Successours But whosoever considers that Epistle well will not for Innocent's sake lay too much weight upon it For Is it reasonable to think that the double Vnction the Saturday Fast the Eulogiae sent to the several Parishes in Rome were Apostolical Traditions which all the Western Churches were bound to observe because they were first planted by those who were sent from Rome But the matter of Fact is far from being evident for we have great reason to believe there were Churches planted in the Western parts neither by St. Peter nor by those who were sent by his Successours Yet let that be granted What connexion is there between receiving the Christian Doctrine at first by those who came from thence and an Obligation to be subject to the Bishops of Rome in all their Orders and Traditions The Patriarchal Government of the Church was not founded upon this but upon the ancient Custome and Rules of the Church as fully appears by the Council of Nice And therefore the Churches of Milan and Aquileia though in Italy the Churches of Africa though probably the first Preachers came from Rome never thought themselves bound to follow the Traditions or observe the Orders of the Roman Church as is very well known both in St. Cyprian's and St. Augustine's times But if the Pope's power be built on this ground what then becomes of the Churches of Illyricum Was the Gospel brought thither from Rome And as to the British Churches this very Plea of Innocent will be a farther evidence of their exemption from the Roman Patriarchate since Britain cannot be comprehended within those Islands which lie between Italy Gaul Spain Africa and Sicily which can onely be understood of those Islands which are situate in the Mediterranean Sea And if no Instance can be produced of the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchal Jurisdiction over the British Churches why should not we claim the same benefit of the Nicene Canons which Leo urges so vehemently in such a parallel Case Neither can it be said that afterwards Subjection and Consent makes a just Patriarchal Power for neither doth it hold as to the British Churches whose Bishops utterly refused to submit to Augustine the Monk And if it doth all the force of Leo's Arguments is taken away For there were both Prescription pleaded and a Consent of the Bishops of the Dioceses concerned in the Council of Chalcedon But Leo saith the Nicene Canons are beyond both these being dictated by the Spirit of God and passed by the common consent of the Christian Church And that it was a Sin in him to suffer any to break them Either this is true or false If false how can the Pope be excused who alledged it for true If true then it holds as much against the Bishop of Rome as the Bishop of Constantinople And as to the Prescription of 60 years he saith the Canons of Nice were before and ought to take place if the practice had been never so constant which he denies Nay he goes so far as to say Though the numbers of Bishops be never so great that give their consent to any alteration of the Nicene Canons they signifie nothing and cannot bind Nothing can be more emphatical or weighty to our purpose than these Expressions of Pope Leo for securing the Privileges of our Churches in case no Patriarchal Power over them can be proved before the Council of Nice And it is all the reason in the World That those who claim a Jurisdiction should prove it Especially when the Acts of it are so notorious that they cannot be conceal'd as the Consecration of Metropolitanes and matters of Appeals are and were too evident in latter times when all the World knew what Authority and Jurisdiction the Pope exercised over these Churches I conclude this with that excellent Sentence of Pope Leo PRIVILEGIA ECCLESIARVM SANCTORVM PATRVM CANONIBVS INSTITVTA ET VENERABILIS NICAENAE SYNODI FIXA DECRETIS NVLLA POSSVNT IMPROBITATE CONVELLI NVLLA NOVITATE VIOLARI The privileges of Churches which were begun by the Canons of the Holy Fathers and confirmed by the Council of Nice can neither be destroy'd by wicked Usurpation nor dissolved by the humour of Innovation In the next great Council of Sardica which was intended to be general by the two Emperours Constans and Constantius it is commonly said that Athanasius expresly affirms the British Bishops to have been there present But some think this mistake arose from looking no farther than the Latin Copy in Athanasius in which indeed the words are plain enough to that purpose but the sense in the Greek seems to be the same For Athanasius pleads his own Innocency from the several Judgments which had passed in his Favour First by 100 Bishops in Egypt next by above 50 Bishops at Rome thirdly in the great Council at Sardica 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which as some say above 300 Bishops out of the several Provinces there mention'd consented to his Innocency But here lies an insuperable difficulty for Athanasius himself elsewhere affirms that there were but 170 Bishops in all there present and therefore it is impossible he should make 300 there present Which some have endeavour'd to reconcile by saying the latter was the true number present but the former of those Bishops scattered up and down who did agree in the Sentence which passed in favour of Athanasius But then the Greek here cannot be understood of those present in Council and on the other side if it be not so understood then the words do not prove what he designs viz. that he was acquitted in the Sardican Council in which although the number were not so great I see no reason to exclude the British Bishops It is true that in the Synodical Epistle of that Council onely Italy Spain and Gaul are mention'd And so likewise in the Subscriptions But it is well observed by Bucherius that Athanasius reckons up the British Bishops among those of Gaul And Hilary writing to the Gallican Bishops of Germania prima and Germania secunda Belgica prima Belgica secunda Lugdunensis prima Lugdunensis secunda Provincia Aquitanica and Provincia novem populona after he hath distinctly set down these he then immediately adds And to the Bishops of the Provinces of Britain Which makes me apt to think that about that time the Bishops of Britain were generally joyn'd with those of Gaul and are often comprehended under them where they are not expresly mention'd And to confirm this Sulpicius Severus speaking of the Summons to the Council of Ariminum mentions onely of these Western parts Italy Spain and Gaul But afterwards saith That the Bishops of Britain were there present So that Britain was then comprehended under Gaul and was so understood at that time as Sicily was under Italy as Sirmondus shews And Sextus Rufus doth put down the description of Britain under that of Gaul as Berterius hath observed For otherwise who could have
suppress them and the latter sent Lupicinus his General who arrived at London about the time the Council of Ariminum was dissolved and therefore in a time of such Confusion in the British Province it is not strange that these Churches should not be in so plentifull a condition as those which were the Seat of Trade and Government And Ammianus Marcellinus observes that the Provincial Bishops lived in a much meaner condition than those of the greater Cities especially of Rome And although a Heathen he very much commends them for their Temperance Humility and Modesty But Arianism was not the onely Heresie the British Churches were charged with For Gildas from hence makes every following Heresie to find a passage hither among which the chief was Pelagianism And Bede doth insinuate That Pelagius being a Britain and spreading his Doctrine far and near did corrupt these Churches with it which some late Writers having taken up have affirmed that both Pelagius and Coelestius after their Repulse at Rome came over into Britain and dispersed their Doctrine here Leland sadly laments the Condition of the Church of God that had no sooner recover'd it self from Arianism but a new Heresie sprung up to disturb the Peace and infect the minds of Christians But as Egypt brought forth the Authour of the former Heresie so did Britain the Authour of this which took his name from hence And is supposed to have been Morgan in British which by his conversation at Rome he turned into Pelagius And St. Augustine saith He was commonly called Pelagius Brito to distinguish him as he supposed from another Pelagius of Tarentum Leland observes that some made him a Britain as being born in that Bretagn which was called Aremorica on the Continent But I do not find that it had then lost its name of Aremorica The first time we find the name of Britannia given to that Countrey is in the Subscription of Mansuetus to the Council of Tours where he is named Episcopus Britannorum after which time it was frequently called Britannia Cismarina Minor Celtica c. Dempster not a Jesuit but a Lawyer takes it very ill of Browerus the Jesuit that he makes Pelagius a Scot But not as Dempster understands him For he explains himself That he meant one that came out of Ireland and therefore was Scoticae Originis For which he quotes Saint Jerome But Archbishop Vsher hath observed That he speaks there not of Pelagius but of Coelestius whom he makes the Cerberus to the Pluto according to his usual way of complementing his Adversaries But both he thinks came out of the British Islands The late Publisher of Marius Mercator endeavours to shew That our learned Primate was herein mistaken And that Saint Jerome doth not speak of Coelestius but of Pelagius himself And that by Pluto he means Ruffinus dead in Sicily three years before St. Jerome 's writing these Words But notwithstanding he did still bark through Pelagius his Mouth whom he compares to a great Scotch Mastiff from which Countrey he is derived in the Neighbourhood of Britain If these Words relate onely to Ruffinus and Pelagius it is certain that St. Jerome would have it believed That Pelagius came out of Ireland That which makes it most probable that he means them is That in the Preface to his Commentaries on Ezekiel he mentions the death of Ruffinus and then saith he hoped now he should be quiet to go on with his Commentaries on the Scriptures But not long after he complains That there were others which in his Room open'd their Mouths against him In the beginning of his Commentaries on Jeremiah which he undertook after he had finished those on Ezekiel he mentions one who carped at his Commentaries on the Ephesians and calls Grunnius i. e. Ruffinus his Forerunner And saith he was Scotorum pultibus praegravatus made fat with Scotch Flummery All this agrees very well with Pelagius whom Grosius describes as a very corpulent Man But there is one thing which makes the former Opinion not improbable which is That St. Jerome himself takes so much notice that Pelagius at that time wrote little or nothing about these matters but Coelestius was the Man who appeared especially in