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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
examin'd Several Testimonies of Origen concerning the British Churches in his time The different Traditions about King Lucius The State of the Roman Province here overthrows his being King over all Britain Great probability there was such a King in some part of it and then converted to Christianity A Conjecture proposed in what part of Britain he reigned The most probable means of his Conversion and the Story cleared from Monkish Fables Of Dioclesian's Persecution in Britain and the stopping of it by the means of Constantius The flourishing of the British Churches under Constantine The reason onely of three British Bishops present at the Council of Arles The great Antiquity of Episcopal Government here Of the Flamines and Archiflamines of Geffrey of Monmouth how far agreeable to the Roman Constitution Maximinus set up a Pagan Hierarchy in imitation of the Christian. The Canons of the Council of Arles not sent to the Pope to confirm but to publish them HAving shew'd the great probability of the planting a Christian Church here in the Apostles time and that by St. Paul I am now to consider the Succession of this Church of which we have undoubted Evidence from the unquestionable Testimonies of Tertullian and Origen who mention it as a thing so very well known That they use it as an Argument against the Jews to prove Christ to have been the promised Messias because the uttermost parts of the Earth were given for his Possession Tertullian flourished as St. Jerome saith under Severus and his Son And in the time of Severus he wrote against the Jews as Baronius proves from several Passages in that Book In his time the Affairs of Britain were very well understood in other parts of the Roman Empire especially by Men so learned and inquisitive as Tertullian For Clodius Albinus having set up for the Empire in Britain and being beaten by Severus near Lyons he took care to secure this Province by sending Virius Lupus his Lieutenant hither But things growing troublesome here Severus himself undertook an Expedition hither and brought the Britains to such Terms That they were contented to live beyond the Wall which Severus built where Hadrian's Wall had been before The part of Britain beyond the Wall was called Caledonia as Dio saith And it is apparent that the Romans were at that time fully acquainted with the Condition of the Britains both within the Province and without And therefore Tertullian cannot be supposed to speak at random about this matter when he mentions the Nations of Gaul and the Britains with as much assurance as he doth his Countreymen the Moors for receiving Christianity And saith The Kingdom of Christ was advanced among them and that Christ was solemnly worshipped by them Tertullian was a man of too much understanding to expose himself to the contempt of the Jews by mentioning this as a thing so well known at that time if the Britains were then known to be no Christians Or if they had been such and were returned to Barbarism the Argument would have been stronger against him When therefore such a Passage doth not fall by chance from such a Writer but the force of an Argument depends upon it it is of so much greater weight How ridiculous would it appear for a man to prove that Popery is the Catholick Religion by instancing not onely in Italy and Spain as the Nations where it is universally received but in Great Britain and Denmark and Sweden No less was the absurdity then to prove Christ's universal Kingdom by enumerating Gaul and Britain with other Nations where Christ was worshipped if there were no Christian Churches at that time in being among them But there are two Objections against this Passage of Tertullian which must be removed 1. That he speaks of that part of Britain which was not under the Roman Power and the Conversion of it is said to be later than to be here mention'd by Tertullian For Joh. Fordon and Joh. Maior from an ancient Distick in both of them Christi transactis tribus annis atque ducentis Scotia Catholicam coepit inire Fidem say That the Christian Religion was received in Scotland in A. D. 203. about the seventh of Severus But this was so little a time before Tertullian's Writing that it could hardly be so well known in Africa as to afford strength to an Argument against the Jews To which I answer That it is true Tertullian doth add the greater Emphasis to his Argument by saying Et Britannorum inaccessa Romanis loca Christo vero subdita The Gospel had access to those parts of Britain whither the Romans had none Which doth prove that Christianity was then received beyond the Wall but not by the Scots who were not yet settled in those parts But by the old Britains who were driven thither as appears by the Account given by Xiphilin out of Dio who saith that the Britains were divided into two sorts the Maeatae and the Caledonii The former dwelt by the Wall and the latter beyond them These were the Extraprovincial Britains and were distinct both from the Picts and the Scots saith Joh. Fordon who carefully distinguisheth these three Nations when he speaks of their Wars with the Romans And he makes Fulgentius the Head of the Britains of Albany in the time of Severus But he supposes both the Scots and Picts to have been in the Northern parts long before and that the Scots received the Christian Faith in the time of Severus Victor being then Bishop of Rome who succeeded Eleutherius To whom saith Hector Boethius King Donald sent Embassadours to desire him to send Persons fit to instruct them in the Christian Faith And upon this saith he it was generally received in Scotland Dempster according to his custome is very warm in this matter and saith all their Annals and Histories agree that King Donald and the whole Kingdom of Scotland did then embrace Christianity And is angry with Baronius for putting off their Conversion to the time of Palladius But notwithstanding all his boasting of the consent of Annals and Histories the Scotichronicon is the onely Authority he hath to produce And in his Preface he saith That King Edward I. destroy'd all the Monuments of the Kingdom and it is somewhat unreasonable to complain of the want and to alledge the consent of them at the same time And besides he produceth something out of Fordon concerning Paschasius of Sicily being sent by Victor into Scotland and returning with a Message from King Donald which is not to be found in Fordon But as Baronius observes It is strange that so remarkable a Conversion should be ommitted not onely by Bede but by Marianus Scotus who mentions the Mission of Palladius And Prosper saith Vpon the Mission of Palladius who was made the first Bishop over the Scotish Christians the People who were barbarous before were made Christians But it is urged by Dempster not 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
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
