the extent of his Authority and a Metropolitan only as to the administration of it 5. If the Reader will not believe me let him consult the Authors own words which are these In this Canon there are three things principally design'd 1. To confirm the ancient Privileges of some of the greater Sees as Rome Alexandria and Antioch 2. To secure the Privileges of other Churches against the Encroachments upon them 3. To provide for the quiet establishment of Metropolitan Churches which last is so plain that it will need no farther discourse But the other two are of great consequence to our design Thus the Author first of all confessing that the Nicene Fathers did confirm the ancient privileges of some of the principal Sees in which they had gain'd to themselves a more ample Power than that of a Metropolitan only by which means the Bishop of Alexandria had Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis under his jurisdiction over which he exercised the Patriarchal Authority of Consecrating Bishops calling Synods and judging in the greater Ecclesiastical causes Now least any one should from hence infer that the Bishop of Alexandria had obtain'd a greater Power then that of a Metropolitan he asserts that he had then no Metropolitans under him in those Provinces and that the rite of Patriarchal administration was co-incident with the Metropolitical at the time of the Council of Nice and so different from that which was afterwards introduc'd Therefore he confesses that there was something that was singular in the case of the Bishop of Alexandria For saith he all the Provinces of Egypt were under his immediate care which was Patriarchal as to Extent but Metropolitical in the Administration And so was the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome at that time which is the true reason of bringing the custom of Rome to justifie that of Alexandria For as it is well observ'd by Christianus Lupus the Bishop of Rome had then no Metropolitans under him within the Provinces subject to his jurisdiction and so all Appeals lay immediately from the several Bishops to him And therein lay the exact parallel between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria 6. Therefore our Author asserts that the Patriarch of Alexandria had no Metropolitans under him and that in this lay its likeness to the Roman Patriarchate But before we come to enquire whether it be true that the Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria had no Metropolitans under them let us first see briefly whether no Metropolitans were subject to the Patriarch of Antioch before the Nicene Council For our Author confesses that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice does reach him also The Church of Antioch was the principal Church of all the East and had under it fifteen Provinces which the Notitia Imperii reckons to be comprised under the Eastern Diocese and since the East was first enlightened with the Christian Faith and the name of Christians as St. Luke testifies was first heard at Antioch it is very probable that that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy first took place there which is describ'd in the 35th of those Canons which are attributed to the Apostles to wit that there were Bishops constituted in the Cities and that a chief Bishop was placed in the Metropolis of every Province to the end that the Bishops of every Nation might know who was their Chief So that Tarsus being the Metropolis of the chief part of Cylicia the Bishop of this City might as Metropolitan subscribe in the first place to those Letters which the second Synod of Antioch set forth against Paulus Samosatenus So was also Caesarea the Metropolis of the cheif part of Palestine in which it so manifestly appears that there was a Metropolitan Bishop long before the time of the Council of Nice that there can be no doubt made of the thing For when Pope Victor had writ to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea to call a Council for the determining of Easter day Fragmentum Synodi Caesariensis apud Bedum the Bishop having receiv'd this Order as the Acts of this Council recorded in Venerable Bede inform us summon'd all the Bishops not only from his own Province but also from diverse other Regions What is more clear then this There is a distinct Province assigned to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea as Metropolitan out of which he summon'd the Bishops to Council therefore he had his own proper Province over the Bishop whereof he presided This is farther evidenced from the fact of John Bishop of Jerusalem who had referred the Debate concerning the Error of Origen to the Patriarch of Alexandria and is for this cause reprehended by St. Jerom in these Words You who seek for Ecclesiastical rules and make use of the Canons of the Nicene Council tell me D. Hieronimus Epist ad Pamachium Vid. num XXXVII what hath Palestine to do with the Bishop of Alexandria If I mistake not this is what that Council hath determin'd viz. that Caesarea should be the Metropolis of Palestine and Antioch the Metropolis of the whole East therefore you should either have brought your cause before the Bishop of Caesarea or if you were to go far for a determination you should rather have directed your Letters to Antioch you chose to be troublesome to one who had his head full of business already rather then to pay to your Metropolitan that honour which was due to him Thus saith S. Jerom in his 61. Epistle to Pammachius plainly asserting that according to the Nicene Canons the Bishop of Jerusalem was to submit to the Bishop of Caesarea as his Metropolitan and to the Bishop of Antioch as his Patriarch whence it manifestly appears that the Patriarch of Antioch had at the time of the Council of Nice the Metropolitan of Caesarea under his Jurisdiction even in Palestine it self 7. This being so what answer can our Author make what can he invent what can he dream of to elude this verity Will he say that he did not speak concerning the Patriarch of Antioch but only concerning the Alexandrian and Roman Patriarchs that the Nicene Canon only declares there was a likeness between these two In Prudence he will never answer thus for he hath interpreted the Nicene Canon so as to make it comprise the rights of the three principal Sees and therefore those of Antioch amongst the rest Since therefore it is manifest from what hath been said that the See of Antioch had under it more Metropolitan Bishops then one is not that apparently false which our Author imitating Beverage hath feigned viz. that the Council of Nice in its Sixth Canon hath acknowledg'd no Authority superior to that of a Metropolitan Is it not manifestly prov'd that he imposes an Error upon the English Nation when to defend the Metropolitan Power as Supream he asserts that all other Jurisdiction superior to this was unknown to the Nicene Council I judge that what hath been said ought to besufficient to make the English open their Eyes and forsake and