the two main Points about Original Sin and the Possibility of Perfection In his Epistle to Ctesiphon he saith That the Author of the Sect still held his Peace and his Disciples wrote for him Magistrorum silentia profert rabies Discipulorum Methinks Rabies agrees well enough with Cerberus and here it is meant of the Disciple Coelestius and not of Pelagius Which Expression answers very well to the other Mutus Magister latrat per Albinum Canem And he speaks as if he designed to draw him from his closeness and retirement Which doth far better agree to the mute Person than to the barking Cerberus There is then no Improbability that Coelestius and Pelagius may be both meant But if any other Countrey hath a mind to challenge Coelestius to themselves I think they may be allow'd to put in their Claim notwithstanding these Expressions But it is very unworthy in the same Author to prove Pelagius to have been an Irish Scot and at the same time to charge his Vices on the British Nation He cannot deny That Pelagius had a great natural sharpness of Wit since St. Augustine and his other Adversaries allow it But then he saith it was fierce and contentious after the fashion of his Countrey and which he could not shake off by his long Conversation at Rome He grants that his Exhortations to Piety were vehement and earnest but written in an uncouth and imperious Style more Gentis according to the humour of his Nation But why must the British Nation be reproached for the particular faults of Pelagius It is a very ill way of confuting Pelagius to attribute Mens Vices and Vertues to their Countries And is contrary both to the discretion of a Philosopher and to the Grace of a Christian Pelagius might have had the same temper if he had been so happy as to have been born in a Neighbour Countrey And I do not see how his Way of writing doth affect the British Churches Where the Christians might be very wise and humble notwithstanding this severe and unjust Character of the British Nation Which as all National Reproaches is not so great a Reproach to any as to him that gives it But the greatest Adversaries to Pelagius did not give him so ill a Character Saint Augustine saith he had the esteem of a very Pious man and of being a Christian of no mean rank Was this Pro more Gentis too And of his Learning and Eloquence St. Augustine gives sufficient Testimony in his Epistle to Juliana the Mother of Demetrias to whom Pelagius wrote an Epistle highly magnified for the Wit and Elegance of it But Garnerius will not allow that Pelagius was able to write it
nothing but mere force can make any Man to understand them of the Receivers Besides that Office concludes with a particular Prayer for the Benefit of those that had partaked of the Body of Christ wherein this Expression is remarkable Christe Domine qui tuo vesci corpore tuum corpus effici vis fideles fac nobis in remissionem Peccatorum esse quod sumpsimus i. e. O Christ our Lord who wouldest have thy People eat thy Body and become thy Body grant that we may be that which we have taken for the Remission of our Sins And it is certain the meaning of this Prayer was not that Christians might become the Natural Body of Christ And therefore it was not then believed That the Faithfull did in the Eucharist take the Natural Body of Christ But that which was the Body of Christ in such a mystical sense as the Church is But Transubstantiation was no part of the Faith of the Church at that time and therefore it is no wonder to meet with Expressions so disagreeing to it in their solemn Devotions And it is well observed by Card. Bona that the Custome of Elevation of the Host in Order to Adoration is found in none of the ancient Sacramentaries nor in the Ordo Romanus not in the Old Ritualists such as Alcuinus Amalarius Walafridus Micrologus and others The same had been ingenuously confessed before by Menardus in the same Words And although there may be Elevation where there is no belief of Transubstantiation yet since the Custome of Elevation was lately introduced into the Western Churches and in order to Adoration of the Body of Christ then present by Transubstantiation it seems very probable that Doctrine was not then received by the Church the Consequences whereof were not certainly in use For there was as much Reason for the Elevation and Adoration at that time as ever could be afterwards But my Business is now onely to shew wherein the Gallican and British Churches differ'd from the Roman and not wherein they agreed 4. The last difference was as to the Church Musick wherein the Romans were thought so far to excell other Western Churches That the goodness of their Musick proved the great occasion of introducing their Offices For Charles the Great saith That his Father Pepin brought the Roman way of Singing into the Gallican Churches and their Offices along with it And although he saith many Churches stood out then yet by his means they were brought to it And he caused some of the best Masters of Musick in Rome to be brought into France and there settled for the Instruction of the French Churches By which means the old Gallican Service was so soon forgotten That in Carolus Calvus his time he was forced to send as far as Toledo to have some to perform the Old Offices before him So great a Power had the Roman Musick and the Prince's Authority in changing the ancient Service of the Gallican Churches But thus much may suffice to have cleared the ancient Service of these Western Churches and to have shew'd their difference from the Roman Offices From which Discourse it will appear that our Church of England hath omitted none of those Offices wherein all the Ancient Churches agreed And that where the British or Gallican and Roman differ'd our Church hath not follow'd the Roman but the other And therefore our Dissenters do unreasonably charge us with taking our Offices from the Church of Rome CHAP. V. Of the Declension of the British Churches BRitain never totally subdued by the Romans That the Occasion of the Miseries of the Britains in the Province by the Incursions from beyond the Wall Of the Picts and Scots their mortal Enemies The true Original of the Picts from Scandinavia That Name not given to the Old Britains but to the New Colonies The Scotish Antiquities enquired into An Account of them from John Fordon compared with that given by Hector Boethius and Buchanan Of Hector's Authours Veremundus Cornelius Hibernicus and their ancient Annals An Account of the Antiquities of Ireland and of the Authority of their Traditions and Annals compared with the British Antiquities published by Geffrey of Monmouth in point of Credibility A true Account of the Fabulous Antiquities of the Northern Nations Of the first coming of the Scots into Britain The first Cause of the Declension and Ruine of the British Churches was the laying them open to the fury of the Scots and Picts Of Maximus his withdrawing the Roman Forces And the Emperour 's sending numbers of Picts to draw them back The miserable Condition of the Britains thus forsaken And supplies sent them for a time and then taken away Of the Walls then built for their Security and the Roman Legions then placed Of the great degeneracy of manners among the Britains Of Intestine Divisions and calling in of Foreign Assistence The Saxons first coming hither Who they were and whence they came Bede's Account examin'd and reconciled with the Circumstances of those times His fixing the time of their coming justified Of the Reasons of Vortigern's calling in the Saxons And the Dissatisfaction of the Britains upon their coming and Vortigern's League with them Of the Valour of Vortimer and Aurelius Ambrosius against the Saxons The different Account of the Battels between the Britains and Saxons among our Historians The sad condition of the British Churches at that time The imperfect Account given by the British History Of King Arthur's Story and Success Of Persons of greatest Reputation then in the British Churches and particularly of St. David Of the Britains passing over to Aremorica The beginning of that Colony stated Gildas there writes his Epistle The Scope and Design of it The Independency of the British Churches proved from their carriage towards Augustine the Monk The Particulars of that Story cleared And the whole concluded BEing now to give an Account of the fatal Declension of the British Churches it will be necessary to look back on the time when their Miseries first began For which we are to consider That the Romans having never made an entire Conquest of the whole Island but contenting themselves with the better part and excluding the rest by a Wall They still left a backdoor open for the poor Provincial Britains to be disturbed as often as the Roman Garrisons neglected their Duty or were overpowred by their Enemies Who were now very much increased in those remoter parts of Britain Which being abandon'd by the Romans they became an easie Prey to the Scots and Picts Who from different parts took Possession of those Coasts which lay nearest to the Place from whence they came Thus the Scots coming from Ireland entred upon the Southern and Western Parts as the Picts from Scandinavia had before done on the Northern Our Learned Antiquary was of Opinion That the Picts were no other than the ancient Britains partly settled in those Parts before the Roman Invasion and partly