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
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
Eusebians should really believe the Consubstantiality of the Son and yet so vehemently oppose the use of the word Would any Men of common sense who did believe the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to be turned into the very Body and Bloud of Christ set themselves with all their force and interest to overthrow the term of Transubstantiation So if the Eusebians did believe the Son of the same Substance with the Father to what purpose should they caball so much as they did all the Reign of Constantius to lay aside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If it be said It was by way of Comprehension to take in dissenting Parties then it is plain they were really dissenting Parties still and consequently did not differ onely about the Vse of a word but about the Substance of the Doctrine And as those who do believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation are for the Vse of the word and those who believe it not would not have the word imposed so it was in all the Councils under Constantius those who chiefly opposed the word Consubstantial did it because they liked not the Doctrine and those who contended for it did it because they knew the Doctrine was aimed at under the Pretence of laying aside an unscriptural word And the same Author tells us from St. Hilary the Consequence of shutting out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was that it must be decreed either that the Son was a Creature made out of nothing or out of another substance uncreated and distinct from the Divine Nature And when he gives an account of the Council of Seleucia held at the same time with that of Ariminum he saith They brake into two Parties of the Acacians who defied the Council of Nice and all its Decrees and the old Eusebians who pretended to stick onely at the word Consubstantial and upon their Appeal to the Emperour there are these two things remarkable 1. That those who were for laying aside all discriminating words were Arians of the highest sort viz. Aëtians who held the Blasphemy of Dissimilitude 2. That those who were for retaining the word Substance went on this Ground That if God the Son exist neither from nothing nor from any other substance then he must be of the same substance with the Father Which was the very Argument he saith approved by the Council of Nice for settling the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is a sufficient Argument to me that those who from the Council of Nice did chiefly oppose that word did it with a Design to overthrow the Doctrine of the Son 's being of the same substance with the Father Which will more fully appear by a brief deduction of the Arian History from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum not from modern Collections but from the best Writers about that time The Arian Faction finding themselves so much overvoted in the Council of Nice that they despaired to carry any thing there by fair means betook themselves to fraudulent Arts hoping thereby to hinder either the passing or the executing any Decree against them At first they endeavoured to blind and deceive the Council by seeming to profess the Orthodox Faith but they made use of such ambiguous Forms of words as might serve their ends by couching an Heretical Sense under a fair appearance of joining in the same Faith with the rest This being discovered by the more sagacious Defenders of the old Christian Faith they at length fixed upon the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the onely effectual Test to discriminate the Arians from others and when they had used their utmost skill and endeavour to keep this Test from passing and found they could not prevail they bethought themselves of another way to keep the Faction alive although the Heresie might seem at present to be totally supprest And that was by suffering Arius and his two fast Friends Secundus and Theonas to be condemned by the Council and to be banished by the Emperour but the chief Heads of the Faction Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice with others resolved upon an Expedient to clear themselves and yet to keep up the Faction which was by subscribing the Confession of Faith and denying to anathematize Arius and his Followers This is plain from the Epistle of Eusebius and Theognis extant in Socrates and Sozomen wherein they own their Subscription to the Decree of Faith but declare That they utterly refused to subscribe the Anathema against Arius and his Adherents because they did not believe them guilty of the Heresie charged upon them as they found both by Writing and Conversation with them This Epistle was written by them during their Banishment in order to their return to their Bishopricks from which they had been driven by Constantine's own Order and the Reason of it is given is his Epistle to the Church of Nicomedia viz. for communicating with the Arians whom he had caused to be removed from Alexandria for their Heresie and Disturbance of the Peace of the Church there and the same Account is given of it in the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt extant in Athanasius Which shews their Resolution to keep up the Faction in spite of the Council of Nice For if they had any regard to the Decree there past they would not have presumed to have communicated with those who were expresly anathematized by the Council and had very hardly escaped it themselves as Constantine there upbraids them in his Epistle But upon this notorious Contempt they were deposed from their Bishopricks and sent into Banishment where they grew very uneasie and resolved upon any Terms to be restored knowing that if they continued there the Faction was indeed in Danger to be wholly supprest and for that end they wrote that submissive Letter to the leading Bishops promising an universal Compliance upon their Restauration And the main ground they built their Hopes upon was because Arius himself upon his submission was recalled as they declare in the end of that Epistle Which Intrigue was carried on by a secret Arian Chaplain to Constantia the Emperour's Sister recommended to the Emperour at her Death who being received into Favour whisper'd into his Ear very kind things concerning Arius and his Adherents adding that they were unjustly banished and that the whole Controversie was nothing but a Pique which the Bishop of Alexandria had taken against one of his Presbyters for having more Wit and Reputation than himself and that it would become Constantine in point of Honour and Justice to recall Arius and to have the whole matter examined over again Upon this Arius is sent for and bid by the Emperour to set down his Confession of Faith plainly and honestly which is extant in the Ecclesiastical Historians under the Name of Arius and Euzoius and was framed in such a specious manner as made the Emperour believe that Arius was indeed of
