some things agrees with the Dutch yet gave me so much trouble that I was forc'd to make use of an Interpreter for the understanding of it That therefore which I could not understand by my self I learn'd by the help of a Learned English man and when he had translated the principal Places which relate to the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome into Latine it plainly appear'd that the Author did not only write against me but also against other Catholics who either in this present Age or in former Times had treated upon this Subject He hath therefore taken upon him to confute for Italy Baronius the Parent of Annals and Lucas Holstenius For France Cardinal Perron Petrus de Marca Johannes Morinus Jacobus Sirmondus and Johannes Garnerius Christianus Lupus and me the least of them all for the Low-Countries Of these such as did not understand English if they were yet alive would as I conceive joyn with me in this request to the Author that if he should hereafter write of Ecclesiastical matters he would either forbear to impugn our Writings or else express himself in a Language we could understand But since none of the forementioned Writers besides my self are now living and our Authors Book sent out of England was brought to me by a Noble Person that I might return a brief Confutation of it I thought it necessary to examine some of his Allegations I shall not here Answer all the Objections he hath thought fit to make for since he hath written against those things which I had deduced from ancient Testimonies concerning the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Bishop over the West in my Book intitled Antiquitas illustrata I will refute what he hath writ in answer to it when I publish my Book de Antiquitate c. with the addition of three or four Ages to it I had been for some months time diligently bestowing my pains about this Work when our Authors Book call'd me off and requir'd a Confutation And about the time that I began to examine it little thinking that I should ever have any dispute with Catholic Writers concerning this Point loe another Book comes to my hands intitled de Disciplina Ecclesiae which was divided into seven Dissertations the first whereof treats de forma distributione Ecclesiarum and Sect. 6. the Question is put whether either Metropolitical Authority Card. Perronius in responso ad Jacobum Angliae Regem cap. 30. fol. 171. seq or Patriarchal Dignity were instituted by Christ or his Apostle Cardinal Perron that great light of France had shew'd that the Patriarchal Dignity was of Apostolical Institution Petrus de Marca Archbishop of Paris had asserted the same concerning Metropolitical Authority in his Book de concordia Sacerdotii Imperii De Marca lib. 1. de concordia Sacerdotiy Imperij cap. 3. § 7. seq against the Innovators of this our Age. A late French Author contends that neither of them proceeded from the Apostles and hath recourse to the Arguments of Heretics and Schismatics to prove what no Catholic to this very day ever yet durst that both these Authorities were introduced by a later Custom and the Patriarchal Dignity was first enlarged by invading the Rights of others and established by the Synodical Decrees of the fourth and fifth Ages This is the opinion of that Author which being repugnant not only to the Canons of the present but also to the Monuments of the ancient Church he hath not been ashamed to wrest the Sanctions of the Councils which do not favor his purpose to a perverse sence to ridicule the Writings of the ancient Bishops that do not please him to elude the eminent Testimonies of the Fathers that overthrow his Opinion by his cavils lastly to tax the Practice of the peresent Church as novel because it suits not with his humors In the year 1662. Launoy a Divine of Paris set forth a small Treatise intitled de recta intelligentia Sexti Canonis Nicaeni in which after the Disputes of Sirmondus and other Catholics against Salmasius and the Heretics that were his followers he proposes two principal things which he thought gave most light for the finding out of the true sense of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice One was that it did not treat of Patriarchs and their Rights The other that it only referr'd to Metropolitans and the right which they have in the Ordination of Bishops He hath many Arguments to this purpose and that as be there forespeaks saving the Authority of the Apostolic See which the Heretics impugn'd from this Nicene Canon Henricus Valesius Dissert de Canone 6. Nicaeno Tom. 2. Hist Eccles post Socratem Zosomenum But in France he was opposed by Henricus Valesius who shew'd from the Decrees of the Synods and the Writings of the Fathers that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice was to be understood of Patriarchs and could no ways be interpreted as referring to Metropolitans only so that the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome depended very much upon the true sense of it This Dissertation of the Learned Valesius displeas'd Launoy he therefore in the year 1671 sets forth a Defence of his Treatise in which he so admits of Patriarchs at the time of the Nicene Council that he hath plainly shew'd them though against his will to be a more eminent sort of Metropolitans Hadrianus Valesius treats of this Book of Launoy in the life of Henricus his Brother which Guilielmus Batesius lately set forth at London amongst the lives of Choice men and he attests that Launoy made a sort of cavelling answer which saith he Valesius would not have to be read to him Hadrianus Valesius affirming that there was no further matter for a dispute and being fully perswaded that his Writings could no ways be confuted or invalidated by Launoy Valesius therefore despis'd the Answer of Launoy accounting it a mere Cavil William Beverege the English Writer did not so esteem of it but the year after Tomo 2. Pandectarum in Annotationibus ad Canonem Sextum Nicaenum undertook to defend Launoy and answer the Arguments of Valesius The chief reason that mov'd Beverege was the Schism of the English Church which hitherto unjustifiable seem'd now to have some foundation from the opinion of Launoy England acknowledged no Power superior to that of a Metropolitan and because this Error might easily be confuted from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice in which the Dignity of the three Patriarchs is explained Beverege undertook to defend Launoy's Allegation and lays it down for a Truth that the Institution of Patriarchs was after the Nicene Council For thus the English Church had a President for Ecclesiastical Hierachy in the three first Ages to defend their modern Schism Launoy was yet living when Beverege's Work was publisht and seeing the Hereties drew a far different consequence from his Opinion then he thought they would
have done being mov'd as I suppose at the indignity of the thing he desisted from writing and there was none afterwards found in France to maintain the Cause till of late the Author of the Book de Disciplina Ecclesiae started up who Dissertatione 1. Part. ultima says indeed that he defends Valesius's Cause against Launoy's whereas in reality he impugns and rejects it He understands the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice as referring to the Suburbicarian Churches only and restrains the bounds of the Roman Patriarchate within the limits of the Cities Vicariate thinking it most probable that only those Regions which were subject to the Vicariu Urbis were the Suburbicarian Churches to which the Patriarchal Right of the Bishop of Rome extended and to no others He denies Germany Spain France Britain Africa Illyricum and a great part of Italy to have been subject to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarchate in former times and as if it had been but a small matter to shake off the Yoak of Patriarchal Authority he hath endeavour'd to destroy the Papal Power and to reduce the Primacy of Peter to a meer Dignity of Order amongst equals I am ashamed to think of those things which this Author deduces from such like Principles as these I shall treat of them in another place if I shall think it worth while In the mean time it will be enough to observe in brief that they are so absurd and disagreeable to the Doctrine of the Church Julius 1 Epist Synodica ad Orientales Antiochiae congregatos that they run the same Fortune as Julius the first tells us befell the Eusebian's Letters that all were so full of admiration that they could hardly be induced to believe such Writings should proceed from a man who desires to seem a Catholic The Eusebians contended that the Sentence of the whole Eastern Synod could no ways be retracted by the Bishop of Rome and when the Church was offended at that Error Julius the first wrote thus That it was better according to the Gospel that a Mill-stone were hanged about his neck and so he were drowned then that one of these little ones should be offended What then would that great Prelate say if he liv'd in our times and heard it maintain'd that not the Eastern Church only but the Bishops of one Diocess the Synod of one Province have Supream Authority and that their Sentence cannot be invalidated by any other Judge Dissert 2. ca. 1. Sect. 1 p. 97. What would he say if he should hear that not only the Causes of the Eastern but likewise of the Western Bishops were to be exempt from the Jurisdiction of the See Apostolic and that it is but a feign'd story that an Apostolical Authority was so given to Peter that it might descend to his Successors whereas it was granted to the rest of the Apostles only for their time This is fictitious Ibid. Sect. 2 p. 96. Seq says that Author because we have no reason nor testimony from Scripture or Tradition to prove that the Power of Peters Apostleship descended down to his Successors and that the rest of the Apostles did not seeing that the Bishops of the Apostolical Churches are equally said to be the Successors to those Apostles by whom their Churches were founded nay all Bishops are esteemed Successors of all the Apostles These are the consequences of this mans Principles which if they might take place farewell the sollicitude which in Obedience to the Divine Precept the Bishop of Rome has had over all Churches of the Catholic Communion throughout the whole World and which he still has as becomes the Primacy of his See although Quesnellio Dissert 1. p. 79. a late Author invents another story concerning the Churches of France supposing according to his Opinion that the Bishop of Rome hath not the Gallican Churches under his charge I am unwilling to insist any longer upon this expostulation but before I conclude this Preface two things are to be observ'd the former whereof hath relation to the favourable Reader whom I would not have to suspect that the Errors of this Book are to be ascribed either to the Sacred Faculty of Paris or to the most Illustrious Gallican Clergy For although the Author calls himself a Doctor of Paris and is a French-man yet it is not at all credible that this Work of his will either please the Sacred Faculty of Paris or the most Illustrious Gallican Clergy 'T is rather to be believed that all those of the French Nation that are eminent for Learning and Piety will judge it unfit that Book should ever have been publish'd The ancient Religion of the Gallican Church which never withdrew its subjection to the Apostolical Sea and hath often profess'd it never will obliges me to believe this It would be temerity therefore to censure the most Illustrious Gallican Church for the publishing of this Book Far be it from Men eminent for Learning far be it from Doctors educated in the Communion of the Apostolic See far be it from a Clergy and Bishops that maintain the Catholic Faith whilst they are earnestly endeavouring to root out one Heresie to consent to the Principles of another not remembring that saying which St. Avitus Bishop of Vienne St. Avitus Viennen Episcopus in Epist ad Faustum Symmachum Senaeores in the Name of the Gallican Church hath 1160 years since consecrated to the memory of Posterity If the Papacy be called in question not a Bishop but Episcopacy will seem to shake Si Papa Urbis vocatur in dubium Episcopatus jam videbitur non Episcopus vacillare The second thing concerns our English Author whom I would not have to boast that he hath found a Patron for his Cause amongst Catholics For since he is a Minister of the English Church and acknowledges a Metropolitical Authority he must necessarily own that the French Author is no less an Adversary to him than to us For since that Author not only denys Patriarchal Authority to be of Apostolical Institution but Metropolitical also that the Dean of St. Saul's may be able to defend the Hierarchy of the English Church to be of Apostolical Institution he ought to exclude out of it not only Patriarchs but Metropolitans also and first to constitute a Church consisting only of Bishops and their inferior Clergy This I say he ought to do if he follow the judgment of the late French Author which notwithstanding we will never subscribe to For we shall ever oppose those Opinions by which we see the Rights of Churches are destroyed the receiv'd Sanctions of Synods perverted the approv'd Writings of ancient Bishops ridicul'd the venerable Testimonies of the ancient Fathers despised and the solid foundations of Ecclesiastical Polity subverted And never admit Principles of Division and Schism to be Rules of Catholic Religion And so much concerning the Treatise of a late French Writer now I proceed to shew the Errors of