instead of Perrevius For Boniface in the Place above mention'd doth not speak of Perigenes the Metropolitan of Achaia whom the Bishops of Thessaly had no Power either to Ordain or Consecrate but of Perrevius Lucas Hoistenius in notis whom Lucas Holstenius in his Notes upon this Epistle hath concluded from the Subscriptions of the Council of Ephesus to have been Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I will prove from the very Acts themselves that he was of the Province of Thessaly For since Perrevius is supposed to have been lawfully elected and duly ordain'd and afterwards for some fictitious Crimes to have been deposed by his Fellow-bishops of the Province of Thessaly I cannot but think he belong'd to the Province of those Bishops who gave Judgment concerning him from which their Sentence Perrevius notwithstanding appeal'd to the Apostolic See. Boniface committed the Care of perusing the Heads of this Appeal to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica his Vicar in Illyricum which being duly examin'd by him and sent to Rome Boniface thought fit that Perrevius should be restored to his See and that the three Bishops above named who deposed Perrevius should be excommunicated and so he made use of that Authority which belong'd to him over Illyricum and confuted by the exercise of his Power all these fictions of our Author before they were fram'd 6. Now let us clear the cause of Perigenes in which our Author mixes falsehood with truth and explicates many things untruly without any testimony of the Ancients It is indeed true that in the year 352. Nectarious in the second General Synod Canon 3. obtain'd that the Church of Constantinople which heretofore was a Suffragan should have Priority of honour after the Roman Church because Constantine having translated the Imperial Throne to that City it became the See of new Rome It is also true that from this Canon unlawfully made the Bishops of Constantinople took occasion by degrees to extend the bounds of their Jurisdiction and that having taken in the three exarchates of Thrace Pontus and Asia they began to take upon them the hearing the causes of the Eastern part of Illyricum which then was divided from the Western part Let it also be granted true that the Bishop of Thessalonica had the Authority of the Apostolic See over Illyricum first delegated to him by Pope Damasus that he might the better withstand the Usurpations of the Bishop of Constantinople yet it cannot be denied but that it was upon the occasion of the Bishop of Constantinople's drawing the cause of Perigenes before his Tribunal that there arose a Controversie between the Bishops of Rome and those of Constantinople Lex Theodosii Junioris Vid. num XX. upon which Theodosius junior Successor to Arcadius being circumvented by the Bishop of Constantinople in the year 421 made a Law which is found in the Theodosian Code lib. 16. leg 45. tit de Episcopis and in the Justinian Code lib. 1. tit 2. de Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis leg 6. to run thus Lex Theodosii Junioris Vid. num XX. We command that all innovation being laid aside the ancient custom and the Ecclesiastical Canons which have been in former ages instituted and held in force till this very time be observed throughout all the Provinces of Illyricum and if there arise any doubtful cause that be reserv'd to the Sacerdotal Synod and Sacred judicatory not without the knowledge of the most Reverend the Prelate of the Sacred Law who holds his See in the City of Constantinople which enjoys the Prerogative of old Rome Dat. prid Idus Julii Eustathio Agricola Coss 7. Hitherto we have recounted those things which are true now let us proceed to shew what falshoods the Author has intermixt with them And in the first place it is false that the foremention'd Law was made against the invasion of the Roman Bishop for it was not made against the invasion of the Bishop of Rome but to further the unlawful Usurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople They had not here regard to the Authority of Provincial Synods for the determining certain and undoubtful causes but to doubtful cases such as was that of Perigenes which could not be determined by the Synod without the judgment of the Patriarch Now there was no Controversie about a Patriarchal Power over Illyricum in the time of Perigenes the only question that was mov'd was to which of the Patriarchs it belong'd Illyricum even to the time of Valentinian the Second had belong'd to the West but the Empire being divided between Arcadius and Honorius after the Death of Valentinian the Western part of Illyricum was distinguished from that of the East and the Eastern part fell to Arcadius the Emperor of the East from whence the Bishop of Constantinople took occasion to perswade Theodosius the Son of Arcadius who was of an easie nature that he would make the Churches of the Eastern Illyricum Subject to the Constantinopolitan See which Theodosius so effected by making a new Law as plainly to shew that there was no question concerning a Patriarchal Power over Illyricum but only a difficulty started viz. whether this power should for the future appertain to the Roman Bishop or to the Constantinopolitan Theodosius his words are to be observed Theodosius Imperator Then if there arise any doubtful case that must be reserved to the Sacerdotal Synod and Sacred Judicatory not without the knowledge of the most Reverend the Prelate of the Sacred Law who holds his See in the City of Constantinople which enjoys the Prerogative of Old Rome You hear that therefore the judgment in doubtful cases was reserv'd to the Bishop of Constantinople or New Rome as it was then called because it enjoy'd the Prerogative of Old Rome Therefore before the Prerogative was Translated to the Constantinopolitan See Bonifacius Epist ad Ru tum inter Holsten num 8. Old Rome enjoy'd the Prerogative of Superiority over Illyricum And this is the Authority which the Roman Bishops contended that the Roman See could not be deprived of according to what Bonifacius the first told Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica that new attempts which can be of no force ought not to lessen the Authority of the Roman See. And speaking against those who appealed to the Bishop of Constantinople for the determination of the causes of the Illyrican Diocese Restrain saith he the Violators of the Canons Vid. num XXI and the Enemies of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction through the assistance of God who always frustrates such mens wishes exercise also that Authority which is grantd you over the rest of the contumacious For you see we have left no stone unturn'd Which last words are therefore added by Boniface because he did not only exercise his Apostolical Authority but made use of the assistance of Honorius the Western Emperor for the obtaining of Theodosius that the Law might be revoked 8. There is extant in Lucas Holstenius a transcript of the Epistle which
A DISSERTATION CONCERNING Patriarchal Metropolitical AUTHORITY In Answer to what Edw. Stillingfleet DEAN of St. PAVLS Hath written in his BOOK OF THE BRITISH ANTIQUITIES By Eman. Ã Schelstrate S.T.D.C.L. And Prefect of the Vatican Library Translated from the Latin. With Allowance LONDON Printed for Matthew Turner at the Lamb in Holbourn MDCLXXXVIII TO JAMES the II. OF Great Britain c. KING DEFENDER of the FAITH CONQUERER TRIUMPHANT PEACEMAKER THE Immortal God Supreme Governour of Kings and Ruler of the World hath by his Providence order'd it as auspicious to the Catholic Faith That in these times wherein other Christian Princes are restoring the Kingdoms of Hungary and Greece to the Church Your Majesty should ascend the British Throne and invite the renown'd English Nation to embrace the true Religion by your Royal Example It is by the conduct of Divine not Human Wisdom that Kings reign Prov 8.15 and Law-givers decree Justice Which being spoken of all Princes in this World cannot but be understood of Your Majesty who governing the British World in Justice reign so happily that You seem to have ravish'd the hearts of all your Subjects with Love and the Eyes of all Strangers with Admiration It is a Maxim of the Ancients and the Oracle of Wisdom it self that the Love of the People is the Princes chief Safeguard Which made Pliny the second say in his Panegyric to Trajan that the Kings Palace is no where better secured than where Love keeps the Court of Guard. And