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
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
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
Eusebians should really believe the Consubstantiality of the Son and yet so vehemently oppose the use of the word Would any Men of common sense who did believe the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to be turned into the very Body and Bloud of Christ set themselves with all their force and interest to overthrow the term of Transubstantiation So if the Eusebians did believe the Son of the same Substance with the Father to what purpose should they caball so much as they did all the Reign of Constantius to lay aside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If it be said It was by way of Comprehension to take in dissenting Parties then it is plain they were really dissenting Parties still and consequently did not differ onely about the Vse of a word but about the Substance of the Doctrine And as those who do believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation are for the Vse of the word and those who believe it not would not have the word imposed so it was in all the Councils under Constantius those who chiefly opposed the word Consubstantial did it because they liked not the Doctrine and those who contended for it did it because they knew the Doctrine was aimed at under the Pretence of laying aside an unscriptural word And the same Author tells us from St. Hilary the Consequence of shutting out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was that it must be decreed either that the Son was a Creature made out of nothing or out of another substance uncreated and distinct from the Divine Nature And when he gives an account of the Council of Seleucia held at the same time with that of Ariminum he saith They brake into two Parties of the Acacians who defied the Council of Nice and all its Decrees and the old Eusebians who pretended to stick onely at the word Consubstantial and upon their Appeal to the Emperour there are these two things remarkable 1. That those who were for laying aside all discriminating words were Arians of the highest sort viz. Aëtians who held the Blasphemy of Dissimilitude 2. That those who were for retaining the word Substance went on this Ground That if God the Son exist neither from nothing nor from any other substance then he must be of the same substance with the Father Which was the very Argument he saith approved by the Council of Nice for settling the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is a sufficient Argument to me that those who from the Council of Nice did chiefly oppose that word did it with a Design to overthrow the Doctrine of the Son 's being of the same substance with the Father Which will more fully appear by a brief deduction of the Arian History from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum not from modern Collections but from the best Writers about that time The Arian Faction finding themselves so much overvoted in the Council of Nice that they despaired to carry any thing there by fair means betook themselves to fraudulent Arts hoping thereby to hinder either the passing or the executing any Decree against them At first they endeavoured to blind and deceive the Council by seeming to profess the Orthodox Faith but they made use of such ambiguous Forms of words as might serve their ends by couching an Heretical Sense under a fair appearance of joining in the same Faith with the rest This being discovered by the more sagacious Defenders of the old Christian Faith they at length fixed upon the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the onely effectual Test to discriminate the Arians from others and when they had used their utmost skill and endeavour to keep this Test from passing and found they could not prevail they bethought themselves of another way to keep the Faction alive although the Heresie might seem at present to be totally supprest And that was by suffering Arius and his two fast Friends Secundus and Theonas to be condemned by the Council and to be banished by the Emperour but the chief Heads of the Faction Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice with others resolved upon an Expedient to clear themselves and yet to keep up the Faction which was by subscribing the Confession of Faith and denying to anathematize Arius and his Followers This is plain from the Epistle of Eusebius and Theognis extant in Socrates and Sozomen wherein they own their Subscription to the Decree of Faith but declare That they utterly refused to subscribe the Anathema against Arius and his Adherents because they did not believe them guilty of the Heresie charged upon them as they found both by Writing and Conversation with them This Epistle was written by them during their Banishment in order to their return to their Bishopricks from which they had been driven by Constantine's own Order and the Reason of it is given is his Epistle to the Church of Nicomedia viz. for communicating with the Arians whom he had caused to be removed from Alexandria for their Heresie and Disturbance of the Peace of the Church there and the same Account is given of it in the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt extant in Athanasius Which shews their Resolution to keep up the Faction in spite of the Council of Nice For if they had any regard to the Decree there past they would not have presumed to have communicated with those who were expresly anathematized by the Council and had very hardly escaped it themselves as Constantine there upbraids them in his Epistle But upon this notorious