the English Author which are here summ'd up together with the Truths by which they are confronted that the Reader may observe them all at one view THE ERRORS Which are Confuted in this DISSERTATION ARE Here set down together with the TRUTHS Confronting them ERRORS TRUTHS ERRORS 1. THat Peter rather Preached the Gospel in Britain than Gaul depends upon slight Testimonies viz. Those of Simeon Metaphrastes the Legendary Writers or the Monkish Visions Origines Britannicae chap. 1. p. 45. TRUTHS 1. That St. Peter preached the Gospel in Britain depends upon the the Testimonies of Eusebius Innocent the first Gildas the Wise John the V. Kenulphus King of the Mercians and Metaphrastes chap. 1 2. Of this Dissertation ERRORS 2. That St. Paul declared the Faith to the Britains is had from the Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Eusebius Theodoret and St. Jereme who in his Commentary upon the 5 chap. Of the Prophet Amos says that St. Paul having been in Spain went from one Ocean to another and that his diligence in Preaching extended as far as the Earth it self chap. 1. p. 37. TRUTHS 2 The Testimonies of Clement Eusebius and Theodoret either relate not at all to Paul's coming into Britain or else may be equally understood of Peter and Paul's coming thither St. Jerome upon the 5. Chapter of Amos says that Paul was called by the Lord to go from Jerusalem even to Spain and to take his course from the Red-Sea and even from Ocean to Ocean which does not signisie that he preacht the Gospel from the Spanish Ocean to the British Ocean but from the Arabic Ocean which is adjacent to the Red-Sea to that Ocean which washeth upon the Spanish Coasts chap. 1. num 4. ERRORS 3. When Sulpitius Severus asserts that Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul in the time of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus the Christian Religion being more lately receiv'd beyond the Alpes he relates the former of these things as certain the latter as doubtful chap. 2. p. 55. TRUTHS 3. Sulpitius Severus lib. 2. Historiae saith that the fifth Persecution was carried on under Aurelius the Son of Antoninus and that then Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul the Christian Religion being more lately received beyond the Alpes He relates both these things as equally certain neither doth he doubt more of the latter than of the former chap. 1. num 6. ERRORS 4. Lucius King of the Britains sent his Embassadors to Rome as to the place whither as Irenaeus argues in the like case resort was made from all places because of its being the Imperial City so saith our Author chap. 2. p. 69. TRUTHS 4. St. Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. asserts not of the Roman Imperiality but of the Roman Apostolical Church that it is necessary that all Churches that is the Faithful from all parts resort to it by reason of its more powerful Principality So that King Lucius sent his Embassadors to Pope Eleutherius at Rome by reason of the Principality of that Church and upon no other account chap. 1. num 9. ERRORS 5. The Council of Arles in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester have writ who holdest a greater Diocese For so that place is to be read chap. 2. p. 83. chap. 3. p. 130. TRUTHS 5. The Council of Arles in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester set forth first by Pythaeus afterwards by Sirmondus from the Gallican M. S. S. say who holdest the greater Dioceses and so that place is to be read chap. 4. ERRORS 6. It is doubtful whether the distribution of the Empire into Dioceses were made by Constantine at the time of the Council of Arles and it seems more probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice Dioceses not being mentioned there but only Provinces Chap. 3. p. 130. TRUTHS 6. In the time of the Nicene Council Constantine in his Epistle to all the Churches makes mention of the Pontic and Asian Dioceses so that it is not probable but plainly false that in the time of the Council of Nice there was no mention made of Dioceses For in the time of the Synod of Arles the name of Greater Diocese was known as even our Author himself confesses whilst he affirms that instead of Greater Dioceses we ought to read Greater Diocese Chap. 4. ERRORS 7. The Authority of publishing Easter-day in all parts which the Council of Arles in its first Canon allowed as the right of the Bishop of Rome was taken away from him by the Nicene Council which committed this Affair to the Bishop of Alexandria Chap. 2. p. 84. TRUTHS 7. The Authority of publishing Easter-day in all Parts was not taken away from the Bishop of Rome by the Nicene Council the burdensom charge of computing Easter-day was laid upon the Bishop of Alexandria by the Nicene Fathers the Authority of proposing the certain day to the Churches was left to the Roman Bishop Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria in the Preface to his Paschal Cycle says that the Patriarch of Alexandria ought to intimate Easter-day every year by his Letters to the Roman Church from whence by Apostolic Authority the Universal Church might know without any further dispute the determin'd day of Easter throughout the whole World. Which Rule seeing they had observ'd for many Ages c. Chap. 4. ERRORS 8. The Council of Nice in the fourth and fifth Canons hath established the Authority of Provincial Synods as Supreme the Securing of which the Fathers have provided for in the sixth Canon neither did they acknowledge any Authority to be above that of a Metropolitan Chap. 3. p. 100. c. TRUTHS 8. The Council of Nice in the fourth and fifth Canons never so much as dream't of the Supreme Authority of Provincial Synods and hath acknowledg'd in the sixth Canon that the Patriarchal Power of the Bishops of Rome Alexandria and Antioch was Superior to that of Metropolitans Chap. 5. ERRORS 9. The sixth Nicene Canon decrees that the Bishop of Alexandria hath Power over Aegypt Libia and Pentapolis because the Bishop of Rome had a like custom But the likeness did consist in this that as the Roman Patriarch hath no Metropolitan under him so there was no other Metropolitan in all Aegypt but the Metropolitan of Alexandria Chap. 3. p. 104. TRUTHS 9. Before the time of the Council of Nice there were Metropolitans subject not only to the Patriarch of Antioch but likewise to the Patriarch of Alexandria S. Athanasius and S. Epiphanius declare Meletius to have been an Archbishop before the Nicene Council so that the parallel between the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome mentioned by the Nicene Council did not lye in this that neither of them had Metropolitans under them Chap. 5. ERRORS 10. That the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Pishop was confined to the Suburbicarian or Neighbouring Proviâ—ces and that the Roman Bishops First began to Usurp the Provinces of Illyricum by constituting the Bishop of Thessalonica as his Vicar after the Second
that See to the Patriarchal Dignity which gave great occasion of Jealousie and Suspition to the Bishops of Rome that being the Imperial City as well as Rome and Socrates observes That from that time Nectarius the Bishop of Constantinople had the Government of Constantinople and Thrace as falling to his share This made the Bishops of Rome think it high time to look about them and to inlarge their Jurisdiction since the Bishop of New-Rome had gain'd so large an Accession by that Council And to prevent his farther Incroachments Westwards his Diocess of Thrace bordering upon Macedonia the subtilest Device they could think of to secure that Province and to inlarge their own Authority was to perswade the Bishop of Thessalonica to act as by Commission from the Bishop of Rome So that he should enjoy the same Priviledges which he had before And being back'd by so great an Interest he would be better able to contest with so powerful a Neighbour as the Bishop of Constantinople And if any objected That this was to break the Rules setled by the Council of Nice They had that Answer ready That the Bishop of Constantinople began and their Concernment was to secure the Rites of other Churches from being invaded by him By which means they endeavour'd to draw those Churches bordering on the Thracian Diocess first to own a Submission to the Bishop of Rome as their Patriarch Which yet was so far from giving them ease which some it may be expected by it that it only involved them in continual Troubles as appears by that very Collection of Holstenius For the Bishops of Constantinople were not negligent in promoting their own Authority in the Provinces of Illyricum nor in withstanding the Innovations of the Bishop of Rome To which purpose they obtain'd an Imperial Edict to this day extant in both Codes which strictly forbids any Innovation in the Provinces of Illyricum and declares That if any doubtful Case happen'd according to the ancient Custom and Canons it was to be left to the Provincial Synod but not without the advice of the Bishop of Constantinople The occasion whereof was this Perigenes being rejected at Patrae the Bishop of Rome takes upon him to put him into Corinth without the Consent of the Provincial Synod This the Bishops of Thessaly among whom the chief were Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus look upon as a notorious Invasion of their Rites and therefore in a Provincial Synod they appoint another Person to succeed there Which Proceeding of theirs is heinously taken at Rome as appears by Boniface 's Epistles about it both to Rufus of Thessalonica whom he had made his Legate and to the Bishops of Thessaly and the other Provinces But they make Application to the Patriarch of Constantinople who procures this Law in favour of the ancient Provincial Synods and for restraint of the Pope 's Incroachments but withal so as to reserve the last resort to the Bishop of Constantinople At this Boniface shews himself extremely netled as appears by his next Epistle to Rufus and incourages him to stand it out to the utmost And gives him Authority to excommunicate those Bishops and to depose Maximus whom they consecrated according to the ancient Canons But all the Art of his Management of this Cause lay in throwing the Odium of it upon the Ambition of the Bishop of Constantinople And this the Contention between the Bishops of the two Imperial Cities proved the Destruction of the Ancient Polity of the Church as it was setled by the Council of Nice 5. Thus far our Author affirming some things contrary to the Decretal Epistles which he cites and falsly explaining other things without any Testimony from Antiquity But that we may not seem to have said these things without good ground they are to be proved and I begin with those things which he alledgeth contrary to the Decretal Epistles where I pray does he find that the Bishops of Thessaly among whom the chief were Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus did oppose the Election of Perigenes Metropolitan of Corinth Where does he read that they look'd upon the Inthronization of Perigenes as a notorious invasion and put Maximus in his Place lawfully according to the Canons The Author hints to us that he had these things out of Bonifacius's Epistle to Rufus Let us see what the Epistle it self which is the Eighth amongst those set out by Holstenius says Bonifacius in this Epistle to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica hath these Words Bonifacius Epist inter Holsten 5. ad Rufum Vid. num XIX We require your Charity convening our Fellow-bishops above named by whom Perrevius our Fellow-bishop complains he hath Injury done him diligently to try the Cause of which he hath given us an account in the Libel he hath sent us informing us that the Prelates his Brethren are very vexatious so far as to think he should be expel'd his Bishoprick Then that they may be given to understand that whatever they have done contrary to the ancient Custom is in the first place to be made void having diligently examin'd the whole Matter let your Charity send us a speedy account of it to the end that the Judgment which your Brotherhood shall give may be confirm'd by our Sentence I would have you take notice what we have written in the Epistle to our Brethren of Thessaly that Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus are utterly to be depriv'd of our Communion so that they may know the only remedy they can have must be your favourable Intercession As for Maximus who as your Charity hath inform'd us is not rightly ordain'd we judge it meet that he be wholly deprived of the Dignity of Priesthood This is taken out of the Epistle to Bonifacius which our Author hath mention'd neither is there any other extant in which Boniface makes mention of Cyriacus Calliopus and Maximus But Boniface doth no where here intimate that Maximus was chosen in the place of Perigenes by Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus Bishops of the Province of Thessaly according to the ancient Canons which our Author might have been easily fatisfied of if he had been well acquainted with the ancient Canons For what had the three forenamed Bishops of the Province of Thessaly to do with Perigenes the Metropolitan of the Province of Achaia Could the Authority of constituting another Bishop in the room of Perigenes whereof the Author deprives the Roman Bishop and his Substitute in Illyricum belong to the three Bishops of Thessaly according to the Canons Is it not decreed in the Canons that no Authority belongs to the Bishops of one Province over the Metropolitan of another which if the Canons ordain as it is certain they do how can our Author impute the Transgression of the Canons in the Cause of Perigenes to Boniface who never so much as dream'd of the Cause of Perigenes when he mention'd the three Bishops of Thessaly But it was a foul Mistake in our Author to read Perigenes
the Patriarchal Authority over the whole West and of the Papal Authority over the whole World. For it is evident from Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers which none that is prudent will despise that the Roman Bishop did prescribe the day whereon Easter was to be observ'd to the Primates and Metropolitans in the West and by these to the Suffragan Bishops as Leo Magnus testifies and he exercised the supream Authority of the Apostolic See over the Eastern Churches whilst he defin'd that the day for the Celebration of Easter which the Bishop of Alexandria us'd every year to compute Cyrillus Alexandrinus Vid. num XXXI should be observ'd by all the Oriental Bishops whence Cyril saith by Apostolic Authority he knew the determinate day of Easter throughout the whole World without any further dispute CHAP. V. Whether the Nicene Canons establish the Metropolitan Dignity as Supream and what is decreed in the Sixth of these Canons concerning the Patriarchal Authority 1. Our Author is of Opinion that the fourth and fifth of the Nicene Canons favour his Cause and interprets them to establish a Supreme Authority in Provincial Synods 2. The Nicene Canons do not decree what the Author would have them The Aegyptians acknowledg'd an Authority Superior to that of Metropolitans before the time of the Nicene Council when they brought the Cause of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria before the Tribunal of Dionysius Bishop of Rome And Eusebius rightly affirms that the Cause of Paulus Samosatenus was brought before the Bishop of Rome by Aurelianus the Emperor 3. And that the Eusebians acknowledged a Superior Authority in Julius the First before they grew Schismatical is apparent from the Embassie they sent to Julius the First and from the Testimonies of Pope Julius himself whence 't is manifest that according to the ancient Custom which was confirm'd by the Nicene Canons a Cause that had been defined in Provincial Synods might be refer'd to the Judgment of the Bishop of Rome 4. The Author says that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice which attributes a Power to the Bishop of Alexandria over Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the like Right belong'd to the Bishop of Rome is to be so understood as if the likeness