Themistius the fam'd Graecian Orator hath given this excellent Admonition that it is far better to allure Subjects by Love and Favour than to awe them with Fear and Terror By Love Mens minds are united and made to agree in one and by Agreement Empires cement as by Discord they fall asunder Which Your Majesty very well understanding presently quell'd the dissention that in the beginning of your Reign threatned destruction to all Britain and when you had cut off the Principal Conspirators Victorious and Triumphant You either intirely pacify'd or wholly restrain'd the minds of the rest by Sweetness and Love. Being excellently well read in the tempers of Men You knew that he is in vain arm'd with dread who is not fenc'd with love and affection Having therefore freed your Subjects from terror and fear You won their hearts by your serene Countenance and affable Conversation who the more freely acknowledg they owe the Public Safety to Your Majesty the more other Nations look upon it with admiration O thrice happy Prince who whilst you embrace your People with Kindness gain Veneration at home Renown abroad and are purchasing with God a blessed Eternity I will not speak here of that Frankness with which you receive all of that Clemency which makes you easie to be intreated of that Liberality wherewith you relieve the Needy and Miserable of the indefatigable Industry wherewith you manage the Affairs of your Kingdom of that firm Constancy which enables You to undertake the most difficult Enterprises For these and many other gracious Endowments wherewith the Great God of Heaven hath richly adorn'd your Royal Mind might here be highly extoll'd But since they would be too copious a Subject for a short Epistle I shall only intreat this Favour that not being mindful of Your Majesty but my meaness you would so far condescend as favourably to receive this small Treatise concerning Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which I have put forth in Answer to an English Author and to protect it with the Patronage of Your Great Name Nor can any one induce Your Majesty to believe That I seek to shelter Novelty under the Protection of Your Royal Name for in this small Book I do not undertake to defend an Error lately invented but a truth anciently receiv'd I treat concerning the Roman Patriarchate which the Catholic Kings Your Predecessors acknowledg'd for the space of Thirteen hundred years and which even since the Schism Your Grand-father King James of Illustrious Memory hath not obscurely asserted For in the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance which he sent to Rudolphus the Emperor to the Christian Monarchs and to both the Catholic and Protestant Princes * Jacobus Augliae Rex in apologia pro juramento fidelitatis Scio inquit Patriarchas in Ecclesia primitiva extitisse institutionem illam ordinis discriminis causa amplexor sed inter illos de Principatu magna contentione certatum est quod si in eo quaestio adhuc verteretur meo libens suffragio primum locum Episcopo Romano deferrem Ego Occidentalis Rex Occidentali Patritarchae adhaererem I know saith that Prince That there were Patriarchs in the Primitive Church and I embrace that Institution for Order and Distinction Sake there was also great Contention amongst them who should be Chief but if that were still the question I would freely give my suffrage that the Bishop of Rome should have the first place I being a Western King would adhere to the Western Patriarch That which King James the First a Prince of the same name with Your Majesty here asserts I explain more clearly in this Dissertation and prove from the Testimonies of the Antients and the Decrees of Synods that the Authority of the Roman Patriarchate extends it self over all the West So that I may use almost the same words which Honorius did when he exhorted the Emperor Theodosius to preserve the Priviledges long before granted to the Roman See that the Roman Church may not lose under a Catholic Prince what she ought not to have lost under other KIngs who fell into Schism Honorius Epistâ—ad Theod. Suffer therefore Most Gracious Prince that this small Treatise may come forth under your Protection in which the only thing I earnestly contend for is that the Roman Church which is the special Head of all the Western Churches and the Principal Head of all the Churches in the World may not be disturbed because from thence the Rights of admonishing others issue forth all over the West as well as over the whole World. Written from Rome by Your Majesties Most humble and most obedient Servant Emanuel of Antwerp in the Low Countries THE PREFACE TO THE READER I Know not Courteous Reader how it came to be my Lot in one years time this proves my second Contest with Adversaries that write in the Language of their own Countries At the beginning of this year I had to deal with Maimbourg who set forth a Treatise in French concerning the Roman Bishops Supremacy over the Vniversal Church Now towards the end of the year I must fall to work with the Dean of St. Paul's who hath publish'd a Book in English wherein he calls in question the Bishop of Romes Patriarchal Power over all the West The former Authors Work though it ought not to have been written in French did not create me any difficulty because I understood that Language But the second in English although the Idiom in
some things agrees with the Dutch yet gave me so much trouble that I was forc'd to make use of an Interpreter for the understanding of it That therefore which I could not understand by my self I learn'd by the help of a Learned English man and when he had translated the principal Places which relate to the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome into Latine it plainly appear'd that the Author did not only write against me but also against other Catholics who either in this present Age or in former Times had treated upon this Subject He hath therefore taken upon him to confute for Italy Baronius the Parent of Annals and Lucas Holstenius For France Cardinal Perron Petrus de Marca Johannes Morinus Jacobus Sirmondus and Johannes Garnerius Christianus Lupus and me the least of them all for the Low-Countries Of these such as did not understand English if they were yet alive would as I conceive joyn with me in this request to the Author that if he should hereafter write of Ecclesiastical matters he would either forbear to impugn our Writings or else express himself in a Language we could understand But since none of the forementioned Writers besides my self are now living and our Authors Book sent out of England was brought to me by a Noble Person that I might return a brief Confutation of it I thought it necessary to examine some of his Allegations I shall not here Answer all the Objections he hath thought fit to make for since he hath written against those things which I had deduced from ancient Testimonies concerning the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Bishop over the West in my Book intitled Antiquitas illustrata I will refute what he hath writ in answer to it when I publish my Book de Antiquitate c. with the addition of three or four Ages to it I had been for some months time diligently bestowing my pains about this Work when our Authors Book call'd me off and requir'd a Confutation And about the time that I began to examine it little thinking that I should ever have any dispute with Catholic Writers concerning this Point loe another Book comes to my hands intitled de Disciplina Ecclesiae which was divided into seven Dissertations the first whereof treats de forma distributione Ecclesiarum and Sect. 6. the Question is put whether either Metropolitical Authority Card. Perronius in responso ad Jacobum Angliae Regem