Contempt they were deposed from their Bishopricks and sent into Banishment where they grew very uneasie and resolved upon any Terms to be restored knowing that if they continued there the Faction was indeed in Danger to be wholly supprest and for that end they wrote that submissive Letter to the leading Bishops promising an universal Compliance upon their Restauration And the main ground they built their Hopes upon was because Arius himself upon his submission was recalled as they declare in the end of that Epistle Which Intrigue was carried on by a secret Arian Chaplain to Constantia the Emperour's Sister recommended to the Emperour at her Death who being received into Favour whisper'd into his Ear very kind things concerning Arius and his Adherents adding that they were unjustly banished and that the whole Controversie was nothing but a Pique which the Bishop of Alexandria had taken against one of his Presbyters for having more Wit and Reputation than himself and that it would become Constantine in point of Honour and Justice to recall Arius and to have the whole matter examined over again Upon this Arius is sent for and bid by the Emperour to set down his Confession of Faith plainly and honestly which is extant in the Ecclesiastical Historians under the Name of Arius and Euzoius and was framed in such a specious manner as made the Emperour believe that Arius was indeed of
Substance with the Father after the same manner that the Son of Man is For as he is the Son so he is the Word and Wisedom of the Father and the internal Word or Conception in Man is no divisible part of himself but lest the Notion of Word should seem to destroy his real Subsistence therefore the Notion of Son is added in Scripture to that of Word that we may know him to be a living Word and substantial Wisedom So that when we say the Son is consubstantial to the Father we understand it not by way of Division as among Bodies but abstracting our Minds from all corporeal things we attribute this to the Son of God in a way agreeing to the Divine Nature and mean by it that he is not produced by his Will as the Creatures are nor merely his Son by Adoption but that he is the true Eternal Son of God by such an emanation as Splendour from Light or Water from the Fountain And therefore when they interpreted the term Son in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature he wonders they should stick so much at the word Consubstantial which was capable of the same Interpretation The second Objection was That those who condemned the Samosatenian Heresie rejected the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In answer to this Athanasius shews that the word was so much used and allowed in the Christian Church before the Samosatenian Heresie was heard of that when Dionysius of Alexandria was accused to Dionysius of Rome for rejecting it the Council thereupon was so much concerned that the Bishop of Rome wrote their sense to the Bishop of Alexandria about it he returns an Answer wherein he owns all the sense contained under it as appears by his Epistle in Athanasius but for those who opposed Paulus Samosatenus he saith they took the Word in a corporeal sense as if it implied a distinct Substance from the Father But saith he those who condemned the Arians saw farther into this matter considering that it ought not to be applied to the Divine Nature as it is to corporeal Substances and the Son of God not being a Creature but begotten of the Substance of the Father therefore with great Reason they used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being most proper to express the Sense of the Christian Church against the Arian Heresie as he shews there at large From these passages of Athanasius it appears that there was a third Party then in the Church distinct from the Nicenists and the Eusebians The former would by no means yield to any relaxation of the Council of Nice because they evidently saw that this Design was carried on by those who made it their business under that pretence to introduce Arianism who were the Eusebians But there were others extremely concerned for the Peace of the Church and on that account were willing to let go the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoping the Doctrine might be secured by other expressions and this facility of theirs gave the greatest advantage to the Eusebian Party in all their Councils who continually almost overreached and outwitted them under the pretence of Accommodation For by this Artifice they gained their Votes and when they had them made use of them merely to serve their own Designs as appears by the Account the Historians give of the management of the Arian Affairs under the Reign of Constantius Socrates saith that immediately after the death of Constantine Eusebius and Theognis the Heads of the Arian Faction apprehended it now to be a convenient season for them to throw down the Nicene Faith and to set up Arianism and to this purpose they endeavoured to hinder Athanasius from returning to Alexandria But first they gained the Eunuchs and Court-favorites then the Wife of Constantius himself to embrace Arianism and so the Controversie of a sudden spread into the Court Camp Cities and all Places of the East for the Western Churches continued quiet during the Reign of Constans to whose share all the Western Provinces in a short time fell After the Death of Alexander Bishop of Constantinople the two Parties openly divided in the Choice of a Successour the one chusing Paulus and the Arians Macedonius this nettled Constantius who coming to Constantinople calls a Council of Arian Bishops who depose Paulus and