consisted in this that both of them indeed did preside over several Provinces but that neither of them had Metropolitans under him 5. Our Author therefore thinks that before the time of the Nicene Council the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria were only Metropolitans though over several Provinces as is shewn from his Words 6. It is shewn how false it is that there was no Bishop in the Church Superior to a Metropolitan at the time of the Council of Nice from the Example of the Bishop of Antioch who had under him the Metropolitan of Caesarea as is manifestly prov'd from Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea and from the Case of John Bishop of Jerusalem of which S. Jerom makes mention 7. The Sixth Canon of the Council of Nice likewise makes mention of the Bishop of Antioch so that it is certain that a Patriarchal Authority as that is Superior to the Metropolitical was acknowledg'd by the Nicene Fathers 8. That the Bishop of Alexandria exercised an Authority over all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is clear from the Testimonies of St. Athanasius and Epiphanius concerning Dionysius Alexandrinus and Peter who was Bishop of the same City 9. St. Epiphanius saith that Miletius having the Preheminence above other Bishops of Aegypt yet was inferior to Peter Bishop of Alexandria by which words he acknowledges Meletius to have been a Metropolitan as he in another place expresly terms him as he is also termed in St. Athanasius's Breviary of Bishops by John Bishop of Memphus 10. Since therefore Meletius was an Arch-Bishop and even before the time of the Council of Nice ordain'd Bishops in one of the Provinces of Aegypt over which he presided it appears to be false that the Parity between the Bishop of Rome and Alexandria consisted in this that neither of them had Metropolitans under him 1. OUR Author having in his second Chapter mis-interpreted the Council of Arles endeavours afterwards in his third Chapter to wrest that Sense from the Nicene Canons which the Fathers of that Council were wholly Strangers to He therefore takes upon him to interpret three of the Canons which he believ'd most favourable to his Cause the first of which is the fourth in the Order of the Council which shews that there was a Metropolitan in every Province and determins that the confirmation of those things that are done in each Province Concilium Nicenum Can. A. Confirmatio autem corum quae in unaquà que Provinciâ geruntur tribuatur Metropolitano must be reserved to the Metropolitan So that as our Author saith Page 95. the Rights of Metropolitans as to the Supream Ecclesiastical Government of the several Provinces are hereby secured The second Canon is the fifth in the Order of the Council in which it is provided that no Person either of the Clergy or Laity excommunicated by one Bishop should be received into Communion by another But if any one complain'd that he was unjustly excommunicated his Cause was to be heard in the Provincial Synod which was to be held twice a year before Lent and about the time of Autumn which saith our Author Pag. 99. Page 99. was confirm'd by many other Canons And at these all such Causes were to be heard and determined and Persons excommunicated were to be held so by all unless the Provincial Synod repeal'd the Sentence And although the Case of Bishops be not here mention'd yet the African Fathers with great reason said it ought to be understood since Causes are to be heard within the Province and no Jurisdiction is mention'd by the Council of Nice beyond that of a Metropolitan 2. Thus this Author wresting the Nicene Canons to a Sense not that which he learn'd from the Fathers of that Council or receiv'd from the Masters of Venerable Antiquity but which the Itch of Novelty hath invented and he thought most proper for upholding of the English Schism That the Metropolitans govern'd their Provinces with supream Authority and that there was no Power Superior to that of a Metropolitan in the Church before the Council of Nice savors of Novelty which the Aegyptians under Dionysius Alexandrinus were ignorant of when they accused him of Heresie before the Bishop of Rome Some Ecclesiastical Brethren saith St. Athanasius Athanasius de Sententia Dionysii Vid. num XXXII concerning the Opinion which Dionysius held against the Africans being Orthodox indeed themselves yet not having inquir'd of him what was the meaning of his Writings came to Rome and there accused him before Dionysius the Roman Prelate that bore the same Name with him Would therefore the Aegyptian Bishops whom Athanasius calls Orthodox Brethren have brought the Cause of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria to Rome before Pope Dionysius if they had judg'd that the
Authority of a Provincial Synod had been Supream Would not Dionysius Alexandrinus himself have answer'd to his Adversaries that his Cause ought to have been heard before the Bishops of the Province if he had believ'd that every Province was to be govern'd by its own Synod as the Supream Authority Dionysius Alexandrinus was so far from thinking this that having heard he was accused he made it his Request to the Roman Prelate that they might give him a Copy of his Accusation which having receiv'd he published a Treatise Entitled Elenchus Apologia as St. Athanasius testifies in the Place before cited Why should I call to mind what was done in the Cause of Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch in the time of Aurelianus the Emperoror Eusebius Lib. 7. Cap. 30. tells us that he after Sentence past in a former Synod at Antioch was in a second deposed and that Domnus who was chosen in his stead would have taken upon him the Government of the Church of Antioch But saith Eusebius Eusebius Caesariensis lib. 7. cap. 30. Vid. num XXXIV when Paul would by no means depart out of the body of the Church Aurelianus the Emperor being appeal'd to rightly determin'd the matter commanding the Church to be deliver'd to those to whom the Italian Prelates of the Christian Religion and the Roman Bishops should write Aurelianus the Emperor would never have sent the cause of Domnus and Paulus Samosatenus to have been tried by the Bishop of Rome after it had been adjudged in the Synod of Antioch if he had not learn'd of the Catholic Bishops how Controversies ought to be determin'd in the Church neither would Eusebius himself who was present at the Council of Nice and subscrib'd to its Canons have commended this act of Aurelianus as most right if he had believ'd the judgment of the Synod of Antioch to have been Supream 3. But if it appears by what hath been said that before the Council of Nice the Oriental Synods that were celebrated not by the Metropolitans of one Province only but of many had not Supream Authority in the Church what shall we say concerning the Authority of simple Provincial Synods The Eusebians themselves in their Conventicle at Philippopolis did not defend the Authority of these as Supream For when the Great Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria being condemn'd by Eusebius of Nicomedia in the Tyrian Council fled to Julius Bishop of Rome the Eusebians submitted their cause to the judgment of the same Pope but observing that they were like to be condemn'd they began to impugn the Authority of the Pope whom they could not gain to their party and were the first that ever contended not that the Sentence of one single Province was of so great Authority that from it no Appeal could be made to a higher Judicatory as the Author of the Book de antiqua Ecclesiae disciplina dissertation 2. hath lately feigned but that the Eastern Church was distinct from the Western as in Name so also in Jurisdiction and that the Bishop of Rome was not to judge in that matter concerning which an Eastern Synod had given sentence For which cause Julius the first accuses them of rashness and innovation making answer in his Epistle to the Eusebians Julius Primus Epist ad Orientales Antiochiae congregatos Vid. num XXXV that the Western Bishops who were with him being struck with astonishment could hardly be induc'd to believe that such things could proceed from them and says that the Apostolical Canons were to be followed and that the Decrees of the Nicene Bishops which permitted that the acts of a former Synod might be revised in a latter ought to be attended For saith he if there was of old such a custom and the memory of it be renew'd and committed to writing in the great Synod and yet you will not suffer it to prevail amongst you you do indeed a thing that is very unseemly for it is very unjust that a custom which hath once obtain'd in the Church and been confirm'd by a Synod should be abrogated by some few persons This was the judgment of Julius the first a most moderate Prelate and of all the Bishops of Italy who assembled at Rome in Athanasius's cause which three hundred Western Bishops in the Council of Sardica judg'd to be so true that they excommunicated the Eusebians and determin'd against them Canon 3. that the memory of Peter the Apostle was to be honour'd and declar'd Canon 4. 7. that Appeals might be made from the Eastern Councils to the Bishop of Rome What hath been alledged is sufficient if I mistake not to confute the Forgeries of the Conventicle of Philippopolis although not only the English Writer approves them but also a late French Author maintains them to be so true that he is not ashamed in Dissert 2. c. 1. Sect. 2. to endeavour to fasten them upon St. Ambrose For having cited a certain place out of Ambrose he says that this Father supposes that the affairs of the East ought to be administred by the Eastern Bishops and that it did not belong to the Western Bishops to judg the Eastern which Constantius says in his Epistle to the Council of Ariminum as also the Eusebians in the Council of Philippopolis Thus this Author not scrupling to affix the new whimsies of an Arian Emperor and the dreams of the Conventicle of Philippopolis upon St. Ambrose But I must not insist upon these things since they do not deserve an Answer 4. Let us therefore proceed to our Authors Commentaries upon the Third Canon which is the Sixth in order among the Nicene Canons for the things which he relates here are new and scarce ever heard of The Canon Canon 6. Nicaenus Vid. num XXXVI of which we treat runs thus according to the Version of Dionysius Exiguus Let the ancient Custom be kept through Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction over all these because the Bishop of Rome hath a like custom Likewise in Antioch and other Provinces let the priviledges of their Churches be preserved But this is generally clear that if any one be made Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan the great Synod hath defined that he ought not to be a Bishop c. There is one thing in this Canon which our Author because it destroys his design interprets after a strange manner He follows the opinion of those that acknowledge no Authority superior to that of a Metropolitan now because the Nicene Canon ascribes an Authority to the Patriarch of Alexandria over all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and hath expresly declared that the like custom had obtained at Rome and Antioch that their Bishops presided over many Provinces our Author following the Error of Beverage hath asserted that there was no Metropolitan in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis in the time of the Nicene Council and so he would make the Bishop of Alexandria to be a Patriarch as to
the extent of his Authority and a Metropolitan only as to the administration of it 5. If the Reader will not believe me let him consult the Authors own words which are these In this Canon there are three things principally design'd 1. To confirm the ancient Privileges of some of the greater Sees as Rome Alexandria and Antioch 2. To secure the Privileges of other Churches against the Encroachments upon them 3. To provide for the quiet establishment of Metropolitan Churches which last is so plain that it will need no farther discourse But the other two are of great consequence to our design Thus the Author first of all confessing that the Nicene Fathers did confirm the ancient privileges of some of the principal Sees in which they had gain'd to themselves a more ample Power than that of a Metropolitan only by which means the Bishop of Alexandria had Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis under his jurisdiction over which he exercised the Patriarchal Authority of Consecrating Bishops calling Synods and judging in the greater Ecclesiastical causes Now least any one should from hence infer that the Bishop of Alexandria had obtain'd a greater Power then that of a Metropolitan he asserts that he had then no Metropolitans under him in those Provinces and that the rite of Patriarchal administration was co-incident with the Metropolitical at the time of the Council of Nice and so different from that which was afterwards introduc'd Therefore he confesses that there was something that was singular in the case of the Bishop of Alexandria For saith he all the Provinces of Egypt were under his immediate care which was Patriarchal as to Extent but Metropolitical in the Administration And so was the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome at that time which is the true reason of bringing the custom of Rome to justifie that of Alexandria For as it is well observ'd by Christianus Lupus the Bishop of Rome had then no Metropolitans under him within the Provinces subject to his jurisdiction and so all Appeals lay immediately from the several Bishops to him And therein lay the exact parallel between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria 6. Therefore our Author asserts that the Patriarch of Alexandria had no Metropolitans under him and that in this lay its likeness to the Roman Patriarchate But before we come to enquire whether it be true that the Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria had no Metropolitans under them let us first see briefly whether no Metropolitans were subject to the Patriarch of Antioch before the Nicene Council For our Author confesses that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice does reach him also The Church of Antioch was the principal Church of all the East and had under it fifteen Provinces which the Notitia Imperii reckons to be comprised under the Eastern Diocese and since the East was first enlightened with the Christian Faith and the name of Christians as St. Luke testifies was first heard at Antioch it is very probable that that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy first took place there which is describ'd in the 35th of those Canons which are attributed to the Apostles to wit that there were Bishops constituted in the Cities and that a chief Bishop was placed in the Metropolis of every