they very well understood his meaning and gave Answer in short to the main point And upon this Account I suppose it was that the Anchoret's advice was followed about observing Whether he rose up to the British Bishops at their entrance Not that they were so offended for want of a Complement as Mr. Cressey suggests but this was look'd on by them as a Mark of that Superiority which he challenged over them And therefore they had reason to take so great notice of it and to infer harder usage from him when they should be under his Authority They could not be ignorant what Authority the Pope had given Augustin and that made them more Observant of his whole Behaviour and finding it so agreeing to the Character of an Archbishop over the British Churches They give him that Resolute Answer That they would not own any Authority he had as Archbishop over them Which is a sufficient proof that this was really the main point contested between them 2. As to the British MS. which contains Dinoth's Answer more at large I Answer 1. Leland observes That the British Writers give a more ample account of this Matter than is extant in Bede who is very sparing in what concerns the British Affairs But from them he saith That Dinoth did at large dispute with great Learning and Gravity against receiving the authority of the Pope or of Augustin and defended the Power of the Archbishop of St. Davids and affirmed it not to be for the British Interest to own either the Roman Pride or the Saxon Tyranny And he finds fault with Gregory for not admonishing the Saxons of their gross Vsurpations against their Solemn Oaths And adds that it was their duty if they would be good Christians to restore their unjust and Tyrannical Power to those from whom they had taken it For Dinoth out of his great Learning could not but know that the Pope under a pretence of bringing in the true Faith could not confirm them in their unjust Vsurpation For if that should be admitted no Princes could be safe in their Dominions And no doubt the British Bishops looked upon this attempt of Augustin upon them to be the adding one Vsurpation to another Which made them so adverse to any Communication with the Missionaries which otherwise had been inexcusable 2. The certainty of the British Churches rejecting the Pope's Authority and Augustin's jurisdiction doth not depend upon the Credit of this British MS. for this is sufficiently clear from Bede's own Words wherein they declare they would not own Augustin as Archbishop over them But if they had owned the Pope's Authority they ought to have Submitted to him who acted by virtue of his Commission And it was not possible for them at such a distance from Rome to express their disowning his Authority more effectually than by rejecting him whom he had sent to be Archbishop over them And Nich. Trivet in his MS. History cited by Sir H. Spelman saith expresly that Augustin did demand Subjection from the Britains to him as the Pope's Legate but they refused it So that if this MS. had never been heard of the Matter of Fact had been nevertheless fully attested 3. The Objections against this MS. are not sufficient to destroy the Authority of it Sir H. Spelman who sets it down at large in Welsh English and Latin tells from whom he had it and exactly transcribed it and that it appeared to him to have been an Old MS. taken out of an Older but without Date or Authour and believes it to be still in the Cotton Library Here is all the appearance of Ingenuity and faithfulness that can be expected and he was a Person of too great Judgment and Sagacity to be easily imposed upon by a modern Invention or a new found Schedule as Mr. Cressy Phrases it The substance of it is That the Abbat of Banchor in the Name of the British Churches declares That they owe the Subjection of Brotherly Kindness and Charity to the Church of God and to the Pope of Rome and to all Christians but other obedience than that they did not know to be due to him whom they called Pope And for their parts they were under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk who was under God their Spiritual Overseer and Directour But say the Objectors There was then no Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk and had not been since the time the Metropolitan Jurisdiction was by St. David transferr'd to Menevia I grant that from the time of Dubricius the See was transferr'd first to Landaff and then to St. Davids but this latter Translation was not agreed to by all the British Bishops And it appears by the foregoing Discourse That the Bishops of Landaff did at that time when Oudocëus lived challenge the Metropolitical Power of Caerleon to themselves and therefore would not be consecrated by the Bishop of St. Davids And Caerleon having been the ancient Metropolitical See it was no absurdity at all to mention that in a Dispute which depended upon ancient Right For the Authority over the British Churches was not upon the account of St. Davids or Landaff but the Metropolitan Right which belonged to the See of Caerleon As if in the British times the Metropolitan See had been removed from London to Canterbury what incongruity had it been in a dispute of Superiority to have alledged that the British Churches of these parts were under the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of London although at that time the See were removed to another place And if this be all to make it appear to be a Forgery as Mr. Cressy pretends for all that I can see it may be a very ancient and genuine MS. But Alford goes deeper for he disproves it because it contradicts the Sense of the British Churches before which professed subjection to the Roman See This is indeed to the purpose if it be well proved which in the last place comes to be considered 3. To this purpose he alledges 1. The Confirmation of St. David 's Synod by the Pope's Authority But from whence hath he this From no other Testimony than that of Giraldus Cambrensis cited by Bishop Vsher who in the same place confesses That there was no Monument of those Synods at all remaining nor of the Pope's Confirmation of them and the other MSS. and Legends of St. David's Life say not a Word of this How then came Giraldus to affirm it We are to remember that Giraldus had a Cause depending in the Court of Rome about the Bishoprick of St. David's and he knew well enough what Doctrine was pleasing there and therefore the Testimony of such a one having no concurrent Evidence to support it is of very little force in this matter 2. He mentions the Respect Kentigern shew'd to the Church of Rome going seven times thither and having at last his uncanonical Ordination purged or confirmed by the Pope as the Authour of his Legend relates But
this seems to me a senseless and ridiculous Legend For as Bollandus observes if Kentigern went seven times to Rome how came he to put off the Errour of his Consecration to the last If it were good before why not then If naught before then all the Acts performed by him by virtue of his first Consecration were invalid But there is no more Errour supposed in the Consecration of Kentigern by one Bishop than there was in that of Seruanus by Palladius which as Joh. Major saith was good in case of necessity But the Writers of the Legends living long after the times of the Persons framed their Stories according to the Customs of their own times and because such a Consecration was not then held good therefore the Authour of his Legend takes care to have that defect supplied at Rome and to make amends he saith That Kentigern at his death recommended to his Disciples the Decrees of the Fathers and the Customs of the Roman Church But what is this to the necessity of Subjection to the Roman See from the general sense of the British Churches What if Kentigern having been often at Rome were pleased more with the Customs of that Church than of the Britains Doth it hence follow that those Britains who maintained Customs contrary to the Romans did think it necessary to conform to the Church of Rome when the plain Evidence of Fact is to the contrary and which hath far more authority than such Legends as these 3. Ninianus is said to have learnt the Christian Doctrine at Rome who converted the Southern Picts and founded the Church ad Candidam Casam being the first built of Stone But what follows from hence Because Ninianus was made a Christian at Rome therefore the British Churches always own'd the Pope's Supremacy They are indeed to seek for Arguments who make use of such as these 4. He offers to prove the constant Submission of the British Churches to the Roman See from Gildas himself and he makes use of two Arguments 1. From his calling the British Churches Sedem Petri the See of St. Peter I confess Gildas hath these words but quite in another Sense For in the beginning of his Invective against the Clergy among other things he charges them that they did Sedem Petri Apostoli immundis Pedibus usurpare Doth he mean that they defiled St. Peter 's Chair at Rome No certainly but he takes St. Peter's Chair for that which all the Clergy possessed and implies no more than their Ecclesiastical Function and so he opposes it to the Chair of Judas into which he saith such wicked Men fell But if they will carry St. Peter 's Chair to Rome they must carry the Chair of Judas thither too 2. Alford insists on this Passage in Gildas That they were more ambitious of Degrees in the Church than of the Kingdom of Heaven And after a bitter Invective against their Symoniacal Contracts he adds that where they were opposed they ran beyond Sea to compass their ends Now saith Alford whither should this be but to Rome For as Leland observes in the Case of Giraldus Cambrensis sunt enim omnia Venalia Romae all things are bought and sold there and therefore whither should such notorious Symoniacal Persons go but to Rome This is a very surprising Argument and is more wisely past over by Mr. Cressy than insisted on by Alford as being a horrible Reflexion on the Court of Rome in those days But to say Truth there is not one Word of Rome in Gildas but if they will apply it to Rome how can we help it To conclude this Discourse Alford is much displeased with Sir H. Spelman for paralleling the Case of the British Bishops and Augustine with that of the Cyprian Bishops against the Patriarch of Antioch But for what Reason Why saith he The Council of Ephesus did not permit the Cyprian Bishops to decline the Iudgment of their Patriarch but declared the Bishop of Antioch not to be their Patriarch Very well And is not this the very case here The Bishop of Rome challenged a Patriarchal Power over the British Churches and appoints an Archbishop over them but they deny that he had such Authority over them they being governed by their own Metropolitan as the Cyprian Bishops were and therefore by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus they were bound to preserve their own Rights and consequently to oppose that foreign Iurisdiction which Augustine endeavoured to set up over them THE END Ola Rudbeck Atlantic c. 7.23 Historical Account of ancient Church Government in Great Britain and Ireland Letter to Lord Chancellour p. 11. V. Gratian. Lucium in Cambr. Evers p. 248 249. A primo quidem hujus Regni Fergusio filio Ferchardi ad hunc Regem Fergusium filium Erch inclusive 45. Reges ejusdem gentis generis in hac Insula regnaverunt sed horum sigillatim distinguere tempora principatuum ad praesens omittimus nam ad plenum Scripta non reperimus Fordon Scotichr l. 4. c. 2. Defence of the Antiquity c. p. 29. l. 1. f. 6. f. 10.2 p. 6. l. 19. f. 10.2 f. 15. Leslae l. 2. p. 81. Buch. l. 4. p. 29. p. 245. Defence c. p. 110. Just Right of Monarchy p. 26. Leslae Hist. p. 77.79 p. 27. p. 26. p. 28. p. 27. Hect. Boeth Hist. l. 1. f. 62. Leslae Hist. Scot. p. 77. p. 29. (a) Hect. Boeth l. 3. f. 36. l. 40. Leslae p. 92. (b) Hect. Boeth l. 4. f. 59. Leslae p. 97. (c) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 75. Leslae p. 101. (d) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 79. Leslae p. 103. (e) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 81. Leslae p. 103. (f) Hect. Boeth l. 5. f. 90. Leslae p. 109. (g) Hect. Boeth l. 6. f. 90. Leslae p. 110. Leslae p. 392 396. p. 28. Scotichron l. 1. c. 36. Scotichron l. 10. c. 2. Scotichr l. 4. c. 38. Buchan l. 5. p. 45. Scotichr l. 4. c. 41. c. 45. Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line p. 20 21. p. 22. Scotich l. 5. c. 59. Leslae p. 250. Hect. Boeth Hist. l. 13. f. 295. Gratian. Luc. Cambr. Evers p. 248. Scotichr l. 2. c. 12. Hect. Boeth l. 1. f. 7. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. ◠174. Scotichron l. 1. c. 9. Chap. 5. Leslae Paraen ad Nobil Scot. p. 22. Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line p. 39. p. 32. p. 32. Prodrom Hist. Natur. Scot. p. 13. p. 15. Scotichr l. 3. c. 19. Suffr Petr. de Origine Frisiorum l. 3. c. 2. c. 3. p. 14. p. 13. p. 14. p. 2. * Hoc solum judicamus quae de Scotis corum Regibus ab anno 330. ante caput aerae Christianae cum Alexander Macedo rerum potiretur in Oriente usque ad Fergusium 2. Regem Scotiae quadragesimum cujus initium conjicitur à Scotis Scriptoribus in annum Christi 404. qui ejectos è Britannia Scotos dicitur reduxisse non