set up Eusebius of Nicomedia who presently falls to work going with the Emperour to Antioch where under the pretence of a Dedication as is observed in the precedent Chapter a Council of ninety Bishops was assembled but the Design was saith Socrates to overthrow the Nicene Faith Here they made some Canons to ensnare Athanasius of which before As to the matter of Faith they durst not openly propose the nulling the Council of Nice but they gained this great Point That the Matters of Faith might be discussed after it and so they set open the Gate for New Councils which by degrees might establish the Arian Heresie Sozomen saith that after the death of Constantine the secret Arians began to shew themselves more openly among whom Eusebius and Theognis especially bestirr'd themselves to advance Arianism He agrees with Socrates as to the spreading of it in the Court and elsewhere and in the other particulars to the Council at Antioch but he saith they framed their Confession of Faith in such ambiguous terms that neither Party could quarrel with the Words But they left out any mention of the Substance of Father and Son and the word Consubstantial and so in effect overthrew the Council of Nice This is that Confession of Faith which the Council in Isauria called the Authentick one made at Antioch in the Dedication But it was not so Authentick but they thought good to alter it and some months after sent another to Constans to explain themselves more fully whereby they reject those who said the Son was made of Nothing or of another Hypostasis and not from God Who could imagine these to have been any other than very sound and orthodox Men Especially when three years after they sent a larger Confession of Faith into the Western Parts for their own Vindication wherein they anathematize those who held three Gods or that Christ was not God or that he was begotten of any other Substance besides God c. But that there was juggling under all this appears because as Athanasius observes they were still altering their Forms for this again was changed several times at Sirmium before they resolved upon that which was to be carried to the Council of Ariminum And although the difference in the matters of Faith as delivered by them seem'd now very nice and subtile yet they were irreconcilably set against the Council of Nice and all that adhered to it Which was a plain Evidence that they concealed their sense under ambiguous words or that they saw it necessary at present to seem orthodox that so they might the better set aside the Council of Nice
at Antioch he saith gave out that both Osius and Liberius had renounced the Nicene Faith and declared the Son to be unlike the Father but Liberius clear'd himself by rejecting the Doctrine of the Anomaeans i. e. the open and professed Arians and this Vrsacius Valens and Germinius then at Sirmium were willing to accept of having a farther Design to carry on in these Parts which was like to be spoiled by the Anomaeans appearing so openly and unseasonably in the East And for the same Reason they were willing to call in that which Hilary calls the Blasphemy of Osius and Potamius as being too open and giving Offence to the Followers of Basilius of Ancyra in the East For now the Emperour having banished so many Bishops and struck so much terrour into the rest thought it a convenient time to settle the Church-affairs to his mind in these Western Parts and to that end he summoned a General Council but justly fearing the Eastern and Western Bishops would no more agree now than they did before at Sardica he appoints the former to meet at Seleucia in Isauria and the latter at Ariminum whose Number saith Severus Sulpicius came to above four hundred and to the same purpose Sozomen When they were assembled Valens and Vrsacius acquainted them with the Emperour 's good Intentions in calling them together and as the onely Expedient for the Peace of the Church they proposed that all former Confessions of Faith should be laid aside as tending to dissension and this to be universally received which they had brought with them from Sirmium where it was drawn up by several Bishops and approved by the Emperour Upon the reading this New Confession of Faith wherein the Son is said to be like the Father according the Scriptures and the Name of Substance agreed to be wholly laid aside the Bishops at Ariminum appeared very much unsatisfied and declared they were for keeping to the Nicene Faith without alteration and required of the Arian Party there present to subscribe it before they proceeded any farther which they refusing to doe they forthwith excommunicated and deposed them and protested against all Innovations in matters of Faith And of these Proceedings of theirs they send an account by several Legates of their own wherein they express their Resolution to adhere to the Nicene Faith as the most effectual Bar against Arianism and other Heresies and they add that the removing of it would open the Breach for Heresie to enter into the Church They charge Vrsacius and Valens with having once been Partakers of the Arian Heresie and on that account thrown out of the Church but were received in again upon their Submission and recantation but now they say in this Council of Ariminum they had made a fresh Attempt on the Faith of the Church bringing in a Doctrine full of Blasphemies as it is in Socrates but in Hilary's Fragments it is onely that their Faith contained multa perversae Doctrinae which shews that they looked on the Sirmian Creed as dangerous and heretical And in the same Fragments it appears by the Acts of the Council that they proceeded against Valens Vrsacius