the Churches of Africa he saith They confined themselves to the Prophetical Hymns for which they were upbraided by the Donatists as too grave and formal But he allows Singing to be one of the Solemn Parts of Divine Service with which he joins Reading the Lessons Preaching and Prayer either aloud by the Bishop or in common by the Deacon's giving notice Justin Martyr mentions the Hymns of the
Church without declaring whether they were composed or inspired And so do Pliny and Tertullian in some Places But in his Apology he saith both were used Eusebius mentions the Hymns composed by Christians which proved the Divinity of Christ And the great esteem the Hymns of Nepos were in and the complaint against Paulus Samosatenus for laying aside the Hymns made to the Honour of Christ. The Council of Laodicea first restrained the use of Private Hymns in the Churches Service the Greek Canonists understand this Canon of Apocryphal Psalms such as Salomon's Psalter published by La Cerda out of the Auspurg MS. which he highly magnifies and almost believes to be genuine But if this Canon be extended to all humane Compositions it was never received in the Western Church wherein the Hymns of St. Hilary St. Ambrose Prudentius and others have been generally used And the Ambrosian Hymns were received into the Service of the Gallican Church as appears by the second Council at Tours And Cassander observes that not onely those made by St. Ambrose but others in imitation of him were called by his name Which Walafridus Strabo confirms But among those the Te Deum is not reckon'd by Cassander neither is it of the Ambrosian Composition for those Hymns ended their Sentence every fourth Verse as he observes Te Deum is commonly said to have been made by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine at his Baptism and to prove it the Ritualists quote the Chronicle of Datius Bishop of Milan But Gavantus observes that the Learned Men of Milan deny that there is any such thing as a Chronicle of Datius among them Mabillon sent to them to enquire particularly about it and they return'd Answer That they had no such thing But that there was such a Title put upon a Book written by other Authours In an old Collection of Hymns and an old Latine and French Psalter mention'd by Archbishop Vsher this Hymn is attributed to St. Nicetius And there were two of that name in the Gallican Church The former of which might probably be the Authour of it The one was Bishop of Triers and subscribed to the Council of Auvergn Anno Dom. 535. highly commended for his Eloquence and Sanctity by Gregorius Turonensis Fortunatus and others And the other of great fame too and Bishop of Lyons who subscribed to the Council there Anno Dom. 567. But against this latter there is a strong Objection from the mention of this Hymn in the Rule of St. Benedict c. 11. who died according to Baronius Anno Dom. 543. It is likewise mention'd in the Rule of Caesarius drawn up by Tetradius c. 21. who died about the same time And in the Rule of Aurelianus who was present in the Council of Lyons Anno Dom. 549. in the time of Sacerdos Predecessour to Nicetius But I see no reason against the former Nicetius since Menardus confidently affirms there is no mention of this Hymn in any Writers before And therefore we may look on this Hymn as owing its Original to the Gallican Church Besides Cassian takes notice that in the Gallican Churches Gloria Patri c. was said by the People at the end of every Psalm But Walafridus Strabo observes That at Rome they used it rarely at the end of the Psalms but more frequently after the Responsoria From hence the three Cardinals Bellarmine Baronius and Bona all conclude those Ritualists mistaken who make Damasus the Authour of adding the Gloria Patri c. to the end of every Psalm And that the Epistle under the name of St. Jerome to him about it is notoriously false and withall they say that the other Ritualists are mistaken who attribute it to the Council of Nice Because then there would not have been such difference in the use of it in several Churches In the Aethiopick Eucharistical Office of the 318 Fathers at the Council of Nice bestow'd on me by my worthy Friend Doctour Castle this Hymn it self is not used But the Office consists chiefly of a Lofty and Divine Paraphrase upon it In the Liturgy of Dioscorus it is used in the middle of the Prayers It is evident from St. Basil's Discourse concerning it that the Hymn it self was of ancient use in the Eastern Church but he doth not say in what part of the Churches Service it was used But Cassian saith over all the East it was used onely to conclude the Antiphona By which he understands a Hymn between the Psalms Walafridus Strabo observes great diversity in the use of it in the Western Churches Some put it he saith into all Offices Some at the end of every Psalm Some at every breaking off the longer Psalms Some after the Responsals But the use in general was universally approved onely the Greeks found fault with the Latines for putting in the middle Sicut erat in principio but the use thereof was required in all the Gallican Churches in the time of Caesarius Archbishop of Arles as Uniformity was required by other Councils Cardinal Bona following Baronius makes that Council much elder which required the use of this Hymn and soon after the Council of Nice But that cannot be if the Subscriptions in Sirmondus be true and he observes that mistake in Baronius to have risen from misunderstanding a Passage of Ado Viennensis So that the Morning Service of the Gallican Churches consisted chiefly in Lessons Hymns and Psalms of St. Jerome 's translation with Gloria Patri at the end of every Psalm The Latine Tongue being yet the common Language of the Roman Provinces But are we to suppose that they met together for the Worship of God without any Prayers I answer that they had then two sorts of Prayers in their Assemblies 1. Private Prayers of each particular Person by himself 2. A concluding Collect which was the Common Prayer wherein they all joined 1. That they had such private Prayers in their Assemblies I prove from Cassian who reproves the Custome of some in the Gallican Churches who fell to their private Devotions on their Knees before the Psalm was well ended But he saith the Egyptian Monks used to spend some time in Prayer to themselves standing and then fall down for a short space in a way of Adoration and presently rise up again continuing their Devotions standing All which is capable of no other sense but that between the Psalms a time was allow'd in the Gallican Churches as well as Egyptian Monasteries for private Devotions in the publick Assemblies Gregor Turonensis saith That in the Gallican Churches the Deacon did Silentium indicere and the Priest did it by the Mozarabick Liturgy which Eugenius Roblesius understands onely of making the People attentive Which I grant was part of the Deacon's Office and Design in commanding Silence as appears by several passages in the ancient Liturgies both Greek and Latine But there