Scicambri r. Sicambri 330. l. 12. for when r. whom p. 338. l. 8. for Island r. Iseland THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. Of the first planting a Christian Church in Britain by S. Paul NO Christian Church planted in Britain during the Reign of Tiberius Page 2. Gildas his Words misunderstood p. 4. The Tradition concerning Joseph of Arimathea and his Brethren coming to Glassenbury at large examined p. 6. The pretended Testimonies of British Writers disproved p. 8. St. Patrick's Epistle a Forgery p. 14. Of the Saxon Charters especially the large one of King Ina. p. 17. The Antiquity of Seals in England p. 19. Ingulphus his Testimony explained p. 20. All the Saxon Charters suspicious till the end of the seventh Century p. 18 22. The occasion of this Tradition from an old British Church there p. 10 26 28. The Circumstances about Joseph of Arimathea and Arviragus very improbale p. 29. Sir H. Spelman vindicated p. 30. The state of the Roman Province about that time p. 31. No such King as Arviragus then p. 32. Not the same with Caractacus p. 34. A Christian Church proved to be planted here in the Apostles times p. 35. The authentick Testimonies of Eusebius Theodoret Clemens Romanus to that purpose p. 36. St. Paul in probability the first Founder of a Church here p. 38. The Time and Opportunity he had for it after his Release p. 39. Of Pomponia Graecina and Claudea Rufina Christians at Rome and their influence on his coming hither p. 43. St. Peter and St. Paul compared as to their Preaching here and the far greater probability of St. Paul's p. 45. CHAP. II. Of the Succession of the British Churches to the first Council of Nice The Testimony of Tertullian concerning them cleared p. 50. The National Conversion of the Scots under King Donald fabulous p. 51. Of Dempster's old Annals p. 52. Prosper speaks not of the Scots in Britain p. 53. The Testimony of Severus Sulpicius examined p. 55. Several Testimonies of Origen concerning the British Churches in his time p. 57. The different Traditions about King Lucius p. 58. The state of the Roman Province here overthrows his being King over all Britain p. 60. Great probability there was such a King in some part of Britain and then converted to Christianity p. 62. A Conjecture proposed in what Part of Britain he reigned p. 63. The most probable means of his Conversion and the Story cleared from Monkish Fables p. 66. Of Dioclesian's Persecution in Britain and the stopping of it by means of Constantius p. 70. The flourishing of the British Churches under Constantine p. 74. The Reason of three Bishops of Britain onely present in the Council of Arles p. 75. Of the great Antiquity of Episcopal Government here p. 77. Of Geffrey's Flamines and Archiflamines how far agreeable to the Roman Constitution p. 78. Maximinus his Pagan Hierarchy in imitation of the Christian p. 81. The Canons of the Council of Arles not sent to the Pope to confirm but to publish them p. 83. CHAP. III. Of the Succession of the British Churches from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum Great Probabilities that the British Bishops were present in the Council of Nice p. 89. The Testimonies of Constantine's being born in Britain cleared p. 90. The particular Canons of that Council explained p. 92. Especially those relating to the Government of Churches p. 95. How far the right of Election was devolved to the Bishops p. 96. Of the Authority of Provincial Synods there settled p. 99. Particular Exceptions as to the Bishops of Alexandria Rome and Antioch from ancient Custome p. 101. They had then a Patriarchal Power within certain Bounds p. 103. No Metropolitans under the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria p. 104. The just Rights of the British Churches cleared p. 108. No evidence that they were under the Roman Patriarchate p. 110. The Cyprian Privilege vindicated from all late Exceptions p. 106. The Patriarchal Rights examined and from them the Pope's Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches at large disputed and overthrown p. 111. Pope Leo's Arguments against the Patriarch of Constantinople held for the Western Churches against him p. 132. The British Bishops present in the Councill of Sardica with those of Gaul p. 135. What Authority granted by them to the Bishop of Rome and how far it extends p. 138. CHAP. IV. Of the Faith and Service of the British Churches The Faith of the British Churches enquired into p. 146. The charge of Arianism considered ibid. The true state of the Arian Controversie from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum and some late Mistakes rectified p. 147. Of several Arian Councils before that of Ariminum p. 164. The British Churches cleared from Arianism after it p. 176. The Number and Poverty of the British Bishops there present ibid. Of the ancient endowment of Churches before Constantine p. 177. The Privileges granted to Churches by him p. 178. The charge of Pelagianism considered p. 180. Pelagius and Caelestius both born in these Islands p. 181. When Aremorica first called Britain ibid. What sort of Monk Pelagius was p. 185. No probability of his returning to Britain p. 186. Of Agricola and others spreading the Pelagian Doctrine in the British Churches p. 187. Germanus and Lupus sent by a Council of Gallican Bishops hither to stop it p. 189. The Testimony of Prosper concerning their being sent by Caelestine considered p. 192. Of Fastidius a British Bishop p. 194. London the chief Metropolis in the Roman Government p. 195. Of Faustus originally a Britain but a Bishop in Gaul and the great esteem he had there p. 197. Of the Semipelagians and Praedestinatians p. 199. Of the Schools of Learning set up here by the means of Germanus and Lupus p. 202. Dubricius and Iltutus the Disciples of St. German and of their Schools p. 203. Of the Monastery of Banchor and the ancient Western Monasteries and their difference as to Learning from the Benedictine Institution p. 205. Of Gildas his Iren whether an University in Britain p. 207. Of the Schools of Learning in the Roman Cities chiefly at Rome Alexandria and Constantinople and the Professours of Arts and Sciences and the publick Libraries there p. 210. Of the Schools of Learning in the Provinces and the Constitution of Gratian to that purpose extending to Britain p. 215. Of the Publick Service of the British Churches the Gallican Offices introduced by St. German p. 216. The Nature of them at large explained and their difference from the Roman Offices both as to the Morning and Communion Service p. 217. The Conformity of the Liturgy of the Church of England to the ancient British Offices and not derived from the Church of Rome as our Dissenters affirm p. 232. CHAP. V. Of the Declension of the British Churches Britain never totally subdued by the Romans p. 239. That was the occasion of the Miseries of the Britains in the Province by the Incursions from beyond the Wall p. 240. Of the
since Athanasius his Synodicon hath been so long lost wherein all their Names were set down who were then present And that Catalogue of them if it were distinct which Epiphanius had seen There being then so much reason to believe the British Bishops present in the Council of Nice we have the more cause to look into the Constitution of the Ecclesiastical Government there settled that so we may better understand the just Rights and Privileges of the British Churches After the Points of Faith and the Time of Easter were determined The Bishops there assembled made twenty Canons for the Government and Discipline of the Church in which they partly re-inforced the Canons of the Council of Arles and partly added new Those that were re-inforced were 1. Against Clergy-mens taking the customary Vsury then allow'd Can. 17. 2. Against their removing from their own Diocese Can. 15. which is here extended to Bishops and such removal is declared null 3. Against Deacons giving the Eucharist to Presbyters and in the presence of Bishops Can. 18. 2. As to Lay Communion The Canon against re-baptizing is re-inforced by Can. 19. wherein those onely who renounced the Trinity are required to be re-baptized and the Canon against being excommunicated in one Church and received into Communion in another Can. 5. whether they be of the Laity of Clergy For the New Canons about Lay Communion they chiefly concerned the Lapsed in times of Persecution As 1. If they were onely Catechumens that for three years they should remain in the lowest Form not being admitted to join in any Prayers of the Church but onely to hear the Lessons read and the Instructions that were there given Can. 14. 2. For those that were baptized and fell voluntarily in the late Persecution of Licinius They were for three years to remain among those who were admitted onely to hear for seven years to continue in the state of Penitents and for two years to join onely with the People in Prayers without being admitted to the Eucharist Can. 11. 3. For those Souldiers who in that Persecution when Licinius made it necessary for them to sacrifice to Heathen Gods if they would continue in their Places first renounced their Employments and after by Bribery or other means got into them again for three years they were to be without joining in the Prayers of the Church and for ten years to remain in the state of Penitents But so as to leave it to the Bishop's Discretion to judge of the sincerity of their Repentance and accordingly to remit some part of the Discipline Can. 12. 