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
Substance with the Father after the same manner that the Son of Man is For as he is the Son so he is the Word and Wisedom of the Father and the internal Word or Conception in Man is no divisible part of himself but lest the Notion of Word should seem to destroy his real Subsistence therefore the Notion of Son is added in Scripture to that of Word that we may know him to be a living Word and substantial Wisedom So that when we say the Son is consubstantial to the Father we understand it not by way of Division as among Bodies but abstracting our Minds from all corporeal things we attribute this to the Son of God in a way agreeing to the Divine Nature and mean by it that he is not produced by his Will as the Creatures are nor merely his Son by Adoption but that he is the true Eternal Son of God by such an emanation as Splendour from Light or Water from the Fountain And therefore when they interpreted the term Son in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature he wonders they should stick so much at the word Consubstantial which was capable of the same Interpretation The second Objection was That those who condemned the Samosatenian Heresie rejected the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In answer to this Athanasius shews that the word was so much used and allowed in the Christian Church before the Samosatenian Heresie was heard of that when Dionysius of Alexandria was accused to Dionysius of Rome for rejecting it the Council thereupon was so much concerned that the Bishop of Rome wrote their sense to the Bishop of Alexandria about it he returns an Answer wherein he owns all the sense contained under it as appears by his Epistle in Athanasius but for those who opposed Paulus Samosatenus he saith they took the Word in a corporeal sense as if it implied a distinct Substance from the Father But saith he those who condemned the Arians saw farther into this matter considering that it ought not to be applied to the Divine Nature as it is to corporeal Substances and the Son of God not being a Creature but begotten of the Substance of the Father therefore with great Reason they used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being most proper to express the Sense of the Christian Church against the Arian Heresie as he shews there at large From these passages of Athanasius it appears that there was a third Party then in the Church distinct from the Nicenists and the Eusebians The former would by no means yield to any relaxation of the Council of Nice because they evidently saw that this Design was carried on by those who made it their business under that pretence to introduce Arianism who were the Eusebians But there were others extremely concerned for the Peace of the Church and on that account were willing to let go the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoping the Doctrine might be secured by other expressions and this facility of theirs gave the greatest advantage to the Eusebian Party in all their Councils who continually almost overreached and outwitted them under the pretence of Accommodation For by this Artifice they gained their Votes and when they had them made use of them merely to serve their own Designs as appears by the Account the Historians give of the management of the Arian Affairs under the Reign of Constantius Socrates saith that immediately after the death of Constantine Eusebius and Theognis the Heads of the Arian Faction apprehended it now to be a convenient season for them to throw down the Nicene Faith and to set up Arianism and to this purpose they endeavoured to hinder Athanasius from returning to Alexandria But first they gained the Eunuchs and Court-favorites then the Wife of Constantius himself to embrace Arianism and so the Controversie of a sudden spread into the Court Camp Cities and all Places of the East for the Western Churches continued quiet during the Reign of Constans to whose share all the Western Provinces in a short time fell After the Death of Alexander Bishop of Constantinople the two Parties openly divided in the Choice of a Successour the one chusing Paulus and the Arians Macedonius this nettled Constantius who coming to Constantinople calls a Council of Arian Bishops who depose Paulus and set up Eusebius of Nicomedia who presently falls to work going with the Emperour to Antioch where under the pretence of a Dedication as is observed in the precedent Chapter a Council of ninety Bishops was assembled but the Design was saith Socrates to overthrow the Nicene Faith Here they made some Canons to ensnare Athanasius of which before As to the matter of Faith they durst not openly propose the nulling the Council of Nice but they gained this great Point That the Matters of Faith might be discussed after it and so they set open the Gate for New Councils which by degrees might establish the Arian Heresie Sozomen saith that after the death of Constantine the secret Arians began to shew themselves more openly among whom Eusebius and Theognis especially bestirr'd themselves to advance Arianism He agrees with Socrates as to the spreading of it in the Court and elsewhere and in the other particulars to the Council at Antioch but he saith they framed their Confession of Faith in such ambiguous terms that neither Party could quarrel with the Words But they left out any mention of the Substance of Father and Son and the word Consubstantial and so in effect overthrew the Council of Nice This is that Confession of Faith which the Council in Isauria called the Authentick one made at Antioch in the Dedication But it was not so Authentick but they thought good to alter it and some months after sent another to Constans to explain themselves more fully whereby they reject those who said the Son was made of Nothing or of another Hypostasis and not from God Who could imagine these to have been any other than very sound and orthodox Men Especially when three years after they sent a larger Confession of Faith into the Western Parts for their own Vindication wherein they anathematize those who held three Gods or that Christ was not God or that he was begotten of any other Substance besides God c. But that there was juggling under all this appears because as Athanasius observes they were still altering their Forms for this again was changed several times at Sirmium before they resolved upon that which was to be carried to the Council of Ariminum And although the difference in the matters of Faith as delivered by them seem'd now very nice and subtile yet they were irreconcilably set against the Council of Nice and all that adhered to it Which was a plain Evidence that they concealed their sense under ambiguous words or that they saw it necessary at present to seem orthodox that so they might the better set aside the Council of Nice
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
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
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.