Province to the end that the Bishops of every Nation might know who was their Chief So that Tarsus being the Metropolis of the chief part of Cylicia the Bishop of this City might as Metropolitan subscribe in the first place to those Letters which the second Synod of Antioch set forth against Paulus Samosatenus So was also Caesarea the Metropolis of the cheif part of Palestine in which it so manifestly appears that there was a Metropolitan Bishop long before the time of the Council of Nice that there can be no doubt made of the thing For when Pope Victor had writ to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea to call a Council for the determining of Easter day Fragmentum Synodi Caesariensis apud Bedum the Bishop having receiv'd this Order as the Acts of this Council recorded in Venerable Bede inform us summon'd all the Bishops not only from his own Province but also from diverse other Regions What is more clear then this There is a distinct Province assigned to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea as Metropolitan out of which he summon'd the Bishops to Council therefore he had his own proper Province over the Bishop whereof he presided This is farther evidenced from the fact of John Bishop of Jerusalem who had referred the Debate concerning the Error of Origen to the Patriarch of Alexandria and is for this cause reprehended by St. Jerom in these Words You who seek for Ecclesiastical rules and make use of the Canons of the Nicene Council tell me D. Hieronimus Epist ad Pamachium Vid. num XXXVII what hath Palestine to do with the Bishop of Alexandria If I mistake not this is what that Council hath determin'd viz. that Caesarea should be the Metropolis of Palestine and Antioch the Metropolis of the whole East therefore you should either have brought your cause before the Bishop of Caesarea or if you were to go far for a determination you should rather have directed your Letters to Antioch you chose to be troublesome to one who had his head full of business already rather then to pay to your Metropolitan that honour which was due to him Thus saith S. Jerom in his 61. Epistle to Pammachius plainly asserting that according to the Nicene Canons the Bishop of Jerusalem was to submit to the Bishop of Caesarea as his Metropolitan and to the Bishop of Antioch as his Patriarch whence it manifestly appears that the Patriarch of Antioch had at the time of the Council of Nice the Metropolitan of Caesarea under his Jurisdiction even in Palestine it self 7. This being so what answer can our Author make what can he invent what can he dream of to elude this verity Will he say that he did not speak concerning the Patriarch of Antioch but only concerning the Alexandrian and Roman Patriarchs that the Nicene Canon only declares there was a likeness between these two In Prudence he will never answer thus for he hath interpreted the Nicene Canon so as to make it comprise the rights of the three principal Sees and therefore those of Antioch amongst the rest Since therefore it is manifest from what hath been said that the See of Antioch had under it more Metropolitan Bishops then one is not that apparently false which our Author imitating Beverage hath feigned viz. that the Council of Nice in its Sixth Canon hath acknowledg'd no Authority superior to that of a Metropolitan Is it not manifestly prov'd that he imposes an Error upon the English Nation when to defend the Metropolitan Power as Supream he asserts that all other Jurisdiction superior to this was unknown to the Nicene Council I judge that what hath been said ought to besufficient to make the English open their Eyes and forsake and
this p. 48 Which were the greater and which the lesser Dioceses p. 60 61 The name of Diocese was known in the time of the Nicene Council p. 62 E. The Bishop of Rome publisht Easter day after the time of the Nicene Council p. 69 71 The charge of computing Easter day was imposed upon the Patriarch of Alexandria by the Nicene Synod p. 71 Pope Eleutherius receiv'd an Epistle from King Lucius 13. Britain was Converted to the Faith under him p. 12 The Epistles of the Bishops of Rome concerning the Roman Patriarchal Power over Illyricum p. 40 41 42. The Testimony of Eusebius shewing where the Gospel was Preach'd by the Apostles p. 7 The Eusebians vainly attempted to draw Julius the first to their party 80. they were the first in the World that ever dreamt that the judgment of the Eastern Council was supreme p. 80 81 F. France vid. Gaul Frumentius Bishop of Aethiopia had his Mission from Athanasius p. 32 G. Gaul when converted to the Faith. p. 10 The Catholic Writers of Gaul defended the Roman Bishops Patriarchal Authority over the West against the Hereticks p. 21 Germanus Bishop of Auxerre came as Vicar of Pope Celestine into Britain p. 99 The Testimony of Gildas the Wise concerning the Preaching of the Gospel in the time of Tiberius 2 his Testimony concerning Peter See in Britain p. 4 The Schismatic Greeks acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be Patriarch of the West p. 21 H. A very clear Testimony of Henry the Eighth concerning the Popes Primacy 111. he was the first King of England that fell into Schism p. 111 The Epistle of Honorius the Emperor to Theodosius concerning the preserving the priviledges of the Apostolic See. p. 51 I. What Iames King of England believ'd concerning the Institution of Patriarchs and concerning the Roman Patriarchate in particular p. 20 The testimony of Ierome concerning Paul's preaching the Gospel from Ocean to Ocean 8. his testimony concerning the Authority of the Patriarch of Antioch over the Metropolitan of Cesarea p. 86 Illyricum though converted to the Faith by Paul the Apostle was notwithstanding Subject to the Roman Patriarchate as appears from many Epistles of ancient P. P. p. 38 c. The testimony of Ireneus concerning the more powerfull Principality of the Roman Church p. 14 Iuiius the first reprehends the Eusebians for declining the judgment of the Apâ—stolic See. p. 81 Iustinian the Emperor acknowledges the Roman Bishops Patriarchate over the West p. 55 L. Launoy opposes the authority of Clements Epistle to the Romans without any ground 10. he gave occasion to the Ministers of the English Church to defend their Schism with the greater obstinacy See Preface Lucius was the first King of England that was Converted to the Faith. 12 he sends Embassadors to Pope Eleutherius 13. Whether leaving his Kingdom he went into Germany and converted Bavaria to the Faith. p. 31 M. The English Manuscript set forth by Spelman is of no credit or authority p. 102 Meletius was Second in dignity to the Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt 87. he was a Metropolitan under Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria p. 88 The Metropolitical Authority was instituted by the Apostles Preface It is not suprem p. 78 The Metropolitan of Cesarea was in ancient time subject to the Patriarch of Antioch 85. the Institution of Metropolitans in Britain in the time of Gregory the Great p. 34 It is necessary that those who plant Churches should have a true Mission p. 29 N. The 6. Canon of the Council of Nice 82. it doth not treat of the authority of Metropolitans as Supreme p. 86 O. The Testimony of Optatus Milevitanus concerning the Roman Church p. 110 How the Ordination of Metropolitans belonged to the Patriarchs p. 33 P. The Pall when first received and by whom p. 33 There were Patriarchs in the Primitive Church p. 20 They had their Original from Apostolical institution 53. there are three Patriarchal rights p. 18 The Patriarchal right over Illyricum p. 50 S. Patrick Legate to Celestine I. p. 100. Where Paul the Apostle preach't the Gospel 8. he was not the firft Planter of the Roman Church 25. whether he Preach't in Britain p. 6 It was most just that the cause of Paulus Samosatenus should be remov'd to the tribunal of the Bishop of Rome p. 80 Pelagius consented that his cause should be brought before Innocent the first after it had bin heard in the Eastern Synod 96. how his Heresy was condemn'd by Zosimus and the censure that Zosimus passed against it was approv'd by every Church under Heaven p. 98. Who determin'd in the cause of Perigenes and when p. 48 c. The cause of Perrevius different from that of Perigenes p. 47 Peter head of the Apostles 109 110. his memory to be honour'd 81. he instituted three Patriarchal Sees 30. he and his Successors instituted all the Churches in the West 24. he had instituted the Roman Church before Paul came to Rome 26. his See in Britain p. 4 c. R. The Roman Church hath the more powerful Principality for which cause it is necessary that every Church should have resort unto it 14 15. the whole World hath intercourse with it by communicatory Letters 110. the Principality of the Apostolic See always prevail'd in it 1â— as the imperial Seat had its Principality so likewise had Priesthood its Principle in it ibid. The Roman Bishop is Patriarch of the West 89. he had Metropolitans under him 89. he is the Head of the Institutions in the West 30. Britain appertains to his Patriarchate 38. the Roman Bishop had always the right of promulgating Easter day 72. his Authority is shew'd from those things which happened concerning Easter in the time of Victor 73 74. all Provinces are to refer their Causes to him as Head of the Church p. 95. S. The Testimonies of the Council of Sardica for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome p. 95 The Authority of Severus Sulpitius for the preaching the Gospel in Gaul in the third Age. p. 12 Divers Errors of Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls set down Prolegom p. 7. 9. 11. 14. 19. 20. 27. 43. 45. 46. 48. 60. 61. 64. 68. 77. 78. 79. 82. 83. 84. 92. T. Theodosius junior being circumvented by the Bishop of Constantinople withdraws Illiricum from the Roman Patriarchate 48 49. he repeals the Law that he made concerning this matter p. 52 Thule an Island in Iceland p. 9 V. Pope Victor judg'd that the Question concerning the Feast of Easter was to be decided by him 72. he terrifies the Astatic Churches that withdrew their Obedience with the censure of Excommunication p. 73 FINIS Post-script SInce this Dissertation which the Author not being acquainted with the English Tongue was obliged to write in Latin is an Answer to what the Dean of Paul's hath Written in English 't was thought convenient it should be Translated that both Writers might appear in the same Language And it was the part of the Interpreter to render the true Sence of the Latin Treatise which he hath carefully endeavour'd to do Leaving it now to the Reader to Judge of the Works of these two Authors and Intreating him either to Excuse or Correct some Errata of this Impression in the manner following Some Errors Corrected REad Venantius pag. 9. Pausianus p. 36. Nectarius p. 48. ad Theodosium p. 5 in margine Anastasium p. 54 in marg Dieceses p. 60. Praefecti Pretorio p. 61. Chap. V. p. 89. Britain instead of Great Britain 112. c. BY HIS MAJESTY's Letters Patents under His Great Seal of England dated the tenth day of November in the 3d. Year of his Majesties Reign there is Granted to Matthew Turner of Holborn Bookseller and his Assigns only full and sole Power Licence Priviledge and Authority to Print and Reprint either in Latin or English and also to Vtter and Sell at any Place within His Majesties Kingdom of England Dominion of Wales and Town of Berwick upon Tweed the several Books Following viz. I. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent II. The Works of Lewis de Granada III. The Works of S. Francis de Sales IV. The Devotional Treatises of St. Augustin V. The Works of Thomas of Kempis VI. The Devotional Treatises of St. Bonaventure VII Father Person 's Christian Directory or Book of Resolution VIII Father Person 's Treatises of the Three Conversions of England IX A Journal of Meditations for each day in the Year By N. B. X. Meditations used at Lisbon Colledge XI The Christians Daily Exercise by T.V. XII Paradisus Animae Christianae XIII The Key of Paradise XIV Stella's Contempt of the World. XV. The Works of Hieremias Drexelius XVI The Devotional Treatises of Cardinal Bona. XVII Beda's Ecclesiastical History of England XVIII Turbervil's Manual of Controversies XIX Vane's Lost Sheep Returned XX. The true Portraicture of the Church XXI The Catholic Scripturist XXII Historical Collections of the Reigns of Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth Queen Mary Queen Elizabeth and King James XXIII The Devotional Treatises of Cardinal Bellarmin XXIV The Question of Questions XXV The Works of Lewis de Puente XXVI The Works of Alphonsus Roderiguez XXVII The Poor Man's Devotion As by the said Letters patents doth more fully appear