4. If persons happen'd to be in danger of Death before they had passed through all the methods of the Churches Discipline they were not to be denyed the Eucharist But if they recover they were to be reduced to the state of Penitents Can. 13. But there was one Canon added of another nature which concerned Vniformity and that is the last of the Genuine Canons It had been an ancient Custome in the Christian Church to forbear kneeling in the publick Devotion on the Lord's days and between Easter and Whitsontide but there were some who refused to observe it And therefore this Canon was made to bring all to an Vniformity in that Practice Can. 20. But there are other Canons which relate more especially to Ecclesiastical Persons and those either concern the Discipline of the Clergy or the Government of the Church 1. For the Discipline of the Clergy they are these 1. None who had voluntarily castrated themselves were to be admitted into Orders Can. 1. For it seems Origen's Fact however condemned by some was as much admired by others and Christianus Lupus thinks the Sect of the Valesii who castrated all came from him But I do not find that Origen did propagate any Sect of this kind And Epiphanius makes one Valens the Authour of it However this great Council thought fit to exclude all such from any Capacity of Church Employments But it is generally supposed and not without reason that the Fact of Leontius a Presbyter of Antioch castrating himself because of his suspicious Conversation with Eustolia gave the particular Occasion to the making this Canon 2. None who were lately Catechumens were to be consecrated Bishops or ordained Presbyters Can. 2. For however it had happen'd well in some extraordinary Cases as of St. Cyprian before and others after this Council as St. Ambrose Nectarius c. yet there was great reason to make a standing Rule against it 3. None of the Clergy were to have any Women to live in the House with them except very near Relations as Mother or Sister c. Can. 3. For some pretending greater Sanctity and therefore declining Marriage yet affected the familiar Conversation of Women who made the same pretence For Budaeus hath well observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Companion of Celibacy So that when two Persons were resolved to continue unmarried and agreed to live together one of these was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the other And Tertullian writing against second Marriages seems to advise this Practice Habe aliquam Vxorem spiritualem adsume de Viduis Ecclesiae c. And it soon grew into a Custome in Africa as appears by St. Cyprian who writes vehemently against it and shews the Danger and Scandal of it And that this Conversation was under a Pretence of Sanctity appears by St. Jerom's words speaking of such persons Sub nominibus pietatis quaerentium suspecta consortia and again Sub nomine Religionis umbra Continentiae But elsewhere he calls it Pestis Agapetarum for it spread like the Plague and was restrained with great Difficulty And at last Laws were added to Canons these being found ineffectual 4. If any persons were admitted loosely and without due Examination into Orders or upon Confession of lawfull Impediments had Hands notwithstanding laid upon them such Ordinations were not to be allowed as Canonical Can. 9. which is more fully expressed in the next Canon as to one Case viz. That if any lapsed persons were ordained whether the Ordainers did it ignorantly or knowingly they were to be deprived Can. 10. 5. If any among the Novatians returned to the Church and subscribed their Consent to the Doctrine and Practice of it their Ordination seems to be allowed Justellus and some others think a new Imposition of hands was required by this Canon If any of the Novatian Clergy were admitted into the Church And so Dionysius Exiguus and the old Latin Interpreter do render it But Balsamon Zonaras and others understand it so as that the former Imposition of hands whereby they were admitted into the Clergy were hereby allow'd If the words of the Canon seem to be ambiguous and their Sense to be taken from the Practice of the Nicene Fathers in a parallel Case then they are rather to be understood of a new Imposition of hands For in the Case of the Meletians
Bishops were of the Western Bishops meddling in their matters ever since the Council of Sardica of which afterwards but they tell them it was no new thing for the Western Bishops to be concerned when things were out of order among them Non Praerogativam say they vindicamus examinis sed Consortium tamen debuit esse communis arbitrii They did not challenge a Power of calling them to account but they thought there ought to be a mutual Correspondence for the general good and therefore they received Maximus his Complaint of his hard usage at Constantinople Will any hence infer that this Council or St. Ambrose had a Superiour Authority over the Patriarch of Constantinople So that neither Consultations Advices References nor any other Act which depends upon the Will of the Parties and are designed onely for a common good can prove any true Patriarchal Power Which being premised let us now see what Evidence is produced from hence for the Pope's patriarchal Power over the Western Churches And the main thing insisted upon is The Bishop of Rome 's appointing Legates in the Western Churches to hear and examine Causes and to report them And of this the first Instance is produced of the several Epistles of Popes to the Bishops of Thessalonica in the Roman Collection Of which a large account hath been already given And the first beginning of this was after the Council of Sardica had out of a Pique to the Eastern Bishops and Jealousie of the Emperour allow'd the Bishop of Rome the Liberty of granting a re-hearing of Causes in the several Provinces which was the pretence of sending Legates into them And this was the first considerable step that was made towards the advancing the Pope's power over the Western Churches For a present Doctour of the Sorbon confesseth that in the space of 347 years i. e. to the Sardican Council No one Instance can be produced of any Cause wherein Bishops were concerned that was ever brought to Rome by the Bishops that were the Iudges of it But if the Pope's Patriarchal Power had been known before it had been a regular way of proceeding from the Bishops in Provincial Synods to the Patriarch And withall he saith before that Council no instance can be produced of any Iudges Delegates for the review of Iudgment passed in provincial Synods And whatever Privilege or Authority was granted by the Council of Sardica to the Bishop of Rome was wholly new and had no Tradition of the Church to justifie it And was not then received either in the Eastern or Western Churches So that all the Pleas of a Patriarchal Power as to the Bishop of Rome with respect to greater Causes must fall very much short of the Council of Nice As to the Instance of Marcianus of Arles that hath been answered already And as to the Deposition of Bishops in England by the Pope's authority in later times it is of no importance since we do not deny the matter of Fact as to the Pope's Vsurpations But we say they can never justifie the exercise of a Patriarchal Power over these Churches by the Rules established in the Council of Nice But it is said That the Council of Arles before that of Nice attributes to the Bishop of Rome Majores Dioceses i. e. according to De Marca all the Western Churches But in answer to this I have already shew'd how far the Western Bishops at Arles were from owning the Pope's Patriarchal Power over them because they do not so much as desire his Confirmation of what had passed in Council But onely send the Canons to him to publish them But our Authour and Christianus Lupus say that such is the Patriarch's Authority That all Acts of Bishops in Council are in themselves invalid without his Sentence which onely gives Life and Vigour to them As they prove by the Patriarch of Alexandria But if the Bishop of Rome were then owned to be Patriarch over seven or eight Dioceses of the West according to De Marca's exposition how came they to sit and make Canons without the least mention of his Authority So that either they must deny him to be Patriarch or they must say he was affronted in the highest manner by the Western Bishops there assembled But as to the expression of Majores Dioceses it is very questionable whether in the time of the Council of Arles the distribution of the Empire by Constantine into Dioceses were then made and it seems probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice Dioceses not being mentioned there but onely Provinces And if so this Place must be corrupt in that expression as it is most certain it is in others And it is hard to lay so great weight on a place that makes no entire sense But allowing the expression genuine it implies no more than that the Bishop of Rome had then more Extensive Dioceses than other Western Bishops Which is not denied since even then he had several Provinces under his immediate Government which no other Western Bishop had St. Basil's calling the Bishop of Rome Chief of the Western Bishops implies nothing but the dignity of his See and not any Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches It must be a degree of more than usual subtilty to infer Damasus his Patriarchal Power over the West because St. Jerome joins Damasus and the West together as he doth Peter and Egypt Therefore Damasus had the same Power over the West which Peter had over Egypt It seems St. Jerome's language about the different Hypostases did not agree with what was used in the Syrian Churches and therefore some charged him with false Doctrine he pleads for himself that the Churches of Egypt and the West spake as he did and they were known then neither to favour Arianism nor Sabellianism And to make his Allegation more particular he mentions the names of the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome But a Cause extremely wants Arguments which must be supported by such as these If St. Augustine makes Innocent to preside in the Western Church he onely thereby shews the Order and Dignity of the Roman See but he doth not own any Subjection of the Western Churches to his Power since no Church did more vehemently withstand the Bishoâ— of Rome's Incroachments than the Churches of Africa did in St. Augustine's time As is notorious in the business of Appeals which transaction is a demonstration against his Patriarchal Power over the African Churches And the Bishop of Rome never insisted on a Patriarchal Right but on the Nicene Canons wherein they were shamefully baffled It cannot be denied that Pope Innocent in his Epistle to Decentius Eugubinus would bring the Western Churches to follow the Roman Traditions upon this pretence That the Churches of Italy Gaul Spain Africa Sicily and the Islands lying between were first instituted either by such as were sent by St. Peter or his