who probably kept up their Succession for some time as long as there were any hopes of returning to their own See as is before observed After this Giraldus speaks of another great Council held by St. David which he calls Victoria in which he saith all the Clergy of Wales were present And the Decrees of the former Council were confirmed and new Canons made for the Government of the British Churches But this Second Synod is not mentioned in the old Vtrecht MS. nor in Capgrave but it is in Colganus and by the Expressions it appears to have been taken out of Giraldus who confesseth that no Copies of those Canons were to be seen in his time that Coast being so often visited by Pirats who no doubt came to steal MSS. and especially church-Church-Canons I will not deny that the British Churches at that time and in those parts might be said to be in a flourishing condition in comparison with other parts of Britain and there might be more Christians there because they had been driven out from other places and their Brethrens afflictions might encrease their Devotion But Gildas takes no more Notice of St. David than he doth of King Arthur The Battel at Badon-hill according to Archbishop Vsher was the year after the Synod at Brevy and from that time the British Churches had some quiet from their Enemies But then Gildas saith The Britains quarrelled among themselves but yet so as that some kind of Order and Government was then kept up among them by the Remembrance of their late Calamities And at this time he speaks the best of the Britains that he doth in his whole Book for he saith That Kings and Publick and Private Persons Bishops and other Churchmen for Sacerdotes in that Age often signified Bishops and Gildas calls it Sacerdotalem Episcopatus Sedem did all keep to the Duty of their places But then he adds when the Sense of these Calamities was worn out and a new Generation arose they fell into such a degeneracy as to cast off all the Reins of Truth and Iustice that no remainder of it appear'd in any sort of Men except a few a very few whose number was so small in comparison with the rest that the Church could hardly discern its genuine Children when they lay in her Bosome But before I come to this last and saddest part of the History of the British Churches it will be necessary now to give some Account of those Britains who being wearied out here went for Refuge to that Countrey in France which from them is called Bretagn It seems hard to determine when the first Colony of Britains was setled in the parts of Aremorica For in the declining times of the Roman Empire there was so frequent occasion of the British Souldiers removing into the Continent and so little encouragement to return hither that it is not improbable that after the Troubles of Maximus and Constantine a Colony of Britains might settle themselves upon the Sea Coasts near to Britain where they might be ready to receive or to go over to their Countrymen as the Condition of affairs should happen This I am very much induced to believe not from the Authority of Nennius or Geffrey or William of Malmsbury or Radulphus Niger c. but from these Arguments First from Sidonius Apollinaris and there are two passages in him which tend to the clearing this matter the first is concerning Aruandus accused at Rome of Treason in the time of Anthemius for persuading the King of the Goths to make War upon the Greek Emperour i. e. Anthemius who came out of Greece and upon the Britains on the Loir as Sidonius Apollinaris expresly affirms who lived at that time and pitied his case This hapned about Anno Dom. 467. before Anthemius was the second time Consul From whence it appears not onely that there were Britains then settled on the Loir but that their Strength and Forces were considerable which cannot be supposed to consist of such miserable People as fled from hence for fear of the Saxons And it is observable that about this time Ambrosius had success against the Saxons and by Vortimer's means or his the Britains were in great likelihood of driving them out of Britain so that there is no probability that the Warlike Britains should at that time leave their Native Countrey A second passage is concerning Riothamus a King of the Britains in the time of Sidonius Apollinaris and to whom he wrote who went with 12000 Britains to assist the Romans against Euricus King of the Goths but were intercepted by him as Jornandes relates the Story and Sigebert places it Anno Dom. 470. Now what clearer Evidence can be desired than this to prove that a considerable Number of Britains were there settled and in a condition not onely to defend themselves but to assist the Romans which cannot be imagined of such as merely fled thither after the Saxons coming into Britain Besides we find in Sirmondus his Gallican Councils Mansuetus a Bishop of the Britains subscribing to the first Council at Tours which was held Anno Dom. 461. By which we see the Britains had so full a settlement then as not onely to have Habitations but a King and Bishops of their own which was the great incouragement for other Britains to go over when they found themselves so hard pressed by the Saxons at home For a People frighted from hence would hardly have ventured into a foreign Countrey unless they had been secure before hand of a kind reception there If they must have fought for a dwelling there had they not far better have done it in their own Countrey From whence I conclude that there was a large Colony of Britains in Aremorica before those Numbers went over upon the Saxon Cruelties of which Eginhardus and other foreign Historians speak Archbishop Vsher seems to think this Riothamus himself to have been the first Leader of them But it is hard to think a Person of his Valour and Experience would leave his Countrey in that distressed Condition it was brought into by the Saxons But Florentius the Authour of the Life of Judocus Son to a King of Bretagn saith That his Name was Rioval a Prince here in Britain who gathered a good Army and Fleet together and with that subdued the People who lived on the Aremorican Coasts being then left destitute and unable to defend themselves For that was the effect of the Roman Government which was kept up by the force of the Roman Legions in all parts of it and so when these were broken the Nations were so unaccustomed to War that they lay open to all Invaders So that the Aggressors did generally succeed in their attempts where the Roman Legions were withdrawn and next to the wise Providence of God which ordereth all things there was no one cause which contributed so much to the miseries of those times and the strange Revolutions which hapned in
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