General Synod had given the Second place of Dignity to the Constantinopolitan See least the Bishop of Constantinople should encroach upon these Illyrican Provinces Chap. 3. p. 114. c. TRUTHS 10. The Metropolitical Authority of the Roman Bishop was limited to the Suburbicarian Provinces as the Author Terms them his Patriarchal Authority extended to the Greater Dioceses of the West after the Constantinopolitan Council Damasius first constituted the Archbishop of Thessalonica Vicar of the Patriarchal See of Rome in the Provinces of Illyricum that the Bishop of Constantinople might not encroach upon them Before the time of Damasius the Roman See had a right to exercise Patriarchal Power by it self or by its Legates as appears in that Legates were sent by Clements the First to Corinth at the end of the First Age wherefore Honorius the Emperor did require that the priviledge of the Roman See which was long since established by the Fathers and confirm'd by the Canons should be preserv'd in Illyricum and Theodosius the Emperor commanded the Ancient Apostolical Discipline and Order by which the Roman Bishop presided over Illyricum to be kept up Chap. 3. ERRORS 11. When Perigenes the Bishop Elect was rejected at Patrae and put into the See of Corinth by the Bishop of Rome without the consent of the Provincial Synod the Bishops of Thessaly amongst whom the Chief were Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus look upon this as a notorious invasion of their Rights and therefore in a Provincial Synod they appoint another person to succeed there Chap. 3. p. 116. TRUTHS 11. Perigenes the Metropolitan of Corinth in the Province of Achaia was one Person Perrevius Bishop of a See in the Province of Thessaly not well known to us another Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus Bishops of the Province of Thessaly had no Jurisdiction ever Perigenes the Metropolitan of another Province neither doth Bonifacius the first testifie that they acted against him but against Perrevius that was lawfully ordained who appeal'd from their Sentence to Rome and was restored to his See by the Sentence of the Roman Bishop Chap. 3. ERRORS 12. The British Church did not acknowledge any Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan during the Six First Ages so that when Augustine the Monk was sent to them at the beginning of the Seventh Age Seven British Bishops who were found there and many other learned Men of the Monastery of Banchor refused to be Subject to the Apostolic See or to acknowledge Augustine but remain'd under their own Metropolitan So it appears from Bede and some Monuments set forth by Spehnan which last although the Author doth not think them necessary for the proof of what is above mention'd yet he declares that he approves of them Chap. 5. p. 357. c. TRUTHS 12. The British Church acknowledg'd an Authority Superior to that of a Motropolitan in the Six First Ages and this is so manifest that the Pests of the World Pelagius and Caelestius who were born in Britain confess'd this very thing whilst they either permitted their causes which had been decided in the Provincial Synods to be referr'd to the tribunal of the Apostolic See or did by their own proper Appeal refer them thither What Spelman cites out of the English Monument concerning the Monks of Banchor is Supposititious What Bede Relates does not shew that the British Bishops acknowledged the Metropolitical Authority as Supreme and if it did shew this it discovers that their Error was reprov'd by Miracle from Heaven so that those who persist obstinately to defend this Error are guilty of a double fault of resisting the Truth and being shameless Chap. 6. THE HEADS OF THE CHAPTERS OF THIS DISSERTATION CHAP. I. THat the British Church was instituted either by St. Peter or his Successors Pag. 1 CHAP. II. That the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the West and therein even of England and that this follows from the British Church's having receiv'd her Institution either from him or from his Priests as is prov'd by the Testimony of Innocent p. 16 CHAP. III. Although the British Church had not received its Institution from the Roman yet it is shew'd from the Example of the Illyrican Church that by ancient Custom time out of mind it might be subject to it and moreover that it ought to be so p. 36 CHAP. IV. Concerning the Greater Diocesses attributed to Pope Sylvester by the Council of Arles p. 57 CHAP. V. Whether the Nicene Canons establish the Metropolitan Dignity as Supreme and what is decreed in the Sixth of these Canons concerning the Patriarchal Authority p. 76 CHAP. VI. That the British Church acknowledged an Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan from the time that the Christian Religion was first planted there till such time as it was again restored by Augustine the Monk under Gregory the Great p. 91 Imprimatur si videbitur Reverendissimo Patri Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici 19. Octobris 1686. Pro Eminentissimo Cardinali CARPINEO Vicario H. Cardinalis CASANATE Imprimatur Fr. Dominicus M. Puteobonellus Sacri Apostolici Palatii Magister Ordinis Praedicatorum A DISSERTATION Concerning the AUTHORITY OF Patriarchs and Metropolitans ALthough there is something spoken in the Preface to the Reader concerning the Occasion and Design of this Dissertation yet it is so little that I think it will not be amiss if at the entring upon it I give you a more full Account of the Occasion of it and add something for the more clear Understanding of its Design This Dissertation hath its Origin from what I had written in the first Part of Antiquitas Illustrata Dissertation the Second For when I had there shew'd from many Monuments of the Ancients that was true of the whole West which Theodosius Bishop of Echinus in Thessaly said above eleven hundred and fifty years since before Boniface the Second in the Roman Synod concerning the Churches of Illyricum viz. that the Roman Bishops besides their Principality over the Churches of the whole World more especially claim'd to themselves the Government of the Western Churches this special Authority of the Roman Bishop over the West did not please a Modern English Writer that styles himself Dean of St. Paul's and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty and he took it ill that the English Church which is rent from the Communion of the Apostolic See should be concluded by me within the Bounds of the Western Patriarchate He explains his Sense of the thing in a Book intituled Origines Britannicae or The Antiquities of the British Churches which he set forth at London Anno 1685. wherein as a Minister of the English Church he takes upon him its Defence and contends that the Hierarchy of the English Church which since the Schism hath own'd Subjection only to Bishops and Metropolitans as the Superior Clergy is conformable in this to the Ancient Church Therefore he endeavours not only to shew that the English Church was Acephalic that is without a
Persons by whose means Lucius desired of Eleutherius to be instructed in the Faith and by whose aid Eleutherius did not only convert Lucius but also most of the Britains to the Faith and instituted a Church in that Country Our Author admits that Eluanus and Medroinus were sent by Lucius and he gives this Account of the Embassie Eluanus and Edwinus were British Christians themselves and therefore sent to Eleutherius Pag. 68. having been probably the Persons employ'd to convince King Lucius but he knowing the great Fame of Rome and it being told him not only that there were Christians there but a Bishop in that City the twelfth from the Apostles had a desire to understand how far the British Christians and those of Rome agreed and he might reasonably then presume that the Christian Doctrine was there truly taught at so little distance from the Apostles and in a place whither as Irenaeus argues in this Case a resort was made from all Places because of its being the Imperial City These were reasonable considerations which might move King Lucius and not any Opinion of St Peter's having appointed the Head of the Church there of which there was no imagination then 9. But since our Author confesses that Ambassadors were therefore sent by Lucius to Rome that they might perform that which the Faithful from all parts as Irenaeus testifies were then used to perform I would know this one thing of him where he finds that they observ'd this by reason of the Principality of the Roman City Certainly he could not find this in the Words of Ireneus Ireneus Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam inquit propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam which he mentions and which are taken out of his third Book Chap. 3. where this Holy Bishop of Lions directs all the Faithful to the Roman Church For to this Church saith he it is necessary that all Churches resort by reason of its more powerful Principality But where in that place doth Ireneus say that there must be resort made to Rome because of its being the Imperial City The Author here find that in the Words of Ireneus which that Father never in the least meant by them For Ireneus writes not that the City but the Church of Rome which was consecrated by the Blood of Peter and Paul was to be consulted in Controversies of Faith and that all the Faithful under Heaven ought to agree with the Roman Church because of its more powerful Principality not because of the Principality of the Imperial City its necessary saith Ireneus that resort be made to this Church by all other Churches that is by the Faithful from all parts because of its more powerful Principality Therefore the Supremacy of the Ecclesiastical Principality at Rome was the cause of Lucius's sending an Embassie thither not the Principality of the Imperial City For in the City of Rome that I may use the Words of Honorius the Emperor not only the Imperial Seat was planted but the Principle of the Priesthood And there also as * Honorius Imperator Epist ad Theodosium Augustum In urbe Roma non solum Romanum Principatum Domus Augusta obtinuit sed Principium quoque Sacerdotium accepit Augustine Epist 162. affirms The Principality of the Apostolic See ever prevail'd This Principality over the Church Christ gave to Peter and Peter left it to his Successors in the Roman See which when our Author denies he opposeth a Truth which Peron the Glory of France in his Answer to James King of England Chap. 23. proves from very many Canons of the Church and Testimonies of the Councils and Ancient Fathers I should cite more of them were not the present Question chiefly concerning the Roman Bishops Patriarchal Authority over the West not his Supremacy over the Catholic Church Divus Augustinus Epist 162. therefore that we may keep close to that which we have undertaken to treat of let us conclude with our Author that Lucius sent Embassadors to Eleutherius that they might be inform'd of him in Matters of Faith and let us acknowledg with Ireneus that the Britains no less than the Faithful in other parts of the World ought to agree with the Roman Church because of its greater Principality to which let us add with English Writers that Eleutherius the Roman Bishop made use of his Authority when he ordain'd those Legats who being sent into Britain baptised Lucius setled Churches and consecrated Bishops and from hence we may conclude that to be true which I have in the Title of this Chapter taken upon me to prove viz. That the British Church was instituted either by St. Peter or by those whom his Successors ordained Priests CHAP. II. That the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the West and therein even of England and that this follows from the British Church's having receiv'd her Institution either from him or from his Priests as is prov'd by the Testimony of Innocent 1. The Roman Patriarchate over the whole Western Church which is asserted in the 17th Canon of the Eight General Council our Author likes not His words are recited 2. He saith that the way of proving the Patriarchal right from the exercise of it and the exercise fromthe right is ridiculous although he confesses that it is of force against de Marca and other Catholics who admit that the Pope is Patriarch over the whole West against whom only I have used that way of proof so that it cannot be ridiculeus as I use it 3. Against such Heretics who deny the Bishop of Rome to be Patriarch over the West I have not used that but another way of proof viz. the perpetual Tradition of the Ancients which the very Schismatic Greeks themselves have not been so bold as to deny 4. One of the ancient Testimonies which I have brought for that Tradition is out of S. Augustine who hath plainly deliver'd that Innocent the First had not only a Supremacy of order and dignity over the Western Church but also of Jurisdiction 5. Another of them is that of Innocent the First himself who relates that Churches were Instituted through all France Spain Africa Sicily Italy and the interjacent Islands by Peter only or his Successors or else by those whom they ordain'd Priests and affirms that all these Countries ought to acknowledge the Apostolic See as the Head of their Institutions 6. How Paul having preacht at Rome and it may be in other of the Western parts proves nothing against this is shewed from Paul himself who reckons only such Churches amongst those which were instituted by his Preaching whom himself first taught the Faith of which sort the Roman is not as having been planted by Peter before Pauls coming into Italy the same may be said of other Western Churches supposing that Paul Preach'd in them 7. Two things are objected by our Author the first in relation to matter
having been written many years since by a King of famous memory in that work of his which he set forth on behalf of the English Church could I foresee that the Dean of London a Minister of the same English Church when the Question was about Patriarchs would deny the Western Patriarchate It may be he will say that all Catholies do not agree in the thing as appears from the Book of a late Author de Disciplinâ Ecclesiae But I ask again could I foresee that on the fourteenth day of November in this Year 1686 at which time I had not only finish'd this Discourse but had likewise printed the first sheet of it a Book lately publish'd would come to my hands in which the Author being tainted with the itch of novelty should deny the Roman Bishops Patriarchate over the West which all France even till that time had undertaken to defend against Schismatics and Heretics which Perron Sirmondus de Marca and other Writers of the Gallican Church had defended against the Heretic Salmasius and against his ringleaders or followers besides whom no body in those times denied the Popes Patriarchate over the West Against these therefore I employ'd my Pen not using the former but another way of Proof and demonstrated the Roman Patriarchate to extend it self over all the West For besides the Question against Catholics concerning the exercise of Patriarchal Jurisdiction I stated another against Heretics concerning the Patriarchal Right it self which belongs to the Bishop of Rome over all the West and that I prov'd by the perpetual Tradition of the Ancients which was so well known to the whole Christian Church before the rise of modern Heresy that the Schismatic Greeks themselves maintain'd this truth insomuch that not only Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica hath written Nilus Thessalonicensis Romano Episcopo hoc datum esse ut Occidentalibus praesit Barlaam Monachus Occidentales Eâ—clesias Papae Gabernationi à Sauctis Patribus fuisse commendatas That it was granted to the Roman Bishop to Preside over the West but also Barlaam the Monk cap. 2. libri de Primatu Papae hath openly profest that the Western Churches were by the Holy Fathers commended to the Government of the Pope I have alledged many of those Authorities in Dissert 2. Antiq. Illustratae which Barlaam commends without the recital of the Names of those Holy men that wrote them I am not at leasure now to repeat them all I shall only cite two of them at present one of Augustine the other of Pope Innocent who at the same time though in different Regions adorn'd the Church with their Sanctity and Learning 4. Augustines Testimony is lib. 1. contra Julianum cap. 2. where having cited the Testimony of some of the Fathers viz Cyprians of Africa those of Ireneus Hilarius and others of France and St. Ambrose's of Italy he thus expostulates with Julian the Disciple of Pelagius the Britain D. Augustinus An ideo contemnendos putaes quia Occidentaiis Ecclesie sâ—mt â—nnes nec nâ—â—ut in eis oft commemoratus Ortentis Episcopus Quid ergo faciemus cum the Greâ—â— sint nes Latini puto tihi cam partem Orbis sufficeâ—â— dehere in qua primâ—m Apâ—â—oloâ—um sâ—orum vâ—â—uit Dâ—minus glâ—riâ—sissimo Marâ—â—rio câ—â—nari chi Eâ—â—â—â—â—a prâ—â—sidenteâ—â— B. Luâ—ceâ—â—ium si â—â—dire volâ—â—â—es sam ture poâ—â—â—uiâ—â—am â—â—ventutern