till the Bishop of Rome had given Sentence in it But then Can. 5. it is said That if the Cause be thought fit to be re-heard Letters are to be sent from him to the neighbour Bishops to hear and examine it But if this do not satisfie he may doe as he sees cause Which I take to be the full meaning of Can. 5. And this is the whole Power which the Council of Sardica gives to the Bishop of Rome Concerning which we are to observe 1. That it was a new thing for if it had been known before that the supreme Judgment in Ecclesiastical Causes lay in the Bishop of Rome These Canons had been idle and impertinent And there is no colour in Antiquity for any such judicial Power in the Bishop of Rome as to re-hearing of causes of deposed Bishops before these Canons of Sardica So that Petrus de Marca was in the right when he made these the foundation of the Pope's Power And if the Right of Appeal be a necessary consequent from the Pope's Supremacy Then the non-usage of this practice before will overthrow the claim of Supremacy In extraordinary Cases the great Bishops of the Church were wont to be advised with as St. Cyprian as well as the Bishop of Rome in the Cases of Basilides and Marcianus But if such Instances prove a right of Appeals they will doe it as much for the Bishop of Carthage as of Rome But there was no standing Authority peculiar to the Bishop of Rome given or allow'd before this Council of Sardica And the learned Publisher of Leo's Works hath lately proved at large That no one Appeal was ever made from the Churches of Gaul from the beginning of Christianity there to the Controversie between Leo and Hilary of Arles long after the Council of Sardica But such an Authority being given by a particular Council upon present Circumstances as appears by mentioning Julius Bishop of Rome cannot be binding to posterity when that limited Authority is carried so much farther as to be challenged for an absolute and supreme Power founded upon a Divine Right and not upon the Act of the Council For herein the difference is so great that one can give no colour or pretence for the other 2. That this doth not place the Right of Appeals in the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church But onely transfers the Right of granting a re-hearing from the Emperour to the Bishop of Rome And whether they could doe that or not is a great Question But in all probability Constantius his openly favouring the Arian Party was the occasion of it 3. That this can never justifie the drawing of Causes to Rome by way of Appeal because the Cause is still to be heard in the Province by the neighbour Bishops who are to hear and examine all Parties and to give Iudgment therein 4. That the Council of Sardica it self took upon it to judge over again a Cause which had been judged by the Bishop of Rome viz. The Cause of Athanasius and his Brethren Which utterly overthrows any Opinion in them That the supreme Right of Judicature was lodged in the Bishop of Rome 5. That the Sardican Council cannot be justified by the Rules of the Church in receiving Marcellus into Communion For not onely the Eastern Bishops in their Synodical Epistle say That he was condemned for Heresie by the Council at Constantinople in Constantine 's time and that Protogenes of Sardica and others of the Council had subscribed to his Condemnation But Athanasius himself afterwards condemned him And St. Basil blames the Church of Rome for admitting him into Communion And Baronius confesses that this brought a great disreputation upon this Council viz. the absolving one condemned for Heresie both before and after that Absolution 6. That the Decrees of this Council were not universally received as is most evident by the known Contest between the Bishops of Rome and Africa about Appeals If these Canons had been then received in the Church it is incredible that they should be so soon forgotten in the African Churches For there were but two Bishops of Carthage Restitutus and Genethlius between Gratus and Aurelius Christianus Lupus professes he can give no account of it But the plain and true account is this There was a Design for a General Council But the Eastern and Western Bishops parting so soon there was no regard had by the whole Church to what was done by one side or the other And so little notice was taken of their Proceedings that St. Augustine knew of no other than the Council of the Eastern Bishops and even Hilary himself makes their Confession of Faith to be done by the Sardican Council And the calling of Councils was become so common then upon the Arian Controversies And the Deposition of Bishops of one side and the other were so frequent that the remoter Churches very little concerned themselves in what passed amongst them Thence the Acts of most of those Councils are wholly lost as at Milan Sirmium Arles Beziers c. onely what is preserved in the Fragments of Hilary and the Collections of Athanasius who gathered many things for his own vindication But as to these Canons they had been utterly forgotten if the See of Rome had not been concerned to preserve them But the Sardican Council having so little Reputation in the World The Bishops of that See endeavoured to obtrude them on the World as the Nicene Canons Which was so inexcusable a piece of Ignorance or Forgery that all the Tricks and Devices of the Advocates of that See have never been able to defend CHAP. IV. Of the Faith and Service of the British Churches THE Faith of the British Churches enquired into The Charge of Arianism considered The true State of the Arian Controversie from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum Some late Mistakes rectified Of several Arian Councils before that of Ariminum The British Churches cleared from Arianism after it The Number and Poverty of the British Bishops there present Of the ancient endowment of Churches before Constantine The Privileges granted to Churches by him The Charge of Pelagianism considered Pelagius and Celestius both born in these Islands When Aremorica first called Britain What sort of Monk Pelagius was No probability of his returning to Britain Of Agricola and others spreading the Pelagian Doctrine in the British Churches Germanus and Lupus sent by a Council of Gallican Bishops hither to stop it The Testimony of Prosper concerning their being sent by Coelestine consider'd Of Fastidius a British Bishop London the chief Metropolis in the Roman Government Of Faustus originally a Britain But a Bishop in Gaul The great esteem he was in Of the Semipelagians and Praedestinatians Of the Schools of Learning set up here by the means of Germanus and Lupus Dubricius and Iltutus the Disciples of St. German The number of their Scholars and places of their Schools Of the Monastery of
Banchor and the ancient Western Monasteries and their difference as to Learning from the Benedictine Institution Of Gildas his Iren whether an Vniversity in Britain Of the Schools of Learning in the Roman Cities chiefly at Rome Alexandria and Constantinople and the Professours of Arts and Sciences and the publick Libraries there Of the Schools of Learning in the Provinces and the Constitution of Gratian to that purpose extending to Britain Of the publick Service of the British Churches The Gallican Offices introduced by St. German The Nature of them at large explained and their Difference from the Roman Offices both as to the Morning and Communion Service The Conformity of the Liturgy of the Church of England to the ancient British Offices and not derived from the Church of Rome as our Dissenters affirm THE Succession of the British Churches being thus deduced from their original to the times of the Christian Emperours it will be necessary to give an account of the Faith and Service which were then received by them And it is so much the more necessary to enquire into the Faith of the British Churches because they are charged with two remarkable Heresies of those times viz. Arianism and Pelagianism and by no less Authority than that of Gildas and Bede The Charge of Arianism is grounded upon the universal spreading of that Heresie over the World as Bede expresses it and therefore to shew how far the British Churches were concerned we must search into the History of that Heresie from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum where the British Bishops were present It is confidently affirmed by a late Writer That the Arian Faction was wholly supprest by the Nicene Council and all the Troubles that were made after that were raised by the Eusebians who were as forward as any to anathematize the Arians and all the Persecutions were raised by them under a Pretence of Prudence and Moderation That they never in the least appear'd after the Council of Nice in behalf of the Arian Doctrine but their whole fury was bent against the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Athanasius That in the times of Constantius and Constans the Cause of Arius was wholly laid aside by both Parties and the onely Contest was about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Eusebian Cause was not to restore Arianism but to piece up the Peace of the Church by comprehending all in one Communion or by mutual forbearance But if it be made appear that the Arian Faction was still busie and active after the Nicene Council that the Contest about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was with a design to overthrow the Nicene Faith that the Eusebians great business was if possible to restore Arianism then it will follow that some Mens hatred of Prudence and Moderation is beyond their skill and judgment in the History of the Church and the making out of these things will clear the History of Arianism to the Council of Ariminum But before I come to the Evidence arising from the Authentick Records of the Church it will not be unpleasant to observe that this very Writer is so great an Enemy to the design of Reconcilers that it is hardly possible even in this matter to reconcile him to himself For he tells us that the most considerable Eusebians in the Western Churches viz. Valens Ursacius and their Associates had been secret Arians all along that the word Substance was left out of the third Sirmian Creed to please Valens and his Party who being emboldned by this Creed whereby they had at length shaken off all the Clogs that had been hitherto fasten'd on them to hinder their return to Arianism moved at the Council at Ariminum that all former Creeds might be abolished and the Sirmian Creed be established for ever Doth this consist with the Arian Factions being totally supprest by the Council of Nice and none ever appearing in behalf of the Arian Doctrine after and the Eusebians never moving for restoring Arianism but onely for a sort of Comprehension and Toleration In another place he saith the Eusebians endeavoured to supplant the Nicene Faith though they durst not disown it And was the Arian Faction then totally supprest while the Eusebians remained These are the Men whom he calls the old Eusebian Knaves And for the Acacians he saith when they had got the Mastery they put off all disguise and declared for Arianism Is it possible for the same person to say that after the Nicene Council they never appeared in behalf of the Arian Doctrine in the Eastern and Western Churches and yet When they put off their disguise they declared for Arianism What is this but appearing openly and plainly for the Arian Doctrine And if we believe so good an Authour as himself their Contest after the Council of Nice was so far from being merely about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he frequently saith that