seem to court the Peoples favour by pleading for popular Elections at this day from the Precedents of former times But I will not deny the People then had a farther Right of Exception against the Persons chosen but therein they were considered as Witnesses and not as Judges If their Exceptions were just and well proved the Bishops as Judges were to proceed canonically against them and then they went to a new Nomination but still the Judgment rested in the provincial Synod So in the 16 Canon in the Council of Antioch it is provided That although all the People chuse one actually a Bishop yet if he takes Possession of his See without a perfect Provincial Synod the Metropolitane being present he is to be cast out This Canon doth more fully explain the fourth Canon of the Council of Nice for here the Case is put of the Peoples choice which is there onely implied And here it is put concerning one actually a Bishop and so needing no new Consecration but being out of employment in his own See by some extraordinary accident is chosen into another by consent of the People Now if the People had there the Power of Election what hindred this Bishop from being fully possessed of his Bishoprick And yet this Canon determines that such a one was to be cast out if he did not come in by the full consent of the Metropolitane and a Provincial Synod And to shew the force of this Canon by virtue of it Bassianus was rejected from being Bishop of Ephesus by the general Council of Chalcedon where 630 Bishops are said to have been present The Case was this Bassianus was consecrated Bishop of Euaza by Memnon Bishop of Ephesus but it was against his Will and he never went thither Basilius who succeeded Memnon sends another Bishop to that City in a Provincial Synod but leaves Bassianus the dignity of a Bishop Basilius being dead Bassianus is chosen by the People of Ephesus and enthronized by Olympius without a Provincial Synod But after four years Stephanus is put in his room because he came not in canonically The Case was heard at large by the Council of Chalcedon and this Canon of Antioch was alledged against him and so he was thrown out by the Council From whence I infer 1. That the choice of the People at that time was not allowed but the main force of Election lay in the Provincial Synod And so Maximus Bishop of Antioch Julianus Coensis Diogenes Cyzicensis declared that it belonged to the Bishops of the Province to appoint a new Bishop as being most competent Judges and this was the way to prevent disorder in the City 2. That the Bishops appointing was not mere ordaining or consecrating as some say For this Canon of Antioch speaks of a Bishop already consecrated and so likewise the 12 Canon of Laodicea is to be understood The same case being supposed which is mention'd in the Canon of Antioch And if he were unconsecrated before the Laodicean Canon refers the whole matter as far as I can discern as to the Capacity and fitness of the Person to the Provincial Synod And if the following Canon 13. be understood of Bishops the Consequence will be that the People will be wholly excluded from their Election till it can be made appear that at that time the generality of the People were shut out and the Election restrained to the Common Council which is contrary to the Examples brought for Popular Elections as appears by the instance of Alexandria in the choice of Athanasius where the whole multitude is mention'd and the Suffrages of the whole People and afterwards the Plebis VulgÃque Iudicium in St. Jerom the Vota Civium in Leo is as much spoken of as the Honoratorum Arbitrium and by the same reason any of the People may be excluded the rest may or at least it shews that the People have no inherent and unalterable Right without which all other Pretences signifie nothing where Law and Customs have determined the contrary And that the Customs even then differ'd appears from St. Jerom ad Rusticum where he mentions either the People or the Bishop chusing 2. Another Canon is about the frequency of Provincial Synods For in the fifth Canon it is Provided That no person excommunicated by one Bishop should be received into Communion by another according to the Council of Arles but then no Provision was made for the Case of Appeals If any Person complain'd that he was unjustly excommunicated which it is natural for men to doe For this purpose the Nicene Council decrees That Provincial Synods be held twice a year in Lent and Autumn which was confirmed by many other Canons And at these all such Causes were to be heard and determined and Persons excommunicated were to be held so by all unless the Provincial Synod repealed the Sentence And although the case of Bishops be not here mention'd Yet the African Fathers with great reason said it ought to be understood Since Causes are to be heard within the Province and no Jurisdiction is mention'd by the Council of Nice beyond that of a Metropolitane those onely excepted whose Rights are secured according to the Prescription then in use in the following Canon For if any other superior Authority had then been known that was the proper place to have inserted it where the right of Appeal is determin'd that being the most plausible Pretence for removing Causes to a superiour Court And it is impossible that the Nicene Fathers should have stopt at Provincial Synods if they had known or believed that Christ had appointed a Vicar upon Earth who was to be Supreme Iudge in all Ecclesiastical Matters For it would have been as absurd as if our Judges should declare that all Causes are to be determin'd in the Countrey Courts when they know there are superior Courts of Iudicature appointed in Westminster-hall It hath been thought a matter of some difficulty to state the difference between the Rights of a Patriarch and a Metropolitane But there are two things chiefly wherein the distinction lies viz. a greater extent of Iurisdiction founded on the Consecration of Metropolitane Bishops in several Provinces and a Power of receiving Appeals or Judicium in majoribus causis even after Provincial Synods have determined them And since in matters of Appeal there must be a stop somewhere the onely question before us is Where the Council of Nice fixed it I say in a Provincial Synod by this Canon for I am certain it takes notice here of no Ecclesiastical Iudicatory beyond this In matters of Faith or upon extraordinary Occasions by the Summons of an Emperour or a general Concurrence of Christian Princes a general Council is the highest Court But in the standing and ordinary Method of Proceeding where there have been no. ancient Privileges to the contrary of which the following Canon is to be understood a Provincial Synod is the last Court of Appeal according to the