cap. 30. fol. 171. seq or Patriarchal Dignity were instituted by Christ or his Apostle Cardinal Perron that great light of France had shew'd that the Patriarchal Dignity was of Apostolical Institution Petrus de Marca Archbishop of Paris had asserted the same concerning Metropolitical Authority in his Book de concordia Sacerdotii Imperii De Marca lib. 1. de concordia Sacerdotiy Imperij cap. 3. § 7. seq against the Innovators of this our Age. A late French Author contends that neither of them proceeded from the Apostles and hath recourse to the Arguments of Heretics and Schismatics to prove what no Catholic to this very day ever yet durst that both these Authorities were introduced by a later Custom and the Patriarchal Dignity was first enlarged by invading the Rights of others and established by the Synodical Decrees of the fourth and fifth Ages This is the opinion of that Author which being repugnant not only to the Canons of the present but also to the Monuments of the ancient Church he hath not been ashamed to wrest the Sanctions of the Councils which do not favor his purpose to a perverse sence to ridicule the Writings of the ancient Bishops that do not please him to elude the eminent Testimonies of the Fathers that overthrow his Opinion by his cavils lastly to tax the Practice of the peresent Church as novel because it suits not with his humors In the year 1662. Launoy a Divine of Paris set forth a small Treatise intitled de recta intelligentia Sexti Canonis Nicaeni in which after the Disputes of Sirmondus and other Catholics against Salmasius and the Heretics that were his followers he proposes two principal things which he thought gave most light for the finding out of the true sense of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice One was that it did not treat of Patriarchs and their Rights The other that it only referr'd to Metropolitans and the right which they have in the Ordination of Bishops He hath many Arguments to this purpose and that as be there forespeaks saving the Authority of the Apostolic See which the Heretics impugn'd from this Nicene Canon Henricus Valesius Dissert de Canone 6. Nicaeno Tom. 2. Hist Eccles post Socratem Zosomenum But in France he was opposed by Henricus Valesius who shew'd from the Decrees of the Synods and the Writings of the Fathers that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice was to be understood of Patriarchs and could no ways be interpreted as referring to Metropolitans only so that the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome depended very much upon the true sense of it This Dissertation of the Learned Valesius displeas'd Launoy he therefore in the year 1671 sets forth a Defence of his Treatise in which he so admits of Patriarchs at the time of the Nicene Council that he hath plainly shew'd them though against his will to be a more eminent sort of Metropolitans Hadrianus Valesius treats of this Book of Launoy in the life of Henricus his Brother which Guilielmus Batesius lately set forth at London amongst the lives of Choice men and he attests that Launoy made a sort of cavelling answer which saith he Valesius would not have to be read to him Hadrianus Valesius affirming that there was no further matter for a dispute and being fully perswaded that his Writings could no ways be confuted or invalidated by Launoy Valesius therefore despis'd the Answer of Launoy accounting it a mere Cavil William Beverege the English Writer did not so esteem of it but the year after Tomo 2. Pandectarum in Annotationibus ad Canonem Sextum Nicaenum undertook to defend Launoy and answer the Arguments of Valesius The chief reason that mov'd Beverege was the Schism of the English Church which hitherto unjustifiable seem'd now to have some foundation from the opinion of Launoy England acknowledged no Power superior to that of a Metropolitan and because this Error might easily be confuted from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice in which the Dignity of the three Patriarchs is explained Beverege undertook to defend Launoy's Allegation and lays it down for a Truth that the Institution of Patriarchs was after the Nicene Council For thus the English Church had a President for Ecclesiastical Hierachy in the three first Ages to defend their modern Schism Launoy was yet living when Beverege's Work was publisht and seeing the Hereties drew a far different consequence from his Opinion then he thought they would
having been written many years since by a King of famous memory in that work of his which he set forth on behalf of the English Church could I foresee that the Dean of London a Minister of the same English Church when the Question was about Patriarchs would deny the Western Patriarchate It may be he will say that all Catholies do not agree in the thing as appears from the Book of a late Author de Disciplinâ Ecclesiae But I ask again could I foresee that on the fourteenth day of November in this Year 1686 at which time I had not only finish'd this Discourse but had likewise printed the first sheet of it a Book lately publish'd would come to my hands in which the Author being tainted with the itch of novelty should deny the Roman Bishops Patriarchate over the West which all France even till that time had undertaken to defend against Schismatics and Heretics which Perron Sirmondus de Marca and other Writers of the Gallican Church had defended against the Heretic Salmasius and against his ringleaders or followers besides whom no body in those times denied the Popes Patriarchate over the West Against these therefore I employ'd my Pen not using the former but another way of Proof and demonstrated the Roman Patriarchate to extend it self over all the West For besides the Question against Catholics concerning the exercise of Patriarchal Jurisdiction I stated another against Heretics concerning the Patriarchal Right it self which belongs to the Bishop of Rome over all the West and that I prov'd by the perpetual Tradition of the Ancients which was so well known to the whole Christian Church before the rise of modern Heresy that the Schismatic Greeks themselves maintain'd this truth insomuch that not only Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica hath written Nilus Thessalonicensis Romano Episcopo hoc datum esse ut Occidentalibus praesit Barlaam Monachus Occidentales Eâ—clesias Papae Gabernationi à Sauctis Patribus fuisse commendatas That it was granted to the Roman Bishop to Preside over the West but also Barlaam the Monk cap. 2. libri de Primatu Papae hath openly profest that the Western Churches were by the Holy Fathers commended to the Government of the Pope I have alledged many of those Authorities in Dissert 2. Antiq. Illustratae which Barlaam commends without the recital of the Names of those Holy men that wrote them I am not at leasure now to repeat them all I shall only cite two of them at present one of Augustine the other of Pope Innocent who at the same time though in different Regions adorn'd the Church with their Sanctity and Learning 4. Augustines Testimony is lib. 1. contra Julianum cap. 2. where having cited the Testimony of some of the Fathers viz Cyprians of Africa those of Ireneus Hilarius and others of France and St. Ambrose's of Italy he thus expostulates with Julian the Disciple of Pelagius the Britain D. Augustinus An ideo contemnendos putaes quia Occidentaiis Ecclesie sâ—mt â—nnes nec nâ—â—ut in eis oft commemoratus Ortentis Episcopus Quid ergo faciemus cum the Greâ—â— sint nes Latini puto tihi cam partem Orbis sufficeâ—â— dehere in qua primâ—m Apâ—â—oloâ—um sâ—orum vâ—â—uit Dâ—minus glâ—riâ—sissimo Marâ—â—rio câ—â—nari chi Eâ—â—â—â—â—a prâ—â—sidenteâ—â— B. Luâ—ceâ—â—ium si â—â—dire volâ—â—â—es sam ture