Germinius and Caius as Hereticks and Introducers of Heresie and then made a solemn Protestation that they would never recede from the Nicene Faith Their ten Brethren whom they sent to Constantius to acquaint him with the Proceedings of the Council he would not admit to speak with him For he was informed beforehand by the Arian Party how things went in the Council at which he was extremely displeased and resolved to mortifie the Bishops so as to bring them to his Will at last He sends word to the Council how much his thoughts were then taken up with his Eastern Expedition and that these matters required greater freedom of Mind to examine them than he had at such a time and so commands the Legates to wait at Hadrianople till his Return The Council perceived by this Message that his Design was to weary them out hoping at last as Theodoret expresses it to bring them to consent to the demolishing that Bulwark which kept Heresie out of the Church i. e. the Authority of the Council of Nice To this smart Message the Council returned a resolute Reply That they would not recede from their former Decree but humbly beg leave to return to their Bishopricks before Winter being put to great hardships in that strait Place This was to let the Emperour know how he might deal with them and he sends a charge to his Lieutenant not to let them stir till they all consented And in the mean time effectual means were used with their Legates in the East to bring them to terms an account whereof we have in Hilary's Fragments which were to null all the former Proceedings and to receive those who were there deposed to Communion Which being done they were sent back to decoy the rest of the Council who at first were very stiff but by degrees they were so softned that they yielded at last to the Emperour 's own Terms The very Instrument of their Consent is extant in Hilary's Fragments wherein they declare their full Agreement to the laying aside the Terms of Substance and Consubstantial in the Creed i. e. to the voiding the Authority of the Council of Nice which was the thing all along aimed at by the Arian Party And Athanasius saith it was there declared unlawfull to use the word Substance or Hypostasis concerning God It is time now to consider how far those Churches can be charged with Arianism whose Bishops were there present and consented to the Decrees of this Council It is a noted Saying of St. Jerome on this Occasion that the World then groaned and wondered at its being become Arian Which a late Authour saith is a passage quite worn out by our Innovatours Whom doth he mean by these Innovatours The Divines of the Church of England who from time to time have made use of it Not to prove an Apostasie of the Catholick Church from the true Faith which no Man in his Wits ever dreamt of but from hence to overthrow the pretended Infallibility of General Councils or such as have been so called And notwithstanding the opprobrious Name of Innovatours which as we find in those of the Church of Rome often belongs to those who give it to others it is very easie to prove that this one Instance of the Council of Ariminum doth overthrow not onely the Pretence to the Infallibility of General Councils but the absolute binding Authority of any till after due examination of the Reasons and Motives of their Proceedings For it is apparent by the whole Series of the Story as I have faithfully deduced it that the whole Design of the Arian Party was to overthrow the Authority of the Council of Nice which they were never able to compass by a General Council till this of Ariminum agreeing as they
the foreign Provinces and the Emperour's Court where ever it was So that I see no reason to question London's being the chief Metropolis among the Romans The Argument from York's being a Colony signifies nothing after Antoninus gave the Jus Civitatis to the whole Empire and London was a Colony before York as I may shew elsewhere and of a higher nature when it was called Augusta which shews that it was then the Imperial City of Britain that name being given to no other City in Britain besides And it is observed by the learned Marc. Velserus That those Cities which had the Title of Augusta conferred upon them were the Capita Gentium the chief Metropoles of the Provinces And since by the general Rule of the Church the Ecclesiastical Government did follow the Civil There is no reason to question but if Fastidius were then Bishop of London he was the chief Metropolitane over the Churches of Britain But whether Fastidius were Metropolitane or onely a British Bishop his Doctrine is of late charged to be inclinable to Pelagianism For Holstenius found in ancient MS. the Book Fastidius wrote De Vita Christiana with his name to it and so published it but it is not directed ad Fatalem but to a certain Widow In this Book a late Augustinian hath discovered as he thinks some Tincture of Pelagianism but to any candid Reader his Exceptions will appear very frivolous and there is so much of true Primitive Christianity in the rest of it as makes good the Character which Gennadius and Trithemius give of him Out of which Book and no great one Bale hath made four one De Vita Christiana a second De Doctrina Spiritûs a third De Viduitate servanda a fourth Admonitiones Piae Pits keeps the same number but lest he should seem to take all out of Bale he alters the Title of one of them And because Gennadius saith his Doctrine was Deo digna therefore Pits very artificially makes the Title of his second Book to be De Doctrina Deo digna vel spirituali Boston of Bury makes him the Authour of two Books by mistaking Gennadius but as far as we can