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
omnibus Sanctis c. Ideo precor B. Mariam c. Omnes Sanctos c. Orare pro me ad Dominum nostrum For all the ancient Forms of Confession were onely to God himself And so they continued for 1000 years after Christ About which time Menardus saith The several ancient Missals before mention'd do bear Date The Common Ritualists attribute the present Form to Pontianus or Damasus but without any Authority saith Card. Bona. The first mention I can find of Confession to Saints is that which he sets down out of the Codex Chisii Which being in the Lombard Character he ghesses to have been before the end of the tenth Century and with this Micrologus agrees The Authour whereof lived towards the end of the eleventh Century So that this part of the Roman Missal was neither in the Gregorian nor Gallican Offices being of a much later Original 2. The Gallican Office had peculiar Prefaces and Collects different from the Roman By the Prefaces are understood that part of the Service which immediately goes before the Consecration and is called in the Gallican Office Contestatio in the Gothick Illatio shewing not onely the general Fitness for us at all times to give thanks to God But the particular Reason of it with respect to the Day Of which kind of Prefaces the Roman Church allow'd but nine which were attributed to Pope Gelasius But Card. Bona saith That number is to be found onely in the Missals after Anno Dom. 1200. For before there were many more as appears by Gregory's Sacramentary But how they came to be left out afterwards in the Roman Missal is a Mystery of which none of the Ritualists give any tolerable account However this is enough to shew their Ignorance when they so confidently attributed the proper Prefaces to Gelasius As though Gregory would have slighted so much the Decree of his Predecessours as to have appointed so many more if Gelasius had limited the number to Nine But however it was in the Roman Church the Gallican Church had peculiar Prefaces for all solemn Occasions Of which Card. Bona hath produced three remarkable Instances two out of the former ancient MS. of Nine hundred Years old which formerly belong'd to Petavius a Senatour of Paris And the third out of a Copy of the Palatine Library translated to the Vatican of the same Age. From these excellent Monuments of Antiquity compared together we may in great measure understand the true Order and Method of the Communion Service of that time both in the Gallican and British Churches especially on Saint's-days For no other Offices are preserved or at least made known to the World And on those Occasions the Service began with particular Collects for the Day Then follow'd the Commemoration out of the Diptychs Then another Collect Post nomina After which the Collect ad Pacem Then the particular Prefaces relating to the Saint whose memory was celebrated with a larger account of his good Actions than is used in any of the Gregorian Prefaces expressed in a devout and pathetical manner Which ended in the Trisagion And was continued by another Collect to the Consecration After which follow'd a devout Prayer for benefit by the Holy Sacrament And after another Collect for the occasion follow'd the Lord's-prayer with a Conclusion for the Day And the whole Service was concluded with a Benediction of the People a Collect after the Eucharist and a short Thanksgiving This is a just and true Account from these authentick Offices of the Publick Service then used in the British Churches following the Gallican from the time of St. German whose particular Office is one of those preserved by Card. Bona And in the peculiar Preface his great Zeal is mention'd in Preaching and going up and down doing good in Gaul Italy and Britain for thirty years together 3. As to the Canon of the Mass as it is called in the Church of Rome or the Prayer of Consecration used in the Church of Rome and magnified as Apostolical St. Gregory affirms as plainly as he well could That it was first composed by a private Person and was not of Apostolical Tradition Who that Scholar was it is now impossible to know and not at all material since it is apparent that it was received into the publick Vse of the Church Some small additions they say were made to it by several Popes till Gregory's time who according to the Ritualists shut up this Canon But I see no reason to believe that Consecration of the Eucharist was at that time performed in other Churches by the words of this Canon For setting aside the Eastern Churches which had Forms of their own The African Churches did not follow the Roman Form For although Optatus mentions illud legitimum in Sacramentorum mysterio which implies that there was a certain Form to be observed yet this doth not at all prove that it was the Roman Canon And it evidently appears that it was not by the Testimonies of Marius Victorinus and Fulgentius two African Writers who both mention some Prayers used in the Eucharist which are not in the Roman Canon and those not Prefatory but such as do relate to the main parts of the Canon It is true the Writer about the Sacraments under St. Ambrose's name for Card. Bona will not allow him to be St. Ambrose doth produce several Expressions in the Form of Consecration which agree with the Roman Canon But then he adds a very considerable Passage which I hardly believe those who are most zealous for the Roman Canon will say was ever part of it Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi And in the Gallican Church the Form of Consecration as appears by the Office of Saint German was nothing else but repeating the Words of Institution after the Conclusion of the Irisagion and Gloria in Excelsis After which follow'd a Prayer for God's Holy Word and Spirit to descend upon the Oblation they made That it might be a spiritual Sacrifice well pleasing to God And that God by the Bloud of Christ would with his own Right Hand defend those his Sacraments And then follow'd the Lord's Prayer and other Collects This Prayer after Consecration Card. Bona knows not what to make of as seeming wholly inconsistent with Transubstantiation for if that Doctrine had been then believed and by Consecration the Elements turn'd into the Body of Christ To what purpose doth the Church then pray for the Word and Spirit to descend upon the Elements when they are actually united already But he makes a very hard shift to interpret these Words not of a descent on the Elements but on the Hearts of the Communicants But the Words are Descendat super haec quae tibi offerimus Verbum tuum Sanctum Which are so plain and evident concerning the Elements that