poâ—â—â—uiâ—â—am â—â—ventutern tuam Pelagianis laqueis exâ—â—â—â—es do you therefore think that they are to be contemn'd because they are all of the Wesiern Church and no Eastern Bishop is mention'd amongst them What therefore shall we do saith Augustine since they are Greeks and we Latines I think that part of the World ought to suffice you in which our Lord was pleas'd to have the chief of his Apostles crown'd with a most glorious Martyrdom if you would have heard St. Innocent the President of this Church even then your dangerous Youth might have avoided the Snares of Pelagius Thus speaks Augustine of Innocent the first whose Presidence as special Head of the Western Church could not have been exprest in more clear words For although our Author would have it Author p. 131. That Augustine only thereby shews the Order and Dignity of the Roman See but doth not own any Subjection of the Western Churches to his Power since no Church did more vehemently withstand the Bishop of Romes Incroachments than the Churches of Africa did in St. Augustine's time Yet there is no body but may see that this subterfuge was invented meerly to elude the force of this Testimony for it is false that the African Church was exempted from Subjection to the Roman neither do the contests of the African Church for a short time about the exercise of some particular Jurisdictions which were ended after they had own'd the Canons of the Council of Sardica evince this St. Augustine gives his Testimony for the Patriarchal Right by which the Roman Bishop especially presides over the Western Church neither can it be said that Africa was not reckon'd by him amongst the Western Churches For Cyprian accounts the Primate of all Africa to be of the number of those Bishops which he affirms to be Western Bishops and discinguishes them from the Eastern Therefore Africa appertaind to the Western Church over which Churches Innocent Presided and that the President of it when he not by virtue of his Order and Dignity but by his Authority condemn'd the Pelagian Heresy ought to have been heard by Julian is here signified by Augustine as also the whole African Church had heard him after they had referred the matter of that Heresy to him as their Head. For when aster the referring of the cause they had received Rescripts back from the Apostolic See Now concerning this matter saith Augustine de verbis Apostoli Serm. D. Augustinus Jam de hac causa due Concilia miâ—sa sunt ad sedem Apostolicam inde etram rescripta venerunt causa si nita est error utinam finiatur 2. two Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See from thence also Rescripts have been sent back the Cause is determin'd would to God the Error were extinguished Thus Augustine shews that to be false and erroneous which a late Author de Disciplina Ecclesiae hath rashly utter'd viz. that the Africans did acknowledge no Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop over their Province and that nothing further could be collected from Augustine then that the Roman Bishop had a Primacy amongst the Western Bishops 5. We have heard Augustin now let us hear Innocent himself whom Augustine extols For that most holy Man doth not only claim to himself as Bishop of the Universal Church a Power to determine in the Cause of the Pelagians but also challenges this as of special Right too belonging to him as he was the Head of the African and the other Occidental Churches in his Epistle ad Decentium Eugubinum Episcopum in these Words Inoncentius I. vid. in p. 24. Vidnum VIII For
France Spain or the interjacent Islands but Peter the Apostle or those which he or his Successors have ordain'd Priests so that 't is in vain for our Author to presume that England after so many Ages teaches otherwise and to affirm that this Testimony of Innocent doth not comprehend the British Churches De Marca understood Innocent quite in a different sense supposing that the British Islands were understood by the Islands mention'd by Innocent the Reason is because Innocent did not mention by name those Islands of the Mediterranean Sea which lye between Italy France and Africa but only mentions the interjacent Islands in general under which the British Islands adjacent to France and partly interjacent might and if we will believe antient Writers ought to be comprehended For from them it appears as is before prov'd that the Churches in the British Islands were instituted if not by Peter the Apostle or by Preachers sent by him yet at least by the Priests which his Successor Eleutherius constituted 9. Thus have I answer'd the Objection concerning Matter of Fact and now proceed to the Second which the Author urges against the Reason drawn from the Matter of Fact. Innocent so manifestly concludes from the Institution of the Western Churches that they ought to be subject to the Roman Patriarch that our Author confesses it cannot be denied Yet saith he let that be granted what connexion is there between receiving the 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 He asks the Reason of this Connexion let him hear it from Christ who would not have his Apostles to preach through the World unless they were sent for being about to ascend into Heaven he spake to them in these Words as we find in the last Chapter of Mark Go ye into all the World Mark. Chap. Last and preach the Gospel to every Creature And let him answer the Apostle Paul thus asking in his Epistle to the Romans For how shall they preach unless they are sent Epist to the Romans Doth not the Apostle here affirm that Mission is necessary in order to preaching of the Gospel Ought not all to acknowledg that there ought to be a special Authority when Churches are to be instituted by preaching and Priests and Bishops to be ordain'd So the Apostles having receiv'd Power from Heaven undertook to instruct the World by their preaching and dividing amongst themselves the Regions of the whole Earth instituted Churches of which those only obtain'd Patriarchal Dignity in which Peter either by himself or by Mark his Disciple had placed Sees He himself presided at Antioch where he erected a See which govern'd the Eastern Patriarchate He sent Mark the Evangelist his Disciple to Alexandria whose See there erected constituted a Patriarchate which in St. Athanasius's time extended its Borders as far as India interior Carolus à S. Paulo in Geographia Sacra For as Carolus à S. Paulo in his Geographia Sacra truly observes This Custom prevail'd amongst the Ancients that the Provinces which were converted to Christianity should remain subject to that Patriarch by whose Industry and Vigilance they were first converted and so Aethiopia and India interior appertain'd to the See of Alexandria because Frumentius being sent thither by St. Athanasius preach'd the Gospel instructed the People in the Faith and ordain'd their Bishops as Ruffinus testifies he had learned from Aedesius So that it ought not to seem strange to us that the See of Rome should have obtain'd the Patriarchate of the West since the Prince of the Apostles chose that City for himself and instituted Churches throughout the West and no other Apostle ordained Bishops or Priests there but he reserved this Power to himself and his Successors This therefore is the Connexion between the receiving of their Doctrine from those which were sent from Rome and the Subjection of such who were converted by them which had their Mission from the Apostolic See because those Churches owe their Institution to the special Authority of the Roman Bishop so that Innocent the First rightly said that the Churches which had their Institution from the Apostolic See ought not to attend to the Instruction of Strangers but to consult the Roman Bishop * Ne caput