find there is but one exstant Dempster hath found Fastidius to have been born upon the Mountains of the Western parts of Scotland and he makes him Authour of a fifth Book called Chronicon Scotorum which is a Strain beyond Pits He possitively affirms that he lived An. Dom. 440. Trithemius saith about An. Dom. 420. As to Faustus his Case is much harder That he was originally a Britain I find not denied by any For although Facundus calls him a Gaul yet that was because of his being a Bishop so long there as Sirmondus observes he being Ortu Britannus habitaculo Regiensis as Alcimus Avitus saith in his Epistle to Gundobadus King of the Burgundians to whom he saith Faustus was known In his Epistles to Ruricius Faustus speaks of his living in a State of Banishment and the Comforts he found in it This our Learned Primate understood of his living out of his own Countrey But Hen. de Noris of a Banishment by Euaricus an Arian King then in Gaul which he supposes he underwent for writing against the Arians If he had produced any Testimony of such Banishment there might have been Reason to have understood his Expression so But since there is none and his Words are general as to his Countrey I see no cause to take them in any other sense For Men do not use to call that their Countrey where they live as Strangers and he speaks of the kindness of Ruricius so to him that he did Patriam in peregrinatione facere which cannot well bear any other sense than that he made up the want of his own Countrey to him Sirmondus grants he was a Britain but he adds he was one of those Britains who dwelt upon the Loir i. e. in the parts of Aremorica There is no question but in the time of Faustus there were great numbers of Britains there for Jornandes saith That Riothamus their King or General went with 12000 Britains against Euricus King of the Visigoths Which Riothamus Sidonius Apollinaris writes to and mentions the Britains with him But it may be justly a question whether there were any Colonies of Britains on the Continent before Faustus his birth For Faustus was made Abbat of Lerins before the Saxons came first into Britain For he was Abbat when St. Caprasius died as the Authour of his Life affirms which was about Anno Domini 430. But their coming was not till Anno Domini 449. and it will be hard to make out any Settlement of the Britains on the Loir before It is then most probable that Faustus went at first out of Britain into Gaul where he attained to a wonderfull Reputation both for Piety and Learning He was worshipped as a Saint saith Noris in the Church of Riez and his Name was preserved in the Calendar of the Gallican Church Molanus was the first who durst adventure to strike out his name Baronius follow'd him but upon admonition restored it as Bollandus observes who likewise takes notice that he was called a Saint by Cl. Robertus by Ferrarius and by Pet. Galesinius in his Martyrology who adds that his Books are piously and learnedly written and that Miracles are said to be wrought by him It is certain he was a Person in mighty esteem in his own time as appears by the Passages of Sidonius Apollinaris of Ruricius and others concerning both his Eloquence Learning and Piety Of whom Sidonius Apollinaris gives that excellent Character that he had learnt to speak better than he was taught and to live better than he spake He was Bishop of Riez Anno Domini 462. for at that time he was joined with Auxanius in determining the Controversie between Leontius of Arles and Mamertus of Vienna But nothing can more manifest the esteem he was then in among the Gallican Bishops than that in the Council of Arles he was pitched upon as the fittest Person to draw up their sense in the great Points then so much agitated about Predestination and Grace as appears by his Preface to Leontius At this Council thirty Bishops were present and there Lucidus presented his Recantation of the Errours he held about Predestination and after this Faustus wrote his Books of Grace and Free-will to which he saith another Council at Lyons caused some things to be added In these Books it is thought that under a Pretence of confuting those Errours he sets himself against St. Augustine's Doctrine as seems clear by one Expression in his first Book That if it be true that some are predestinated to Life and others to Destruction ut quidam Sanctorum dixit non judicandi nascimur sed judicati But these words may refer to what follows as well as to what went before As a certain holy Man
condemned But if this had been done by Gelasius is it probable that Hormisdas his Successour would have stuck so much at it as Maxentius saith that he did But he refers them for the sense of the Church to St. Augustine and Prosper and Hilary And the Definitions of his Predecessours Maxentius rails against this Answer as unsatisfactory and next to heretical and sets St. Augustine's Sayings against those of Faustus Afterwards Caesarius Bishop of Arles not onely wrote against Faustus his Doctrine but by his means chiefly it was condemned in the Second Council of Orange Which asserted the Necessity of Preventing Grace The denying whereof was the main Errour charg'd on Faustus not so much as to good Works for Jansenius hath at large proved That the Semipelagians did yield the Necessity of Internal Grace as to them but Faustus and Cassian and Gennadius denied it as to Faith or Good Inclinations But to return to St. Germanus and his Companions into Britain If we give Credit to our Antiquaries they did other Kindnesses to the British Churches besides the confuting Pelagianism whereof two are most considerable 1. The Institution of Schools of Learning