them as the Natives being not trained up to Martial Discipline but depending wholly on the Roman Legions for their Defence and security thence whatever People had the Courage to invade did usually take possession of the Countrey where the Roman Legions were at a distance or otherwise engaged against each other Thus in France the Goths the Burgundians the Franks and the Britains took possession of the several parts they attempted and the Goths and Vandals in Spain So Goths and Lombards in Italy it self So that it is not to be wondred if the Saxons prevailed here at last but with as much difficulty and after as many Battels as were fought by any People of that time without foreign Assistence But to return to the Aremorican Britains whether they came over under Rioval in the beginning of the distractions here when the People were so Rebellious against their Princes as Gildas relates or whether they went over to assist Constantine and his Son and so remained there I shall not determin But that the Britains were well settled there before Sampson Archbishop of York and his Company passed the Seas appears by what Mat. Paris saith That they went to their fellow Citizens and Countrey Men hoping to live more quietly there And after the death of the Bishop of Dole he was by the consent of the Britains put into his Place and from thence forwards exercised his Archiepiscopal power there the Kings of that Province not suffering his Successours there to pay any Obedience to the Archbishop of Tours Which begot a Suit which held 300 years in the Court of Rome and was this year manfully decided by Innocent III. as Mat. Paris there relates Who states the Case very unskilfully laying the weight of it upon the Archbishop's bringing over his Pall from York which the Pope had given him there Suppose this were true although the Popes gave no Palls then nor a great while after yet this were no reason to contest it in the Court of Rome so long together But the difficulty of the Case lay upon another point viz. according to the Old Canon of the Church If a Province were divided into two each Province was to have a Metropolitan Now this Reason held much stronger when new Kingdoms were erected out of the Roman Provinces For what Reason was there why the Bishop of Dole in the Kingdom of Bretagn should yield subjection to the Bishop of Tours in a distinct Kingdom and there was the fairer Colour for this when one actually an Archbishop before came to be settled there and from hence they insisted on a Prescription of a very long time wherein no Subjection had been made to the Bishop of Tours as appears by the account given of this Cause by Innocent III. in his Epistles lately published by Baluzius On the other side it was pleaded that all Britanny was under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Tours but that the Britains conspiring against the King of France and setting up a Kingdom of their own they made use of Sampson Archbishop of York coming to establish a Metropolitan power within that Kingdom and upon Complaint made to Rome the Popes had put it upon this issue whether any of their Predecessors had granted the Pall to the Bishop of Dole which not being proved the Pope as it was easie to imagine gave Sentence against the Bishop of Dole But it is certain that they went upon a false suggestion viz. That the Kingdom of Bretagn was set up in Rebellion to the Kingdom of France For Childeric had not extended his Dominions in France as far as the Loir and before his time the Britains were in quiet possession of those parts of Aremorica and the best French Historians now grant that the Britains came thither in the time of Merovée who obtained but little in Gaul as Hadrianus Valesius confesseth And the Authour of the Life of Gildas observes That the Power of the Kings of France was very inconsiderable in the time of Childeric Son of Merovée at what time Gildas went over into Aremorica as his School-fellows under Iltutus Sampson and Paulus had done before him whereof one succeeded the other Sampson at Dole and the other was made Bishop of the Oxismii the most Northern People of Bretagn which Diocese is since divided into Three Treguier S. Pol de Leon and S. Brieu Here Gildas at the request of his Brethren who came out of Britain saith the Authour of his Life wrote his Epistle wherein he so sharply reproves the several Vices of the five Kings of Britain whom he calls by the Names of Constantine Aurelius Vortiporius Cuneglasus and Maglocunus and speaks to them all as then living The British History makes them to succeed each other Constantine according to that was killed in his third year by Aurelius Conanus He died in his second year and Vortiporius succeeding him Reigned four years After him he places Malgo and leaves Cuneglasus wholly out But that they Reigned at the same time in several parts of Britain is evident from Gildas because he saith He knew that Constantine was then living Now Constantine Reigning the first of these how could he speak to the four Kings that succeeded him if he were still living For there is no colour for imagining that Gildas still added his Reproof as one died and another succeeded for any one may discern it was written in one continued style and he writes to them all as then living without the least intimation that they succeeded each other Besides he calls Constantine the Issue of the impure Damnonian Lioness and at this time the Britains in the remote Western parts were separated from the other by the West Saxon Kingdom and therefore there is far less Probability that all the Britains at that time should be under one Monarch And where they had greatest freedom of living together they were divided into several Principalities For he whom Gildas calls Maglocunus is by the British Writers called Maelgun Guineth and Mailgunus mentioned by John of Tinmouth in the Life of St. Paternus and by Thaliessin in Sir John Price from whom it appears that he was King of North-Wales And as Gildas calls Vortiporius the Tyrant of the Demetae by whom the Inhabitants of South-Wales are understood Aurelius Conanus Archbishop Vsher thinks was King of Powisland which was sometime a third Kingdom And for Cuneglasus it seems probable he had the Command of the Northern Britains for it is plain from Bede they had a distinct Principality there All these Gildas doth very severely reprove for their several Vices and then taxes the Judges and Clergy to the Conclusion of his Epistle to the end they might repent of their Sins and acquit the just and wise Providence of God in the judgments he brought upon them which were very terrible and ended in the desolation of the Countrey and the ruine of the British Churches excepting onely those Remnants which were