Institutionum videantar omittere least they might seem to omit a chief point of their Institutions 10. The Author obviates this argument p. 68 by asserting from antient Tradition out of Notkerus Notkerus Balbulus 8 Calend. Junii Author p. 59. that Lucius after he was converted leaving his Kingdom converted all Rhetia and part of Bavaria to the Christian Faith by his Preaching and Miracles If so saith our Author the British Church on the account of King Lucius his converting their Country hath as much Right to challenge Superiority over Bavaria and Rhetia as the Church of Rome hath over the British Church on the account of the Conversion of Lucius by Eleutherius The first words of the Author here are to be observed If so saith he so that he seems very much to doubt of the truth of the thing Neither can it be said that the matter of fact is evident for whether we consult Regino Abbas Prumiensis Hermannus Contractus Sigebertus Gemblacensis or other German Historians Or Galfridus Monemuthensis Mattheus Westmonasteriensis and other English Writers these latter write that Lucius died in Britain the former do not tell us that he Preach'd the Gospel in Germany and there suffer'd Martyrdom And if we look into the more ancient Martyrologies we shall not find one word in them of Lucius his dying in Germany Venerable Bede may be consulted who hath nothing either at the Third of November or any other day concerning this matter Also a more ancient Martyrology of the Western Church attributed to St. Jerom lately Printed at Lucca makes no mention of Lucius his being buried in Germany An old Martyrology set forth by Rosweidus since Baronius died no where makes mention of Lucius King of England his being the Apostle of Bavaria and Rhetia Nor is he remembred in the Martyrologies of Rhabanas Maurus Vsuardus and Ado Viennensis And Notkerus is the first of all men who hath made mention of the Apostleship of Lucius in a Martyrology who notwithstanding doubted whether Lucius King of England were the Apostle of Bavaria and Rhetia or some other Holy man named Lucius Whether saith he ad 5. Kal. Jun. it was he that was heretofore King or whatsoever servant of God it was So that the thing was doubted of in Germany it self where Notkerus wrote Notkerius in Martyrologio Sive Rex quondam ille sive quicunque servus Dei fuerit even in Notkerus his time And if it were another Lucius and not the King of England who was Apostle of Bavaria if I mistake not our Authors argument for Englands Authority over Bavaria falls to the ground which
indeed could not have been urged by him to any purpose though he had been sure that King Lucius had Preach'd to Bavaria and Rhetia unless he could first have proved that Lucius his Mission was by the Authority of the British Church and that his Episcopacy ow'd its Original to the British and not to the Roman Church which he will never be able to prove it being as easy to contradict this as to assert it 11. But the better to clear this matter we are to take notice that for the subjecting a Province to any certain Patriarchate it is not required that its Bishops should be always ordained by the Patriarch but it sufficeth that they owe their Original institution to him that is that the first Bishop of such Region by whom others were afterwards ordain'd Ruffinus was instituted by this Patriarch So as we have seen above Aethiopia was â—ddâ—d to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in the time 〈◊〉 â—â—stantine the Great because as Ruffinus 〈…〉 Frumentius was ordain'd first as 〈…〉 dom by St. Athanasius For 〈…〉 of Aethiopia from that time did not go to Alexandria for Ordination Nicolaus 1. num 73. epist ad Bulgar Vid. num IX yet they all remain'd Subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria to whom they owe the Original of their Episcopacy and so Nicolaus the first answer'd the Bulgarians when it was put to him num 73. this order is to be observ'd by you you are now to have a Bishop consecrated for you by the Prelate of the Apolic See who if the number of Christians are increased through his industry may receive from us the Priviledge of being an Archbishop and so at length may constitute Bishops himself who may choose a Successor to the Archbishoprick when it shall become void by his death and he which is new elected needs not come hither to be consecrated because the journey would be long but let the Bishops which were consecrated by the late Archbishop assemble together and constitute him who notwithstanding is not to be inthronised neither to consecrate any thing but the body of Christ before he receive the Pall from the See of Rome as it is prov'd to be the practice of all he Archbishops of France Germany and other Regions Nicolaus the first speaks here of the Bulgarians newly to be converted to the Faith who he was assured ought to be subject to his Patriarchate Now he did not think that it was requisite in order to this that their Bishops should be perpetually ordain'd by the Roman Prelates but reserv'd to himself only the Ordination of their first Archbishop and required that his Successors as an acknowledgment of the Patriarchal Authority should as in duty bound only receive the Pall from the Roman See as he testifies it to have been the custom not only of the Archbishops of France and Germany but also of other Countries Amongst which Countries Britain was so to be reckon'd Venerabilis Beda as Venerable Bede confirms lib. 1. Ecclesiast Histor Gentis Anglorum cap. 29. where he recites the Epistle of Gregory the Great to Augustine Legate of the Apostolic See in Britain Gregorius Magnus Epistiad Augustinum Monachum Londinensis Episcopus semper in posterum à Synodo propria debet consecrari atque honoris pallium à Sede Apostolica accipere Honorius 1. Epist ad Edwinum Vid. num X. to whom that most Holy Bishop gave Power to ordain the Archbishop of London and his twelve Suffragans so notwithstanding that ever for the future the Bishop of London was to be consecrated by his own Synod and to receive the honorary Pall from the Apostolic See. He writes that the Archboship of York was to be instituted after the same manner if so be that the Catholic Religion should at any time be further propagated which having come to pass in the time of Honorius the first this Pope being sent to by Edwin King of England wrote back in this manner We have directed two Palls to Honorius and Paulinus Metropolitan Bishops that when either of them shall be called out of this World to his Creator the other may by vertue of this our Authority substitute another Bishop in his place which as well by reason of your affectionate Charity as because of the length of the journey lying through so many large Provinces as are known to be between you and us we are invited to grant that we may concur with your Devotion in all things according to your desire Venerable Bede cap. 18. commenting upon these words tells us that therefore a power was indulged to one of the British Archbishops to consecrate the other that they might not be always under a necessity of taking toylsom journey 's to the City of Rome through so long spaces both of Land and Sea for the Ordaining of an Archbishop So that from these times it hath been sufficient to acknowledge the Authority of the Patriarchal See by receiving the Pall neither did the eighth General Council require any more Venerab Beda Vid. num XI decreeing Canon 17. according to the version of Anastasius Bibliothecarius that the ancient custom was to be observ'd both in old and new Rome Canon 17. Sonodi Generalis 8. Vid. num XII that their Prelates should have power over all the Metropolitans which are promoted by them and that receive confirmation of their Episcopal dignity either by imposition