tuam Pelagianis laqueis exâ—â—â—â—es do you therefore think that they are to be contemn'd because they are all of the Wesiern Church and no Eastern Bishop is mention'd amongst them What therefore shall we do saith Augustine since they are Greeks and we Latines I think that part of the World ought to suffice you in which our Lord was pleas'd to have the chief of his Apostles crown'd with a most glorious Martyrdom if you would have heard St. Innocent the President of this Church even then your dangerous Youth might have avoided the Snares of Pelagius Thus speaks Augustine of Innocent the first whose Presidence as special Head of the Western Church could not have been exprest in more clear words For although our Author would have it Author p. 131. That Augustine only thereby shews the Order and Dignity of the Roman See but doth not own any Subjection of the Western Churches to his Power since no Church did more vehemently withstand the Bishop of Romes Incroachments than the Churches of Africa did in St. Augustine's time Yet there is no body but may see that this subterfuge was invented meerly to elude the force of this Testimony for it is false that the African Church was exempted from Subjection to the Roman neither do the contests of the African Church for a short time about the exercise of some particular Jurisdictions which were ended after they had own'd the Canons of the Council of Sardica evince this St. Augustine gives his Testimony for the Patriarchal Right by which the Roman Bishop especially presides over the Western Church neither can it be said that Africa was not reckon'd by him amongst the Western Churches For Cyprian accounts the Primate of all Africa to be of the number of those Bishops which he affirms to be Western Bishops and discinguishes them from the Eastern Therefore Africa appertaind to the Western Church over which Churches Innocent Presided and that the President of it when he not by virtue of his Order and Dignity but by his Authority condemn'd the Pelagian Heresy ought to have been heard by Julian is here signified by Augustine as also the whole African Church had heard him after they had referred the matter of that Heresy to him as their Head. For when aster the referring of the cause they had received Rescripts back from the Apostolic See Now concerning this matter saith Augustine de verbis Apostoli Serm. D. Augustinus Jam de hac causa due Concilia miâ—sa sunt ad sedem Apostolicam inde etram rescripta venerunt causa si nita est error utinam finiatur 2. two Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See from thence also Rescripts have been sent back the Cause is determin'd would to God the Error were extinguished Thus Augustine shews that to be false and erroneous which a late Author de Disciplina Ecclesiae hath rashly utter'd viz. that the Africans did acknowledge no Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop over their Province and that nothing further could be collected from Augustine then that the Roman Bishop had a Primacy amongst the Western Bishops 5. We have heard Augustin now let us hear Innocent himself whom Augustine extols For that most holy Man doth not only claim to himself as Bishop of the Universal Church a Power to determine in the Cause of the Pelagians but also challenges this as of special Right too belonging to him as he was the Head of the African and the other Occidental Churches in his Epistle ad Decentium Eugubinum Episcopum in these Words Inoncentius I. vid. in p. 24. Vidnum VIII For
who doth not know or not consider that what was deliver'd by Peter the Prince of the Apostles to the Roman Church and is kept till this very Day ought to be observed by all and that nothing is to be superadded or introduced which either hath not Authority or may seem to take Example from elsewhere Especially since it is manifest that none have instituted Churches in all Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the interjacent Islands but those which the venerable Apostle Peter or his Successors have ordained Priests Or let them search whether any of the other Apostles is found or read to have taught in those Provinces if they do not read this because they no where find it they ought to follow that which the Roman Church observes from whence no doubt they had their Original least in giving themselves selves up to the Assertions of Strangers they may seem to wave the Head of their Institutions This Testimony of Innocent the First is very considerable by which it appears either that St. Peter or those whom he or his Successors made Priests instituted Churches through all Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the interjacent Islands and therefore that these ought to acknowledge the Roman Church as their special Head. For this he expresly declares in those last Words Least in giving themselves up to the Assertions of Strangers they may seem to wave the Head of their Institutions 6. Neither is there just cause why any one should object to Innocent that the Apostle Paul preach'd two years at Rome and that this appears from the Acts of the Apostles which were writ by Luke Pauls inseparable Companion For the most Eminent Cardinal Baronius in his Annals Tome 1. ad An. 4 makes answer that under the name of Peter Paul also is to be comprehended and if the answer of this Parent of Annals do not fully satisfie you let us interpret Innocent's Mind by his own Words and shew that Peter only preach'd in the West in that sense wherein the most Holy Pope asserts him to have preach'd Innocent speaks in the Place before cited concerning that Apostolical Preaching by which Churches were instituted in the Western Regions not of that which the Churches had after they were once constituted after the same manner that Paul the Apostle himself in the Epistle to the Romans Chap. 15. spake concerning the Churches that were instituted by him From Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum Rom. 15. I have fully preach'd the Gospel of Christ Yea so have I strived to preach the Gospel not where Christ was named lest I should build upon another mans Foundation but as it is written to whom he was not spoken of From which Words it is plain that Paul reckons no Church in the number of those that he had preach'd to wherein the Gospel was preach'd before which being so and evidently so from his own Words the Roman Church is not to be reckon'd as one of those which were instituted by Paul for that was instituted before his coming to the City as is plain from his Epistle to the Romans which as the very Words of it shew was written before he came to Rome and yet he asserted that even then when he wrote there was a Church instituted at Rome because Chap. 26. he sends his Salutation to many of the Faithful at Rome and Chap. 1. he derects his Epistle to all that be in Rome beloved of God called to be Saints and expressed their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole World. Therefore Paul doth not suffer us to reckon the Roman Church among those which he by his preaching instituted which Innocent the First knowing of declared that Peter only preach'd at Rome because he had found that the Roman Church was instituted by Peter before Paul came to that City the same may be said of Spain and the other Regions if any shall believe that Paul at any time preached in them for there was a Church founded in them before either by Peter or by those Priests which Peter had ordain'd and sent to those Parts so that the preaching of Paul was no Argument against Peter's instituting those Churches which way of preaching and no other is here meant by Innocent whilest he attributes the Institution of the Occidental Churches solely to Peter or to the Priests that were sent either by him or his Successors 7. These things therefore being premised for the better understanding of the Testimony of Innocent we are now to answer the Authors two Objections the former of which impugns the Matter of Fact the latter the reason of the thing deduced from the Matter of Fact. Both which Objections he proposeth in these Words But the Matter of Fact saith he Author p. 132. is far from being evident for we have great reason to believe there were Churches planted in the Western Parts neither by Peter nor by those who were sent by his Successors yet let that be granted what connexion is there between receiving the Christian Doctrine at first by those who came from thence and an Obligation to be subject to the Bishops of Rome in all their Orders and Traditions The Patriarchal Government of the Church was not founded upon this but upon the ancient Custom and Rules of the Church as fully appears by the Council of Nice And as to the British Churches this very Plea of Innocent will be a farther Evidence for their Exemption from the Roman Patriarchate since Britain cannot be comprehended within those Islands which lie between Italy Gaul Spain Africa and Sicily which can only be understood of those Islands which are situate in the Mediterranean Sea. 8. These two Objections which the Author here joyns together are to be handled distinctly And in the first place that we may speak to that which concerns Matter of Fact the Author says that all the Churches in the West were not instituted by Peter or those whom the Apostolical See ordain'd Innocent testifies the contrary of Italy Africa France Spain and the interjacent Islands which of these shall we give credit to an English Writer who upon his own Authority denies this when many hundred Monuments of Antiquity are lost in sixteen hundred years time or the most Holy Pope who liv'd above one thousand two hundred and seventy years since and had the Opportunity of seeing many Monuments of Antiquity in the Registry of the Apostolic See concerning this Matter and constantly affirms it If we ask the Opinion of our Ancestors as well those who liv'd in England as in the rest of the Western Parts adhere to the Testimony of Innocent since from the time of Dionysius Exiguus they have receiv'd it as authentic and have plac'd it amongst the Decretal Epistles religiously venerated by the whole Western Church It appears then by the Testimony of Innocent which hath been approv'd by the Judgment of all the West for almost twelve Centuries that no one hath instituted Churches either in Italy Africa
Honorius sent to Theodosius the Emperor wherein he writes thus concerning this matter Without doubt the Church of that City from whence we receiv'd the Roman Principality Honorii Epist Theodosium Vid. num XXII and the Original of Priesthood deserves extraordinary veneration For as much as the Legates that were sent to us have desired nothing from our Piety but what is agreeable to Catholic faith discipline and equity for they require of us that those priviledges which having been establish'd long since by our fore-fathers were preservd till this time may ever remain inviolable and afterwards Wherefore we desire your Majesty that being mindful of that Christian temper which the Divine mercy hath infused into our hearts you would consider of our Pious discourse and that removing all these usurpt Rights which are said to have been gain'd by the private designs of diverse Bishops you would command that the ancient order be kept that so the Roman Church may not lose under Christian Princes what she preserv'd under other Emperors Hence it is clear that when Boniface the Pope desir'd that the Patriarchal right over Illyricum might be restor'd to him he ask'd nothing which was against the Canons or the ancient Order which was not only acknowledg'd by Honorius the Western Emperor but also by Theodosius Emperor of the East as appears by the Rescript whereby he revoked his Law in these words Setting aside all that the Bishops over Illyricum Theodosii Rescriptum Vid num XXIII by their Supplications have surreptitiously gain'd we command that to be observed which the Apostolic discipline and the ancient Canons declare Concerning which thing we have sent our Orders in writing to the Illustrious Praefecti Praetori over Illyricum according to the form of the Oracle of your perpetuity that all which hath been surreptitiously obtain'd by the Bishops being laid aside they would cause the antient Order to be especially observ'd least the venerable Church of that City which hath consecrated to us a perpetul Empire of its own name should lose the most holy privileges which were settled by the ancients These words of Theodosius are observable in which setting aside what the Bishops by their Supplications had surreptitiously gain'd over Illyricum he commands that to be observ'd which the old Apostolic Discipline and ancient Canons declare This Rescript was concerning the Patriarchal power which Theodosius at length acknowledg'd to belong to the Bishop of Rome from the old Apostolic Discipline confirm'd by the determinations of the ancient Canons So that it appears to be plainly false that Innocent the First and other Bishops endeavour'd to gain a Patriarchal power which they had not before over Illyricum by appointing the Bishop of Thessalonica to act as by Commission from them which notwithstanding after our English Writer the Author of the Treatise De Disciplina Ecclesiae hath endeavoured to obtrude upon the World. Indeed it ought not to seem so great a wonder that this should have bin said by one that was not of the Communion of the Roman Church since something is to be indulged to the Prejudice of a disturbed mind But I know not how it came to pass that a man who professes himself to live in the Communion of the Apostolic See should rashly utter those things which I can hardly relate without blushing 9. Now since the Illyrican Churches notwithstanding they were instituted by the Apostle Paul yet belong'd to the Roman Patriarchate what should hinder the British Churches from being subject to the Roman Patriarchate although Paul and not Peter had first instituted them as our English Author makes it his main endeavour to prove He ascribes the Institution of Patriarchates to ancient custom Canon 6. Nicaenus which the Nicene Council hath made mention of in the Sixth Canon commanding the ancient custom to be observed concerning it in Egypt because the Bishop of Rome hath a like custom But did this ancient custom and these Primitive Rights of the Church spring up like Mushrooms or gain'd force without any reason Before the times of the Nicene Council the universal Church was not govern'd by written Canons but by Tradition and Custom D. Augustinus lib. 5. contra Donatistas cap. 24. alibi now Tradition and Custom of which any other Original was unknown according to the Rule of the Great Augustine was to be held as coming from the Apostles so that we are to believe that these very Apostles anciently erected Patriarchates since no other Original of them is to be found Leo the Great in his Epistle to Anastafius Bishop of Thessalonica