was a farther meaning in it and that the People were for a time there to attend to their own private Prayers appears not improbable to me on these Considerations 1. Gregory Turonensis saith in the Place before mentioned That the King took that time to speak to the People who immediately break forth into a Prayer for the King Not that any Collect was then read for him for that was not the proper time for it but it being a time of secret Prayers they were so moved with what the King said that they all pray'd for him 2. Among the Heathens when they were bidden favere Linguis yet then Brissonius saith They made their private Prayers And as the Deacons commanding Silence seems to be much of the same Nature it is not probable that the Christians should fall short of their Devotions 3. The great Argument to me is the small number of Collects in the Ancient Churches For the Christians spent a great deal of time in the publick Service on the Lord's-days and the Stationary days But all the other Offices could not take up that time there being no long Extemporary Prayers nor such a multitude of tedious Ceremonies in all Parts as the Roman Breviary and Missal introduced and the Collects of greatest Antiquity being very few and short it seems most probable that a competent part of the time was spent in private Devotions A remainder whereof is still preserved in the Office of Ordination of Priests in our Church whereby silence is commanded to be kept for a time for the Peoples secret Prayers And the same Custome was observed at the Bidding of Prayers which was a direction for the People what to pray for in their private Devotions After which follow'd the Lord's-prayer as the concluding Collect. But either that or another was still used after these silent Prayers and that is the true ancient Reason of the Name For Micrologus saith The name Collecta was because the Priest therein did Omnium Precescolligere or as Walafridus Strabo saith Necessarias omnium Petitiones compendiosâ brevitate colligere This was distinct from the Prayer made ad Collectam before the People went to the Stationary Churches Of which Onuphrius Panvinius and Fronto in his Calendarium Romanum have said enough But as to the Gallican Churches the Council of Agde shews that after the other Offices were performed in the Morning and Evening Service the People were to be dismissed by the Bishop Collectâ Oratione i. e. With a concluding Collect. 2. As to the Communion Service Gennadius saith That Musaeus composed a large Volume of the Sacraments with several Offices according to the Seasons with a diversity of Lessons and Psalms and Anthems and Prayers and Thanksgivings This Book is called Liber Sacramentorum and so is Gregory's saith Menardus in several MSS. and the old Missal published by Illyricus is called Ordo Sacramentorum Which was the Name given to the Books of Liturgick Offices which were called Sacramenta both by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine as Menardus shews Cardinal Bona confesses That there is undoubted Evidence that the old Gallican Liturgy differ'd from the Roman And Charles the Great not onely saith That there was such a difference in the Celebration of the Divine Offices But that the Gallican Churches were very unwilling to change theirs for the Roman Matthias Flacius Illyricus not Flavius as Le Cointe pretends to correct his Name having found an ancient MS. Missal and discerning several different Prayers in it from the Roman Missal thought this to have been the ancient Gallican Missal wherein he is followed by Le Cointe who hath printed it at large in his Annals with an Epitome of it published by Menardus out of an ancient Copy But he shews that Illyricus his Copy could not be of that Antiquity he pretends viz. Before the time of Gregory the Great There being several things in it not of that Age Which were not in the old Missal of 986. and were in another of later date To which Le Cointe returns no Answer But because this differs from the Roman Missal he concludes it must be the Gallican Whereas upon perusing it it will appear rather to be a Supplement to the Roman Missal for the Devotion of those that celebrate it consisting chiefly of private Prayers to be used by them before Celebration and during the Singing of the Several Hymns For the common parts of the Office as the Introitus Epistola Graduale Evangelium Offertorium Secreta Praefatio Communio Post-communio are onely referr'd to and not set down Whereas if this had been the Gallican Missal all those parts would have been set down rather more distinctly than others Card. Bona thinks it not to have been before the end of the tenth Century about which time several such private Missals were made But he concludes that certainly this was not the old Gallican Missal What it was he thinks hard to determine and I think so too If such Authours as Hilduinus must be relied on It is true he mentions the old Missals which contained the Gallican Liturgy from the first reception of the Christian Faith till the Roman Missal was received But he is an Authour of no Authority and quotes these Missals for a thing notoriously false viz. the Martyrdom of Dionysius Areopagita in Gaul And he pretends that Innocentius Gelasius and Gregory all endeavour'd to alter the Gallican Liturgy which continued in use till Pepin's time So that from Hilduinus no certain Note can be taken It is much more material which Berno Augiensis saith That in the Archives of their Monastery he found an old Missal wherein the Offices were very differently ordered from what they were in the Roman And he mentions one remarkable particular of the Roman Missal which is the 1. Difference I shall observe in the Communion Service viz. That the Creed was not said nor sung at Rome after the Gospel of which he saith They gave this Reason because the Roman Church was never infected with Heresie which he saith the Emperour Henry I. was so little satisfied with that he never ceased till they had introduced it at Rome which saith Baronius was done Anno Dom. 1014. but he seems not pleased that the former Custome was broken Before that time none that speak of the Customs of the Roman Missal ever mention the Creed as may be seen in Alcuinus Amalarius Rabanus and others And this cannot be understood barely of the Constantinopolitane or Nicene Creed as Menardus well proves because then Berno would have spoken more distinctly And the Athanasian Creed as far as we can trace it was first used in the Gallican Churches and that use first mention'd by Abbo Floriacensis in some Fragments sent by Nicolaus Faber to Baronius But whosoever considers the universal Silence about that Creed before and compares it with the Profession of Faith in the first Canon of