Controversie did take in the whole Merits of the Cause as will appear from his own words in several places As when he speaks of the Council of Nice he saith The whole Controversie was reduced to the word Consubstantial which the Eusebians at first refused to admit as being no Scripture word but without its admission nothing else would satisfie the Council and good reason they had for it because to part with that word after the Controversie was once raised would have been to give up the Cause for it was unavoidable that if the Son were not of the same substance with the Father he must have been made out of the same common and created substance with all other Creatures and therefore when the Scriptures give him a greater Dignity of Nature than to any created Being they thereby make him of the same uncreated Substance with the Father so that they plainly assert his Consubstantiality though they use not the word But when the Truth itself was denied by the Arian Hereticks and the Son of God thrust down into the rank of created Beings and defined to be a Creature made of nothing it was time for the Church to stop this Heresie by such a Test as would admit of no Prevarication which was effectually done by this word and as cunning and shuffling as the Arians were they were never able to swallow or chew it and therefore it was but a weak part of the Eusebians to shew so much zeal against the word when they professed to allow the thing For if our Saviour were not a mere Creature he must be of the same uncreated substance with the Father because there is no middle between created and uncreated Substance so that whoever denied the Consubstantiality could not avoid the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus which yet the Arians themselves professed to defie for if he were a mere Creature it is no matter how soon or how late he was created And therefore it is not be imagined that the
Facundus Hermianensis and St. Augustine And one of them blames the Pope for too great easiness and the other for too great hastiness and doth think that the business of Appeals then contested by the African Bishops stuck in the Pope's stomach which made him willing to take this Occasion to rebuke them But the African Fathers proceeding smartly against the Pelagians notwithstanding Zosimus his Letter made him to comply too in condemning both Coelestius and Pelagius notwithstanding his former Epistle So that upon the whole matter Pelagius and Coelestius by their own natural Wit had in all probability been too hard for a whole Succession of Popes Innocentius Zosimus and Xystus had not the African Fathers interposed and freely told them what the true Doctrine of the Church was For they offer'd to subscribe Innocentius his Epistles Zosimus was very well satisfied and thought them peevish and unreasonable that were not Xystus was their Patron at Rome before the African Bishops appear'd so resolute in the Cause And had it not been for them for all that I can see Pelagianism had spread with the Approbation of the Roman See But notwithstanding it was at last condemned at Rome and Imperial Constitutions published against it Yet it found a Way over into the British Churches by the means of one Agricola the Son of Severianus a Pelagian Bishop as Prosper informs us It appears by the Rescript of Valentinian III. Anno Dom. 425. There were several Pelagian Bishops in Gaul And the severe Execution of the Edict there was probably the occasion of this Agricola's coming over hither and spreading that Doctrine here Bale and Pits run into many Mistakes about this Agricola 1. They call him Leporius Agricola and then confound the two Stories of Leporius and Agricola together For after his Preaching Pelagianism they mention his Conversion and Recantation by St. Augustine's means Now there was one Leporius of whom Cassian and Gennadius speak that was a Disciple of Pelagius who was driven out of Gaul by Proculus Bishop of Marseilles and Cylinnius of Forum Julii and so went into Africa where being convinced by St. Augustine he published his Recantation extant in Sirmondus his Gallican Councils and elsewhere And Aurelius Augustinus and Florentius gave an account of it to the Bishops of Provence But there is no Pelagian errour there mention'd but something of Nestorianism And by Leontius succeeding Cylinnius in his See before Anno Dom. 420. It follows that Leporius recanted before the Pelagian Heresie was spread into these Parts And therefore this Leporius could have nothing to doe in it Besides it seems probable that this Leporius after his Recantation continued in Africa For one Leporius a Presbyter is mention'd in the Election of Eradius in the See of Hippo Anno Dom. 426. and St. Augustine saith he was a Stranger 2. Bale makes him the Son of Severus Sulpicius a Pelagian Priest in Britain But Prosper and Bede say he was the Son of Severianus a Bishop It is true Gennadius charges Severus Sulpicius with Pelagianism in his old Age But if he died as the Sammarthani say Anno Dom. 410. Pelagianism was not known to the World then And Guibertus Abbas frees him from the imputation of it But this Severus never was a Bishop and therefore could not be the Father of Agricola 3. They both make him a Monk of Banghor which had need to have been a large Place to receive all that they send thither 4. They say he did write against one Timotheus a British Heretick two Books saith Bale but one saith Pits Which arises from a Mistake of Sigebert's Copy where Britannia is put for Bithynia as our Learned Archbishop Vsher hath observed And Pits seemed to have some mistrust of this for he doth not affirm his spreading his Doctrine in Britain as the other doth But Pelagianism was not spread here by Agricola alone for Prosper speaking of Celestine's care to root it out of Britain he saith It had taken possession here by the Enemies of God's Grace Solum suae originis occupantes returning to the Soil from whence they sprang So that there were more than one and those Britains who being infected with that Heresie themselves did return hither to infect others From hence some have thought that Coelestius at least if not Pelagius did come hither being driven out of Italy by Celestine as Prosper relates which Jansenius thought not improbable But it now appears by the Commonitorium of Marius Mercator delivered to Theodosius in the Consulship of Dionysius and Florentius i. e. Anno Domini 429. That Coelestius did return into the East and was banished from Constantinople by the Emperour's Edict From whence it follows That Coelestius came not into these Parts nor do we reade what became of him after the Council of Ephesus wherein he was condemned by 275 Bishops as the same Marius Mercator shews Whose account of these things being a Person of that time and active in this Cause hath clear'd several things which were much in the dark before But whosoever they were who brought Pelagianism hither it appears by Prosper that they were Britains and had too great Success here by the spreading of Pelagianism But care was taken by the sounder part to get it out and therefore distrusting their own sufficiency to deal with such subtile Adversaries they send for help saith Bede to the Bishops of Gaul Who called a great Council and unanimously chose Germanus and Lupus two Bishops of great Reputation to come over on purpose They readily undertook the Employment and performed it with great Success as it is at large related by Constantius and Bede It is affirmed by a late Authour That the Acts of the Council which sent Germanus and Lupus are still in being with the Instructions given them at their coming hither If ever they come to light they will very much clear this intricate part of the History of the British Churches For there is now fifteen years difference among Writers about the time of their coming Prosper saith it was Anno Dom. 429. But Sigebert as Sirmondus observes places it Anno Dom. 446. To which he thinks Bede's Relation doth best agree And Sirmondus himself puts it that year Aetius III. and Symmachus were Consuls in the 21 of Valentinian III. and 5 of Leo I. If this Computation of the time be true then it is impossible that St. German should be sent hither by Celestine as Prosper affirms For Xystus was Pope after Celestine Anno Dom. 432. And it is incredible That if he had been sent hither by Commission from him Neither Constantius in his Life of St. German who lived so near that time Nor the Authour of the Life of St. Lupus Trecensis Nor Bede should take any notice of it But they all mention the particular Application made by the Britains to the Gallican Bishops for their Assistance and
omnibus Sanctis c. Ideo precor B. Mariam c. Omnes Sanctos c. Orare pro me ad Dominum nostrum For all the ancient Forms of Confession were onely to God himself And so they continued for 1000 years after Christ About which time Menardus saith The several ancient Missals before mention'd do bear Date The Common Ritualists attribute the present Form to Pontianus or Damasus but without any Authority saith Card. Bona. The first mention I can find of Confession to Saints is that which he sets down out of the Codex Chisii Which being in the Lombard Character he ghesses to have been before the end of the tenth Century and with this Micrologus agrees The Authour whereof lived towards the end of the eleventh Century So that this part of the Roman Missal was neither in the Gregorian nor Gallican Offices being of a much later Original 2. The Gallican Office had peculiar Prefaces and Collects different from the Roman By the Prefaces are understood that part of the Service which immediately goes before the Consecration and is called in the Gallican Office Contestatio in the Gothick Illatio shewing not onely the general Fitness for us at all times to give thanks to God But the particular Reason of it with respect to the Day Of which kind of Prefaces the Roman Church allow'd but nine which were attributed to Pope Gelasius But Card. Bona saith That number is to be found onely in the Missals after Anno Dom. 1200. For before there were many more as appears by Gregory's Sacramentary But how they came to be left out afterwards in the Roman Missal is a Mystery of which none of the Ritualists give any tolerable account However this is enough to shew their Ignorance when they so confidently attributed the proper Prefaces to Gelasius As though Gregory would have slighted so much the Decree of his Predecessours as to have appointed so many more if Gelasius had limited the number to Nine But however it was in the Roman Church the Gallican Church had peculiar Prefaces for all solemn Occasions Of which Card. Bona hath produced three remarkable Instances two out of the former ancient MS. of Nine hundred Years old which formerly belong'd to Petavius a Senatour of Paris And the third out of a Copy of the Palatine Library translated to the Vatican of the same Age. From these excellent