treating of the institution of Churches says that it was provided by the wisdom of the Apostles that there should be One in every Province who should have the first Vote amongst the Bishops of his Province Now who can believe that the Apostles who so accurately observ'd order in the Provinces had no regard to the greater Dioceses Since it was provided Leo primue Epist ad Anastatium Thessalonicen Vid. num XXIV by the wisdom of the Apostles saith Leo Epist 54. that there should be one in every Province who should have the first Vote amongst the Bishops of his Province again some were appointed in the greater Cities who should take upon them a greater Charge by whom the Care of the Vniversal Church might be carried up to Peter 's single See and none in any place dissent from their Head. These were the Reasons why the See of Antioch had a Patriarchal Authority over all the East and the See of Alexandria over all Aegypt And for these Reasons also a Patriarchal See was erected at Rome to the care of which the Churches of the West should of special Right appertain 10. The affixing the British Church to the Roman Patriarchate depends upon this Apostolical Institute and upon this account it was that Pope Agatho reckon'd the British Bishops amongst those that appertain'd to the Council of the Roman Patriarchate There is an evident Testimony not only of Agatho but likewise of a hundred and twenty Western Bishops concerning this Matter which is read in the Synodic Epistle to the sixth General Council Synodic Romana Agathonis Papae in these Words Agatho Bishop of the Servants of God together with all the Synods which are subject to the Council of the Apostolic See. And in the Epistle it self the Synods which are subject to the Roman Council are said to consist of the Western Bishops the multitude of which extended themselves even to the Regions which lay upon the Ocean viz. those of Lombardy Sclavonia Franconia Gaul and Britain In my Judgment Pope Agatho and the hundred and twenty Bishops could not have said that the British Churches were subject to the Roman Bishop as Patriarch of the West more clearly than they have done Neither could the Bishops of the whole Eastern Church assembled in Council at Constantinople have any way more manifestly confirm'd this Truth than by their approbation of
detest the Error they have imbibed concerning the Supremacy of the Metropolitcal Authority 8. Thus far enough of the Patriarchate of Antioch Let us now speak of that of Alexandria It is confest that the Bishop of Alexandria had a power over many Provinces before the time of the Nicene Council which the Sixth Canon of Nice plainly declares whilst it ordains that the ancient custom should be observ'd according to which the Bishop of Alexandria exercised a jurisdiction over Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis This is expresly commemorated of Dionysius who govern'd the Church of Alexandria Sixty years before the Nicene Council by St. Athanasius lib. de sententia Dionysii contra Arianos in these words D. Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Vid. num XXXVIII In Pentapolis of the upper Lybia some of the Bishops embraced the opinions of Sabellius and their fictions did so much prevail that the Son of God was scarce any more Preach'd in their Churches Vpon the discovery of which Dionysius to whose charge those Churches belong'd sent Legates to withdraw the Authors of these things from their false opinions Therefore according to the testimony of Athanasius the Churches of upper Lybia Epiphanius Haeresi 68. Vid. num XXXIX or Pentapolis as also other Churches distributed through the rest of the Provinces of the Egyptian Diocese were under the charge of Dionysius as St. Epiphanius informs us Heresi 68. where he detests the Original of the Meletian Schism Meletius saith he and the Martyrs especially Peter Archbishop of Alexandria were then in bonds and Meletius though he excell'd the other Bishops of Egypt yet was second to Peter in dignity as being his Suffragane yet subject to him and referring Ecclesiastical Causes to his Jurisdiction For it is the Right of the Arch-Bishops of Alexandria to administer Ecclesiastical Affairs throughout all Aegypt and Thebais Mareotis Lybia Ammoniaca and Pentapolis From these ancient Testimonies the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria over all the Provinces throughout Aegypt is clearly proved neither do I see that any doubt can be made of this it remains therefore for us to consider whether there was at that time no Metropolitan Bishop to be found in any of the Provinces of Aegypt 9. This our Author denies as to the times before the Nicene Council but upon what ground I know not For Meletius held a Bishoprick in Thebais before the time of the Council of Nice and St. Epiphanius in the place above mentioned hath recorded that he in the time of St. Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was crown'd with Martyrdom about fourteen years before the Nicene Council excelling the other Egyptian Bishops was the second to Peter in Dignity Now how could Meletius then have obtain'd the second Place to Peter by what Right could he have excell'd the other Egyptian Bishops unless he had been a Metropolitan If you would have a farther Confirmation of the thing consult St. Athanasius who tells us that Meletius ordain'd Bishops in Egypt and in the Breviary of the Bishops consecrated by Meletius names John Bishop of Memphis in the last place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Memphis Bâ—â—â—â—â—um Eâ—â—â—coporum à Meletio orâ—â—natâ—um John commanded by the Emperor to be together with the Archbishop Meletius therefore was an Arch-bishop to whom John Bishop of Memphis was by the command of the Emperor to be an Assistant and this St. Athanasius expressy affirms Haeresi 69. where he tells us that Arius drew to his party Secundus Bishop of Pentapolis together with some others and that all this was done without the knowledge of S. Alexander until Meletius Arch-bishop of Thebais in Aegypt D. Epiphanius and again until Meletius Arch-bishop in Aegypt and subject to Alexander had inform'd Alexander of the whole Business Thus Epiphanius twice calls Meletius Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and affirms that he was subject to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria so that there is no question but the Patriarch of Alexandria had a Metropolitan under him before the time of the Nicene Council and whereas our Author owns no Metropolitan to have been in Thebais this proceeds from his Ignorance in Ecclesiastical History 10. Since therefore these things are so clear that they cannot be call'd in question let our Author now say that the Parity between the Patriarchate of Alexandria and that of Rome lay in this that neither of them had Metropolitans under him For since it hath been shew'd that there were not only many Provinces but likewise several Metropolitan Bishopricks under the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria before the time of the Nicene Council since the fixth Canon of the Council of Nice decrees that the ancient Custom should be observ'd viz. that the Bishop of Alexandria should have Authority over Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the Bishop of Rome hath a like Custom hereby the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria not only over Bishops but also over Metropolitans is confirm'd from the Example of the Roman Patriarch who consequently must have a Jurisdiction over Metropolitans Neither hath any one reason to alledge the Paraphrase of Ruffinus concerning the Suburbicarian Regions against us and to affirm with Salmasius that these were confined within the space of a hundred Miles from the City or within the Bounds of the Lieutenancy of the City as a late French Author would have them to be All which I shall refute at large in the second Edition of Antiquitas Illustrata and shew to be erroneous In the mean time who will not admire that there should be such Men to be found who notwithstanding they may plainly see that the Bishop of Antioch had fifteen Eastern Provinces and the Bishop of Alexandria six Provinces of Aegypt under thier Jurisdiction yet can have the confidence to affirm that the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome was confin'd to the narrow space of a hundred Miles or but few more from the City If the Bishop of Alexandria obtain'd a Patriarchal Jurisdiction over a larger Diocess of the Empire because the Roman Bishops had the like Custom then we must of necessity allow the Roman Bishop to have obtain'd a Jurisdiction over at least a like Diocess of the Empire But the first Council of Arles ten years before that of Nice expresly declared that Sylvester Bishop of Rome held not only one but many greater Diocesses nor is it any where read that these Diocesses were taken away from Sylvester in so short a space of time it must then be held for certain that he retain'd them all at the time of the Council of Nice and consequently that the Popes had not only a Patriarchal Jurisdiction over the Provinces that were near the City of Rome but also over all the rest of the Western Provinces amongst which the British are to be reckon'd CHAP. VI. That the British Church acknowledged an Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan from the time that the Christian Religion was first planted there till such time
Romanae Ecclesiae Caelestino primus mittitur Episcopus ibid. NUM XLVII Matthaeus Westmonasteriensis Audita verò morte Palladii Patricius Theodosio Valentiniano imperantibus à Papa Caelestino ad partes occiduas missus est ut vexillum S. Crucis Gentibus praedicaret Cumque ad Britanniam pervenisset praedicavit ibi verbum Dei à Genti-incolis gratanter est susceptus Deindè ad Scotos se conferens praedicavit verbum Dei quod non potuit alligari ibid. NUM XLVIII Jocelinus in vita S. Patricii Illique inquit vices suas committens atquen legatum suum constituens quaecumque in Hibernia gesserat constituerat disposuerat auctoritatis suae munimine confirmavit Pag. 101 NUM XLIX Auctor vitae Gregorii Magni Gregorius cum primum in toto Orbe gereret Pontificatum conversis jamdudum ad fidem veritatis esset praelatus Ecclesiis ibid. NUM L. Venerab Beda lib. 2. Hist cap. 2. In multis quidem nostrae consuetudini imò Universalis Ecclesiae contraria geritis tamen si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis ut ministerium baptizandi quo Deo renascimur juxta morem Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis ut Genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis verbum Domini caetera quae agitis quamvis moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus At illi nihil horum se facturos neque illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant Pag. 103 NUM LI. Ibid. Qui cum longa disputatione habita neque precibus neque hortamentis neque increpationibus Augustini ac sociorum ejus assensum praebere voluissent sed suas potius traditiones universis quae per Orbem sibi in Christo concordant Ecclesiis praeferrent Sanctus Pater Augustinus hunc laboriosi ac long◠certaminis finem fecit ut diceret obsecremus Deum qui habitare facit unanimes in domo Patris sui ut ipse nobis insinuari caelestibus signis dignetur quae sequenda traditio quibus sit viis ad ingressum Regni illius properandum Adducatur aliquis aeger per cujus preces fuerit curatus hujus fides operatio Deo devota atque omnibus sequenda credatur Quod cum adversarii inviti licet concederent allatus est quidam de genere Anglorum oculorum luce privatus qui cum oblatus Britonum Sacerdotibus nil curationis vel sanationis horum ministerio perciperet tandem Augustinus justa necessitate compulsus flectit genua sua ad Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi deprecans ut visum caeco quem amiserat restitueret per illuminationem unius hominis corporalem in plurimorum cordibus fidelium spiritualis gratiae lucem accenderet Nec mora illuminatur caecus ac verus summae lucis praeco ab omnibus praedicatur Augustinus Tum Britones confitentur quidem intellexisse se veram esse viam Justitiae quam praedicaret Augustinus c. Pag. 104 NUM LII Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Cunctis enim Evangelium scientibus liquet quod voce Dominica Sancto omnium Apostolorum Petro Principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est Pag. 105 THE INDEX A. WHat Provinces there were in Aegypt and to whom they were Subject p. 87. The Aegyptians did in the third Age acknowledge the Authority of the Roman Bishop as Supreme p. 79 Aethiopia appertains to the See of Alexandria because Athanasius sent a Bishop thither who planted the Aethiopic Church p. 30 The Epistle of Agatho shewing of what Bishops the Patriarchal Synod of the Bishop of Rome consists p. 54 Agricola first brought the Pelagian Heresie into Britain p. 98 The Bishop of Alexandria had the care over all Aegypt committed to him 82. The Nicene Council intrusted him also with the Computation of Easter day 68. He had Metropolitan Bishops under him p. 84 The Bishop of Antioch had also Metropolitan Bishops under him before the time of the Nicene Council p. 84 Appeals to the Bishop of Rome as being Successor to Peter are to be admitted of p. 81 It appears from the Testimony of the Council of Aquileia that the Roman Church is the Head of the whole Roman World. p. 96. The first Canon of the Council of Arles is recited from several Manuscripts p. 66 The Council of Arles refers the determination of Easter day to Pope Sylvester 59. How the defect in the citation concerning the publishing of the Feast of Easter is to be supplyed p. 59 The Testimony of Augustine the Bishop concerning the Roman Patriarchs Authority over all the West 22. Augustine the Monk was Gregory the Great 's Legate 101. he institutes Metropolitans by Authority receiv'd from the Apostolic See. 102. he proves the truth of Catholic Religion by miracle p. 105 B. What Testimonies prove Britain to have been converted to the Faith by Peter 4. Severus Sulpitius affirms that Britains first Conversion to the Faith was in the third Age. 11. Bede and Tertulian testifie the same 12. Britain was longer preserv'd from the Pelagian Heresie than the other Western Regions 98. Faith and Discipline were restored in it by Augustine the Monk under Gregory the Great The Acts of the British Synod concerning those things which Augustine wrought for the restoring of Religion in England p. 103. The British Bishops did acknowledg in the Council or Arles that the greater Dioceses did belong to Sylvester the Bishop of Rome and that the Apostles did daily sit in the Roman See. 94. They profess'd in the Council of Sardica that the Memory of Peter was to be honoured 95. They acknowledg'd that they appertain'd to the Patriarchal Synod of the Bishop of Rome 55. When they began to deviate from truth and Ecclesiastical Discipline 101. How bad a cause they endeavoured to defend against Augustine Legate of the Apostolic See. p. 106 C. The Bishop of Caesarea being Metropolitan of the Chief part of Palestine was Subject to the Patriarch of Antioch p. 85 Pope Caelestine sent his Legates into Britaem p. 99 The Catholic Church is the Pillar and ground of truth the Faith of which Church never fails p. 109 The Testimony of Clemens Romanus concerning Paul the Apostles Preaching p. 9 Caelestine was of opinion that appeal was to be made from the judgment of the African Synod to the examen of the Roman Bishop p. 97 The Fragments of the Council of Palestine concerning Easter p. 72 The 8th general Council hath taught us in the 17th Canon that the Metropo itans of the West did appertain to the Roman Patriarchate p. 35 The Council of Arles c. See Arles c. What Customs were introduced by the Apostles and how they may be known to have been so p. 53 The Church was chiefly governed by Custom before the time of the Nicene Council p. 53 The Testimony of Cyril of Alexandria concerning the Computation of Easter-day p. 71 D. Pope Damasus constituted a Vicar in Illyricum and why he did