of hands or by delivery of the Pall viz. to call them to a Synod if need require as also to restrain and correct them if it happen that fame accuses them of any offences According to which Canon the Metropolitans of Britain who receiv'd confirmation of their Episcopal Dignity by vertue of the Pall sent from the Patriarch of old Rome are declar'd to be subject to his Power and that according to the judgment of the Nicene Fathers who in their Sixth Canon have acknowledg'd the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Bishop for so the Eighth Synod hath interpreted that Power as believing it to be ownd by the Susception of the Pall from thence whence it is plain that our Author if he will understand the Nicene Canon according to the interpretation of the Eighth General Synod hath lost the cause and that he hath nothing to produce whereby he can prove that Britain is exempted from the Roman Patriarchate CHAP. III. Although the British Church had not receiv'd its Institution from the Roman yet it is shew'd from the Example of the Illyrican Church that by ancient Custom time out of mind it might be subject to it and moreover that it ought to be so 1. The Distribution of Churches under Patriarchs had not its Original only from the Ordination of their Bishops but also from ancient Custom the beginning of which not being known is believ'd to have been from the time of the Apostles from which Principle De Marca shews that although Innocent doth not mention the Illyrican Churches as instituted by Peter yet that
the English Author which are here summ'd up together with the Truths by which they are confronted that the Reader may observe them all at one view THE ERRORS Which are Confuted in this DISSERTATION ARE Here set down together with the TRUTHS Confronting them ERRORS TRUTHS ERRORS 1. THat Peter rather Preached the Gospel in Britain than Gaul depends upon slight Testimonies viz. Those of Simeon Metaphrastes the Legendary Writers or the Monkish Visions Origines Britannicae chap. 1. p. 45. TRUTHS 1. That St. Peter preached the Gospel in Britain depends upon the the Testimonies of Eusebius Innocent the first Gildas the Wise John the V. Kenulphus King of the Mercians and Metaphrastes chap. 1 2. Of this Dissertation ERRORS 2. That St. Paul declared the Faith to the Britains is had from the Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Eusebius Theodoret and St. Jereme who in his Commentary upon the 5 chap. Of the Prophet Amos says that St. Paul having been in Spain went from one Ocean to another and that his diligence in Preaching extended as far as the Earth it self chap. 1. p. 37. TRUTHS 2 The Testimonies of Clement Eusebius and Theodoret either relate not at all to Paul's coming into Britain or else may be equally understood of Peter and Paul's coming thither St. Jerome upon the 5. Chapter of Amos says that Paul was called by the Lord to go from Jerusalem even to Spain and to take his course from the Red-Sea and even from Ocean to Ocean which does not signisie that he preacht the Gospel from the Spanish Ocean to the British Ocean but from the Arabic Ocean which is adjacent to the Red-Sea to that Ocean which washeth upon the Spanish Coasts chap. 1. num 4. ERRORS 3. When Sulpitius Severus asserts that Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul in the time of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus the Christian Religion being more lately receiv'd beyond the Alpes he relates the former of these things as certain the latter as doubtful chap. 2. p. 55. TRUTHS 3. Sulpitius Severus lib. 2. Historiae saith that the fifth Persecution was carried on under Aurelius the Son of Antoninus and that then Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul the Christian Religion being more lately received beyond the Alpes He relates both these things as equally certain neither doth he doubt more of the latter than of the former chap. 1. num 6. ERRORS 4. Lucius King of the Britains sent his Embassadors to Rome as to the place whither as Irenaeus argues in the like case resort was made from all places because of its being the Imperial City so saith our Author chap. 2. p. 69. TRUTHS 4. St. Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. asserts not of the Roman Imperiality but of the Roman Apostolical Church that it is necessary that all Churches that is the Faithful from all parts resort to it by reason of its more powerful Principality So that King Lucius sent his Embassadors to Pope Eleutherius at Rome by reason of the Principality of that Church and upon no other account chap. 1. num 9. ERRORS 5. The Council of Arles in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester have writ who holdest a greater Diocese For so that place is to be read chap. 2. p. 83. chap. 3. p. 130. TRUTHS 5. The Council of Arles in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester set forth first by Pythaeus afterwards by Sirmondus from the Gallican M. S. S. say who holdest the greater Dioceses and so that place is to be read chap. 4. ERRORS 6. It is doubtful whether the distribution of the Empire into Dioceses were made by Constantine at the time of the Council of Arles and it seems more probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice Dioceses not being mentioned there but only Provinces Chap. 3. p. 130. TRUTHS 6. In the time of the Nicene Council Constantine in his Epistle to all the Churches makes mention of the Pontic and Asian Dioceses so that it is not probable but plainly false that in the time of the Council of Nice there was no mention made of Dioceses For in the time of the Synod of Arles the name of Greater Diocese was known as even our Author himself confesses whilst he affirms that instead of Greater Dioceses we ought to read Greater Diocese Chap. 4. ERRORS 7. The Authority of publishing Easter-day in all parts which the Council of Arles in its first Canon allowed as the right of the Bishop of Rome was taken away from him by the Nicene Council which committed this Affair to the Bishop of Alexandria Chap. 2. p. 84. TRUTHS 7. The Authority of publishing Easter-day in all Parts was not taken away from the Bishop of Rome by the Nicene Council the burdensom charge of computing Easter-day was laid upon the Bishop of Alexandria by the Nicene Fathers the Authority of proposing the certain day to the Churches was left to the Roman Bishop Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria in the Preface to his Paschal Cycle says that the Patriarch of Alexandria ought to intimate Easter-day every year by his Letters to the Roman Church from whence by Apostolic Authority the Universal Church might know without any further dispute the determin'd day of Easter throughout the whole World. Which Rule seeing they had observ'd for many Ages c. Chap. 4. ERRORS 8. The Council of Nice in the fourth and fifth Canons hath established the Authority of Provincial Synods as Supreme the Securing of which the Fathers have provided for in the sixth Canon neither did they acknowledge any Authority to be above that of a Metropolitan Chap. 3. p. 100. c. TRUTHS 8. The Council of Nice in the fourth and fifth Canons never so much as dream't of the Supreme Authority of Provincial Synods and hath acknowledg'd in the sixth Canon that the Patriarchal Power of the Bishops of Rome Alexandria and Antioch was Superior to that of Metropolitans Chap. 5. ERRORS 9. The sixth Nicene Canon decrees that the Bishop of Alexandria hath Power over Aegypt Libia and Pentapolis because the Bishop of Rome had a like custom But the likeness did consist in this that as the Roman Patriarch hath no Metropolitan under him so there was no other Metropolitan in all Aegypt but the Metropolitan of Alexandria Chap. 3. p. 104. TRUTHS 9. Before the time of the Council of Nice there were Metropolitans subject not only to the Patriarch of Antioch but likewise to the Patriarch of Alexandria S. Athanasius and S. Epiphanius declare Meletius to have been an Archbishop before the Nicene Council so that the parallel between the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome mentioned by the Nicene Council did not lye in this that neither of them had Metropolitans under them Chap. 5. ERRORS 10. That the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Pishop was confined to the Suburbicarian or Neighbouring Proviâ—ces and that the Roman Bishops First began to Usurp the Provinces of Illyricum by constituting the Bishop of Thessalonica as his Vicar after the Second