Monuments of Antiquity compared together we may in great measure understand the true Order and Method of the Communion Service of that time both in the Gallican and British Churches especially on Saint's-days For no other Offices are preserved or at least made known to the World And on those Occasions the Service began with particular Collects for the Day Then follow'd the Commemoration out of the Diptychs Then another Collect Post nomina After which the Collect ad Pacem Then the particular Prefaces relating to the Saint whose memory was celebrated with a larger account of his good Actions than is used in any of the Gregorian Prefaces expressed in a devout and pathetical manner Which ended in the Trisagion And was continued by another Collect to the Consecration After which follow'd a devout Prayer for benefit by the Holy Sacrament And after another Collect for the occasion follow'd the Lord's-prayer with a Conclusion for the Day And the whole Service was concluded with a Benediction of the People a Collect after the Eucharist and a short Thanksgiving This is a just and true Account from these authentick Offices of the Publick Service then used in the British Churches following the Gallican from the time of St. German whose particular Office is one of those preserved by Card. Bona And in the peculiar Preface his great Zeal is mention'd in Preaching and going up and down doing good in Gaul Italy and Britain for thirty years together 3. As to the Canon of the Mass as it is called in the Church of Rome or the Prayer of Consecration used in the Church of Rome and magnified as Apostolical St. Gregory affirms as plainly as he well could That it was first composed by a private Person and was not of Apostolical Tradition Who that Scholar was it is now impossible to know and not at all material since it is apparent that it was received into the publick Vse of the Church Some small additions they say were made to it by several Popes till Gregory's time who according to the Ritualists shut up this Canon But I see no reason to believe that Consecration of the Eucharist was at that time performed in other Churches by the words of this Canon For setting aside the Eastern Churches which had Forms of their own The African Churches did not follow the Roman Form For although Optatus mentions illud legitimum in Sacramentorum mysterio which implies that there was a certain Form to be observed yet this doth not at all prove that it was the Roman Canon And it evidently appears that it was not by the Testimonies of Marius Victorinus and Fulgentius two African Writers who both mention some Prayers used in the Eucharist which are not in the Roman Canon and those not Prefatory but such as do relate to the main parts of the Canon It is true the Writer about the Sacraments under St. Ambrose's name for Card. Bona will not allow him to be St. Ambrose doth produce several Expressions in the Form of Consecration which agree with the Roman Canon But then he adds a very considerable Passage which I hardly believe those who are most zealous for the Roman Canon will say was ever part of it Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi And in the Gallican Church the Form of Consecration as appears by the Office of Saint German was nothing else but repeating the Words of Institution after the Conclusion of the Irisagion and Gloria in Excelsis After which follow'd a Prayer for God's Holy Word and Spirit to descend upon the Oblation they made That it might be a spiritual Sacrifice well pleasing to God And that God by the Bloud of Christ would with his own Right Hand defend those his Sacraments And then follow'd the Lord's Prayer and other Collects This Prayer after Consecration Card. Bona knows not what to make of as seeming wholly inconsistent with Transubstantiation for if that Doctrine had been then believed and by Consecration the Elements turn'd into the Body of Christ To what purpose doth the Church then pray for the Word and Spirit to descend upon the Elements when they are actually united already But he makes a very hard shift to interpret these Words not of a descent on the Elements but on the Hearts of the Communicants But the Words are Descendat super haec quae tibi offerimus Verbum tuum Sanctum Which are so plain and evident concerning the Elements that
confined to the Corners of the Land For our Historians say That the Saxons left not the Face of Christianity whereever they did prevail This is a very sad Subject which ought not to be passed over without that Reflexion which St. Paul made on the Church of the Jews and Gentiles Behold the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off It remains onely that we consider the Liberty or Independency of the British Churches of which we can have no greater Proof than from the Carriage of the British Bishops towards Augustin the Monk when he came with full power from the Pope to require Subjection from them And this material point relating to the British Churches I shall endeavour to clear from all the Objections which have been made against it In order thereto we are to understand That Augustin the Monk by virtue of the Pope's Authority did challenge a Superiority over the Bishops of the British Churches which appears not onely by Gregory's Answer to his Interrogations but by the Scheme of the Ecclesiastical Government here which Gregory sent to him after he had a fair prospect of the Conversion of the Saxons which was at the same time that he sent Mellitus Justus Paulinus and Rufinianus with the Archiepiscopal Pall to him There he declares that there were to be two Archbishops Sees one at London which out of honour to Ethelbert or Augustin was fixed at Canterbury or rather by Ethelbert's own Authority and the other at York which had been a Metropolitan See in the British times and both these Archbishops were to have twelve Suffragan Bishops under them The Bishop of London was to be consecrated by his own Synod and to receive the Pall from the Pope But Augustin was to appoint the first Bishop of York who was to yield Subjection to him for his time but afterwards the Sees were to be Independent on each other But by all this it should seem that he had Authority given him onely over those Bishops who were consecrated by him And the Archbishop of York what then becomes of those Bishops in Britain who were Consecrated by neither and such they knew there were Concerning these Gregory gives a plain Answer That they were all to be subject to the Authority of Augustine and to govern themselves in Life and Doctrine and Church Offices according to his Direction Augustine being furnished with such full Powers as he thought desires a Meeting with the British Bishops at a place called Augustinsac as Bede saith in the Confines of the Wiccii and the West Saxons Where this place was is very uncertain and not at all material Camden could find nothing like it and the Conjectures of others since have no great probability either as to Austric or Haustake or Ossuntree but at this place the British Bishops gave Augustine a Meeting where the first thing proposed by him was That they would embrace the Vnity of the Catholick Church and then join with them in Preaching to the Gentiles for saith he they did many things repugnant to the Vnity of the Church Which was in plain terms to charge them with Schism and the Terms of Communion offer'd did imply Submission to the Church of Rome and by consequence to his Authority over them But the utmost that could be obtained from them was onely that they would take farther advice and give another Meeting with a greater Number And then were present Seven Bishops of the Britains and many Learned Men chiefly of the Monastery of Banchor where Dinoth was then Abbat And the Result of this Meeting was That they utterly refused Submission to the Church of Rome or to Augustine as Archbishop over them And for the Account of this we are beholding to Bede whose Authority is liable to no exception in this matter But against this plain Matter of Fact there have been three Objections made which must be removed 1. That Augustine did not require Subjection from the British Bishops but onely treated with them about other matters in difference between them 2. That their refusing Subjection to the Bishop of Rome depends upon the Credit of a Spurious British MS. lately invented and brought into light as the Answer of Dinoth 3. That if they did refuse Subjection to the Pope it was Schismatical Obstinacy in them and contrary to the former Sense of the British Church To all these I shall give a clear and full Answer 1. As to the matter of their Conference it cannot be denied that other things were started as about the Paschal Controversie and some Rites of Baptism c. but this was the main point which Augustine did not in plain Terms insist upon because it would look too invidiously to require Subjection to himself but he cunningly insinuates it under the Name of Ecclesiastical Vnity For I dare appeal to any Man 's common sense whether upon the Principles of the Church of Rome the British Bishops complying in other things and rejecting the Pope's Authority would have been thought sufficient If so then Submission to the Pope is no necessary term of Communion and Men may be in a very safe Condition without it But if it were necessary then Augustine must imply it within the terms of Catholick Peace and Ecclesiastical Vnity It is therefore ridiculous in Alford and Cressy and such Writers to say That Augustine did not insist upon it For it is to charge him with Ignorance or Stupidity that he should leave out so necessary an Article of Communion And yet Gregory had so great an opinion of him as to make him the Directour of the British Churches And therefore it cannot be supposed that he should offer terms of Communion without requiring Submission to the Pope's Authority if those were in a state of Schism who denied it But it is said That in the Conclusion of the second Meeting Augustine did not insist upon nor so much as mention any subjection to him from the British Churches but onely required Compliance in three Points viz. the time of the Paschal Solemnity agreeable with the Church of Rome following the Roman Customes in Baptism and joining with them in Preaching to the Saxons and upon these they brake up the Meeting To which I Answer That these things were required by Augustin not as Conditions of Brotherly Communion but as the Marks of Subjection to his Authority which appears from Bede's own Words Si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis c. Which Cressy very unfaithfully renders If they would conform in three points onely Whereas the meaning is If they would own his Authority in those three things and therefore the British Bishops answered very appositely when they said we will neither doe the things nor submit to you as Archbishop over us Why should they deny Subjection if it had not been required of them Which shews