indeed could not have been urged by him to any purpose though he had been sure that King Lucius had Preach'd to Bavaria and Rhetia unless he could first have proved that Lucius his Mission was by the Authority of the British Church and that his Episcopacy ow'd its Original to the British and not to the Roman Church which he will never be able to prove it being as easy to contradict this as to assert it 11. But the better to clear this matter we are to take notice that for the subjecting a Province to any certain Patriarchate it is not required that its Bishops should be always ordained by the Patriarch but it sufficeth that they owe their Original institution to him that is that the first Bishop of such Region by whom others were afterwards ordain'd Ruffinus was instituted by this Patriarch So as we have seen above Aethiopia was â—ddâ—d to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in the time 〈◊〉 â—â—stantine the Great because as Ruffinus 〈…〉 Frumentius was ordain'd first as 〈…〉 dom by St. Athanasius For 〈…〉 of Aethiopia from that time did not go to Alexandria for Ordination Nicolaus 1. num 73. epist ad Bulgar Vid. num IX yet they all remain'd Subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria to whom they owe the Original of their Episcopacy and so Nicolaus the first answer'd the Bulgarians when it was put to him num 73. this order is to be observ'd by you you are now to have a Bishop consecrated for you by the Prelate of the Apolic See who if the number of Christians are increased through his industry may receive from us the Priviledge of being an Archbishop and so at length may constitute Bishops himself who may choose a Successor to the Archbishoprick when it shall become void by his death and he which is new elected needs not come hither to be consecrated because the journey would be long but let the Bishops which were consecrated by the late Archbishop assemble together and constitute him who notwithstanding is not to be inthronised neither to consecrate any thing but the body of Christ before he receive the Pall from the See of Rome as it is prov'd to be the practice of all he Archbishops of France Germany and other Regions Nicolaus the first speaks here of the Bulgarians newly to be converted to the Faith who he was assured ought to be subject to his Patriarchate Now he did not think that it was requisite in order to this that their Bishops should be perpetually ordain'd by the Roman Prelates but reserv'd to himself only the Ordination of their first Archbishop and required that his Successors as an acknowledgment of the Patriarchal Authority should as in duty bound only receive the Pall from the Roman See as he testifies it to have been the custom not only of the Archbishops of France and Germany but also of other Countries Amongst which Countries Britain was so to be reckon'd Venerabilis Beda as Venerable Bede confirms lib. 1. Ecclesiast Histor Gentis Anglorum cap. 29. where he recites the Epistle of Gregory the Great to Augustine Legate of the Apostolic See in Britain Gregorius Magnus Epistiad Augustinum Monachum Londinensis Episcopus semper in posterum à Synodo propria debet consecrari atque honoris pallium à Sede Apostolica accipere Honorius 1. Epist ad Edwinum Vid. num X. to whom that most Holy Bishop gave Power to ordain the Archbishop of London and his twelve Suffragans so notwithstanding that ever for the future the Bishop of London was to be consecrated by his own Synod and to receive the honorary Pall from the Apostolic See. He writes that the Archboship of York was to be instituted after the same manner if so be that the Catholic Religion should at any time be further propagated which having come to pass in the time of Honorius the first this Pope being sent to by Edwin King of England wrote back in this manner We have directed two Palls to Honorius and Paulinus Metropolitan Bishops that when either of them shall be called out of this World to his Creator the other may by vertue of this our Authority substitute another Bishop in his place which as well by reason of your affectionate Charity as because of the length of the journey lying through so many large Provinces as are known to be between you and us we are invited to grant that we may concur with your Devotion in all things according to your desire Venerable Bede cap. 18. commenting upon these words tells us that therefore a power was indulged to one of the British Archbishops to consecrate the other that they might not be always under a necessity of taking toylsom journey 's to the City of Rome through so long spaces both of Land and Sea for the Ordaining of an Archbishop So that from these times it hath been sufficient to acknowledge the Authority of the Patriarchal See by receiving the Pall neither did the eighth General Council require any more Venerab Beda Vid. num XI decreeing Canon 17. according to the version of Anastasius Bibliothecarius that the ancient custom was to be observ'd both in old and new Rome Canon 17. Sonodi Generalis 8. Vid. num XII that their Prelates should have power over all the Metropolitans which are promoted by them and that receive confirmation of their Episcopal dignity either by imposition of hands or by delivery of the Pall viz. to call them to a Synod if need require as also to restrain and correct them if it happen that fame accuses them of any offences According to which Canon the Metropolitans of Britain who receiv'd confirmation of their Episcopal Dignity by vertue of the Pall sent from the Patriarch of old Rome are declar'd to be subject to his Power and that according to the judgment of the Nicene Fathers who in their Sixth Canon have acknowledg'd the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Bishop for so the Eighth Synod hath interpreted that Power as believing it to be ownd by the Susception of the Pall from thence whence it is plain that our Author if he will understand the Nicene Canon according to the interpretation of the Eighth General Synod hath lost the cause and that he hath nothing to produce whereby he can prove that Britain is exempted from the Roman Patriarchate CHAP. III. Although the British Church had not receiv'd its Institution from the Roman yet it is shew'd from the Example of the Illyrican Church that by ancient Custom time out of mind it might be subject to it and moreover that it ought to be so 1. The Distribution of Churches under Patriarchs had not its Original only from the Ordination of their Bishops but also from ancient Custom the beginning of which not being known is believ'd to have been from the time of the Apostles from which Principle De Marca shews that although Innocent doth not mention the Illyrican Churches as instituted by Peter yet that
instead of Perrevius For Boniface in the Place above mention'd doth not speak of Perigenes the Metropolitan of Achaia whom the Bishops of Thessaly had no Power either to Ordain or Consecrate but of Perrevius Lucas Hoistenius in notis whom Lucas Holstenius in his Notes upon this Epistle hath concluded from the Subscriptions of the Council of Ephesus to have been Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I will prove from the very Acts themselves that he was of the Province of Thessaly For since Perrevius is supposed to have been lawfully elected and duly ordain'd and afterwards for some fictitious Crimes to have been deposed by his Fellow-bishops of the Province of Thessaly I cannot but think he belong'd to the Province of those Bishops who gave Judgment concerning him from which their Sentence Perrevius notwithstanding appeal'd to the Apostolic See. Boniface committed the Care of perusing the Heads of this Appeal to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica his Vicar in Illyricum which being duly examin'd by him and sent to Rome Boniface thought fit that Perrevius should be restored to his See and that the three Bishops above named who deposed Perrevius should be excommunicated and so he made use of that Authority which belong'd to him over Illyricum and confuted by the exercise of his Power all these fictions of our Author before they were fram'd 6. Now let us clear the cause of Perigenes in which our Author mixes falsehood with truth and explicates many things untruly without any testimony of the Ancients It is indeed true that in the year 352. Nectarious in the second General Synod Canon 3. obtain'd that the Church of Constantinople which heretofore was a Suffragan should have Priority of honour after the Roman Church because Constantine having translated the Imperial Throne to that City it became the See of new Rome It is also true that from this Canon unlawfully made the Bishops of Constantinople took occasion by degrees to extend the bounds of their Jurisdiction and that having taken in the three exarchates of Thrace Pontus and Asia they began to take upon them the hearing the causes of the Eastern part of Illyricum which then was divided from the Western part Let it also be granted true that the Bishop of Thessalonica had the Authority of the Apostolic See over Illyricum first delegated to him by Pope Damasus that he might the better withstand the Usurpations of the Bishop of Constantinople yet it cannot be denied but that it was upon the occasion of the Bishop of Constantinople's drawing the cause of Perigenes before his Tribunal that there arose a Controversie between the Bishops of Rome and those of Constantinople Lex Theodosii Junioris Vid. num XX. upon which Theodosius junior Successor to Arcadius being circumvented by the Bishop of Constantinople in the year 421 made a Law which is found in the Theodosian Code lib. 16. leg 45. tit de Episcopis and in the Justinian Code lib. 1. tit 2. de Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis leg 6. to run thus Lex Theodosii Junioris Vid. num XX. We command that all innovation being laid aside the ancient custom and the Ecclesiastical Canons which have been in former ages instituted and held in force till this very time be observed throughout all the Provinces of Illyricum and if there arise any doubtful cause that be reserv'd to the Sacerdotal Synod and Sacred judicatory not without the knowledge of the most Reverend the Prelate of the Sacred Law who holds his See in the City of Constantinople which enjoys the Prerogative of old Rome Dat. prid Idus Julii Eustathio Agricola Coss 7. Hitherto we have recounted those things which are true now let us proceed to shew what falshoods the Author has intermixt with them And in the first place it is false that the foremention'd Law was made against the invasion of the Roman Bishop for it was not made against the invasion of the Bishop of Rome but to further the unlawful Usurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople They had not here regard to the Authority of Provincial Synods for the determining certain and undoubtful causes but to doubtful cases such as was that of Perigenes which could not be determined by the Synod without the judgment of the Patriarch Now there was no Controversie about a Patriarchal Power over Illyricum in the time of Perigenes the only question that was mov'd was to which of the Patriarchs it belong'd Illyricum even to the time of Valentinian the Second had belong'd to the West but the Empire being divided between Arcadius and Honorius after the Death of Valentinian the Western part of Illyricum was distinguished from that of the East and the Eastern part fell to Arcadius the Emperor of the East from whence the Bishop of Constantinople took occasion to perswade Theodosius the Son of Arcadius who was of an easie nature that he would make the Churches of the Eastern Illyricum Subject to the Constantinopolitan See which Theodosius so effected by making a new Law as plainly to shew that there was no question concerning a Patriarchal Power over Illyricum but only a difficulty started viz. whether this power should for the future appertain to the Roman Bishop or to the Constantinopolitan Theodosius his words are to be observed Theodosius Imperator Then if there arise any doubtful case that must be reserved to the Sacerdotal Synod and Sacred Judicatory not without the knowledge of the most Reverend the Prelate of the Sacred Law who holds his See in the City of Constantinople which enjoys the Prerogative of Old Rome You hear that therefore the judgment in doubtful cases was reserv'd to the Bishop of Constantinople or New Rome as it was then called because it enjoy'd the Prerogative of Old Rome Therefore before the Prerogative was Translated to the Constantinopolitan See Bonifacius Epist ad Ru tum inter Holsten num 8. Old Rome enjoy'd the Prerogative of Superiority over Illyricum And this is the Authority which the Roman Bishops contended that the Roman See could not be deprived of according to what Bonifacius the first told Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica that new attempts which can be of no force ought not to lessen the Authority of the Roman See. And speaking against those who appealed to the Bishop of Constantinople for the determination of the causes of the Illyrican Diocese Restrain saith he the Violators of the Canons Vid. num XXI and the Enemies of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction through the assistance of God who always frustrates such mens wishes exercise also that Authority which is grantd you over the rest of the contumacious For you see we have left no stone unturn'd Which last words are therefore added by Boniface because he did not only exercise his Apostolical Authority but made use of the assistance of Honorius the Western Emperor for the obtaining of Theodosius that the Law might be revoked 8. There is extant in Lucas Holstenius a transcript of the Epistle which