among the Britains 2. The Introduction of the Gallican Liturgy into the use of these Churches 1. As to Schools of Learning none were more famous among the Britains than those of Dubricius and Iltutus who are both said to have been the Disciples of St. German The Anonymous Authour of the Chronicle in Leland saith that St. Germanus and Lupus having rooted out Pelagianism consecrated Bishops in several parts of Britain and among the rest they placed a Cathedral at Landaff and made Dubricius Archbishop who disposed of his Disciples to several Churches He made Daniel Bishop of Bangor and sent Iltutus to a Place from him called Lan Iltut or the Church of Iltutus Camden saith to this day it is called Lantuit where the Foundations of many Houses are still to be seen Near the Place called Bovium in the Itinerary now Boverton But there is another Place near Nidum or Neath whose name comes very near it Llanylted The old Register of Landaff after it hath mention'd the frequent Messages the Britains sent to the neighbour Bishops of Gaul for assistence against the Pelagians and the coming of Germanus and Lupus sent by them it adds that they consecrated Bishops in many Places and made Dubricius Archbishop over all the Britains Dextralis partis Britanniae Of the right hand part of Britain With which John of Tinmouth and Capgrave agree What this Right hand part of Britain was at the time of the Consecration of Dubricius is not so easie to understand Archbishop Vsher takes it for South Wales it being the custome of the Britains to call the South the Right hand side so Asserius Menevensis calls Sussex the Region of the Right hand Saxons But it is observable that Asserius there makes Demetia or South Wales to be but a part of what he calls Dextralis pars Britanniae For when he saith in general That all the Countrey of the Right hand of Britain submitted to King Alfred he then instanceth particularly in Hemeid King of Demetia and Houil and other Kings of Guent by which North Wales is as much understood as South Wales is by the other And therefore I rather think Dubricius was made Archbishop over all the Britains in those parts For Ranulphus Cestrensis saith The Bishop of Caerleon had seven suffragan Bishops under him And Matt. Westminster saith That Dubricius was made Archbishop of Caerleon although he might have a Seat at Landaff as the Register of that Church affirms by the Gift of Mouricus But it appears that he had then Archiepiscopal Power And possibly upon the Disturbance of those times the See might for a time be removed to Landaff From whence it was again removed by St. David to the Town bearing his Name But the Bishops of Landaff who succeeded were so unsatisfied with it That the Register of that Church saith That from Oudoceus the second from Dubricius for he succeeded Teliaus in that See They chose rather to be consecrated by the Archbishops of Canterbury than by their own Metropolitan of St. David 's as appears by the Protestation made by the Bishop of Landaff to Calixtus II. in the Council of Rhemes Anno Dom. 1119. But I confess it doth not seem very probable that a British Bishop should go for Consecration to Augustine the Monk or his Successours For the British Bishops did all look on them as Intruders And if any should have done it how would they have been received by the British Churches at that time It is therefore far more probable either that they went over to the British Archbishop at Dol in Britannie or that there was a Succession preserved for some time of the Archbishops of London among the Britains after the retirement of Theonus and Thadiocus the two other Metropolitans of London and York who as Matt. Westminster saith did withdraw when their Churches were destroyed by the Saxons with many of their Clergy into Wales where as long as that Succession continued they might exercise some parts of their Function leaving the main to the Archbisbop of Caerleon to whom of right it belonged And Ranulphus saith That Province extended as far as the Severn and so took in Chester Hereford and Worcester But before Dubricius was so much advanced the Authours of his Life speak of the great number of Scholars which flocked to him from all parts of Britain Not the Rude and Vulgar onely but Persons of greatest Reputation among whom they name St. Theliaus Samson Aidanus and many others Two Places they mention where he received and instructed his Disciples one at Hentlan on the River Wye where they say he had a Thousand Students with him whom he brought up in humane and divine Literature And the other was at Moch-rhos where he had a Place for Study and Devotion Iltutus by Vincentius and the Authour of the Life of Samson is said positively to have been a Disciple of St. Germanus And the Authour of the Life of Gildas saith That in the School of Iltutus many Noblemens Sons were brought up among whom he reckons as the chief Samson afterwards Archbishop of the Britains viz. at Dol in Britannie Paulus Bishop of the Oxismii the most Northern of the Aremorici which Bishoprick is since divided into three Treguier St. Pol de Leon and St. Brieu and Gildas called Sapiens of whom afterwards Leland to these adds David and Paulinus And saith his School flourished like an Vniversity among the Britains Bollandus and Henschenius make a very probable Conjecture That when St. German came into Britain and found the decay of Learning to have been the great occasion of the spreading of Pelagianism he appointed Dubricius and Iltutus to undertake the Education of the British Clergy And that by these means as Bede saith these Churches continued
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