General Synod had given the Second place of Dignity to the Constantinopolitan See least the Bishop of Constantinople should encroach upon these Illyrican Provinces Chap. 3. p. 114. c. TRUTHS 10. The Metropolitical Authority of the Roman Bishop was limited to the Suburbicarian Provinces as the Author Terms them his Patriarchal Authority extended to the Greater Dioceses of the West after the Constantinopolitan Council Damasius first constituted the Archbishop of Thessalonica Vicar of the Patriarchal See of Rome in the Provinces of Illyricum that the Bishop of Constantinople might not encroach upon them Before the time of Damasius the Roman See had a right to exercise Patriarchal Power by it self or by its Legates as appears in that Legates were sent by Clements the First to Corinth at the end of the First Age wherefore Honorius the Emperor did require that the priviledge of the Roman See which was long since established by the Fathers and confirm'd by the Canons should be preserv'd in Illyricum and Theodosius the Emperor commanded the Ancient Apostolical Discipline and Order by which the Roman Bishop presided over Illyricum to be kept up Chap. 3. ERRORS 11. When Perigenes the Bishop Elect was rejected at Patrae and put into the See of Corinth by the Bishop of Rome without the consent of the Provincial Synod the Bishops of Thessaly amongst whom the Chief were Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus look upon this as a notorious invasion of their Rights and therefore in a Provincial Synod they appoint another person to succeed there Chap. 3. p. 116. TRUTHS 11. Perigenes the Metropolitan of Corinth in the Province of Achaia was one Person Perrevius Bishop of a See in the Province of Thessaly not well known to us another Pausianus Cyriacus and Calliopus Bishops of the Province of Thessaly had no Jurisdiction ever Perigenes the Metropolitan of another Province neither doth Bonifacius the first testifie that they acted against him but against Perrevius that was lawfully ordained who appeal'd from their Sentence to Rome and was restored to his See by the Sentence of the Roman Bishop Chap. 3. ERRORS 12. The British Church did not acknowledge any Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan during the Six First Ages so that when Augustine the Monk was sent to them at the beginning of the Seventh Age Seven British Bishops who were found there and many other learned Men of the Monastery of Banchor refused to be Subject to the Apostolic See or to acknowledge Augustine but remain'd under their own Metropolitan So it appears from Bede and some Monuments set forth by Spehnan which last although the Author doth not think them necessary for the proof of what is above mention'd yet he declares that he approves of them Chap. 5. p. 357. c. TRUTHS 12. The British Church acknowledg'd an Authority Superior to that of a Motropolitan in the Six First Ages and this is so manifest that the Pests of the World Pelagius and Caelestius who were born in Britain confess'd this very thing whilst they either permitted their causes which had been decided in the Provincial Synods to be referr'd to the tribunal of the Apostolic See or did by their own proper Appeal refer them thither What Spelman cites out of the English Monument concerning the Monks of Banchor is Supposititious What Bede Relates does not shew that the British Bishops acknowledged the Metropolitical Authority as Supreme and if it did shew this it discovers that their Error was reprov'd by Miracle from Heaven so that those who persist obstinately to defend this Error are guilty of a double fault of resisting the Truth and being shameless Chap. 6. THE HEADS OF THE CHAPTERS OF THIS DISSERTATION CHAP. I. THat the British Church was instituted either by St. Peter or his Successors Pag. 1 CHAP. II. That the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the West and therein even of England and that this follows from the British Church's having receiv'd her Institution either from him or from his Priests as is prov'd by the Testimony of Innocent p. 16 CHAP. III. Although the British Church had not received its Institution from the Roman yet it is shew'd from the Example of the Illyrican Church that by ancient Custom time out of mind it might be subject to it and moreover that it ought to be so p. 36 CHAP. IV. Concerning the Greater Diocesses attributed to Pope Sylvester by the Council of Arles p. 57 CHAP. V. Whether the Nicene Canons establish the Metropolitan Dignity as Supreme and what is decreed in the Sixth of these Canons concerning the Patriarchal Authority p. 76 CHAP. VI. That the British Church acknowledged an Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan from the time that the Christian Religion was first planted there till such time as it was again restored by Augustine the Monk under Gregory the Great p. 91 Imprimatur si videbitur Reverendissimo Patri Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici 19. Octobris 1686. Pro Eminentissimo Cardinali CARPINEO Vicario H. Cardinalis CASANATE Imprimatur Fr. Dominicus M. Puteobonellus Sacri Apostolici Palatii Magister Ordinis Praedicatorum A DISSERTATION Concerning the AUTHORITY OF Patriarchs and Metropolitans ALthough there is something spoken in the Preface to the Reader concerning the Occasion and Design of this Dissertation yet it is so little that I think it will not be amiss if at the entring upon it I give you a more full Account of the Occasion of it and add something for the more clear Understanding of its Design This Dissertation hath its Origin from what I had written in the first Part of Antiquitas Illustrata Dissertation the Second For when I had there shew'd from many Monuments of the Ancients that was true of the whole West which Theodosius Bishop of Echinus in Thessaly said above eleven hundred and fifty years since before Boniface the Second in the Roman Synod concerning the Churches of Illyricum viz. that the Roman Bishops besides their Principality over the Churches of the whole World more especially claim'd to themselves the Government of the Western Churches this special Authority of the Roman Bishop over the West did not please a Modern English Writer that styles himself Dean of St. Paul's and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty and he took it ill that the English Church which is rent from the Communion of the Apostolic See should be concluded by me within the Bounds of the Western Patriarchate He explains his Sense of the thing in a Book intituled Origines Britannicae or The Antiquities of the British Churches which he set forth at London Anno 1685. wherein as a Minister of the English Church he takes upon him its Defence and contends that the Hierarchy of the English Church which since the Schism hath own'd Subjection only to Bishops and Metropolitans as the Superior Clergy is conformable in this to the Ancient Church Therefore he endeavours not only to shew that the English Church was Acephalic that is without a