objected That there are no certain Monuments of such Churches planted by him in Italy Gaul Germany or Spain What certain Monuments are there of new Churches planted by him in the East after his return And it is so much less probable because the Eastern Writers who should know best allot this time to his Preaching in the West But it is well observed by the Learned M. Velserus speaking of the Preaching of the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul in these Western parts That we are not to judge of the Planting of Churches by the remaining Annals and Monuments because on the one side we are certain that their sound went out into all the Earth And on the other great care was taken in the several Persecutions especially that of Dioclesian to burn all the Monuments which concerned the Christian Churches But yet as to Britain we have undoubted Testimony of a Christian Church planted here by the Apostles and by none so probably as Saint Paul For Gildas saith The Gospel was here received before the fatal defeat of the Britains by Suetonius Paulinus which according to Sir H. Savil's Fasti was the seventh of Nero the eighth saith Petavius And St. Paul being at liberty the fifth had time and conveniency enough to settle a Christian Church in Britain 2. That there was Incouragement and Invitation enough for St. Paul to come into Britain not onely from the Infinite numbers of People which Caesar saith were here in his time but from the new Settlements that were daily making here by the Romans after the first Success which they had in the time of Claudius For then Colonies were drawn over hither And not onely Military Colonies settled for the security of the Roman Conquests such as that of Camalodunum is described by Tacitus formerly the Royal Seat of Cynobelin King of the Trinobantes but also Civil and Trading Colonies such as London was from the beginning and therefore commended by Tacitus for its admirable Situation for Trading and all Accommodations to that end and upon the best enquiry I can make I very much incline to believe it of a Roman Foundation and no elder than the time of Claudius as will be made appear in another Discourse And that in the time of Suetonius Paulinus it was inhabited by Romans and Britains together is evident from Tacitus When Suetonius Paulinus drew out the Inhabitants the City not being then defensible against the Britains who in that Revolt destroyed LXX thousand Romans and their Allies saith Tacitus But Dio saith two Cities London and Verulam for Camalodunum was destroyed before and Eighty thousand Men. This was a time of so much Disorder and Bloudshed That Gildas with great reason places the Planting of Christianity here before it And St. Paul might have some particular incouragement at Rome to come hither from Pomponia Graecina Wife to A. Plautius the Roman Lieutenant under Claudius in Britain For that she was a Christian appears very probable from the account Tacitus gives of her He saith she was accused of foreign Superstition and that so far as to endanger her Life But her Husband clear'd her sitting as Iudge according to the ancient form and she lived long after but in perpetual sadness If Tacitus were to describe the Primitive Christians he would have done it just after this manner Charging their Religion with Superstition and the Severity of their Lives abstaining from all the Feasts and Jollities of the Romans as a continual Solitude It was the way of the Men of that time such as Suetonius and Pliny as well as Tacitus to speak of Christianity as a Barbarous and Wicked Superstition as appears by their Writings being forbidden by their Laws which they made the onely Rule of Religion And this happen'd when Nero and Calphurnius Piso were Consuls after St. Paul's coming to Rome and therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose her one of his Converts by whom he might easily be informed of the state and condition of Britain and thereby be more incouraged to undertake a Voyage thither It is certain that St. Paul did make considerable Converts at his coming to Rome Which is the reason of his mentioning the Saints in Caesar 's houshold And it is not improbable that some of the British Captives carried over with Caractacus and his family might be some of them who would certainly promote the Conversion of their Countrey by St. Paul But I cannot affirm as Moncaeius doth That Claudia mention'd by St. Paul was Caractacus his Daughter and turn'd Christian and after married to Pudens a Roman Senatour whose Marriage is celebrated by Martial in his noted Epigrams to that purpose It is certain that Claudia Ruffina was a Britain who is so much commended by Martial for her Wit and Beauty But if these Epigrams were written in Trajan's time as is very probable It is somewhat of the latest for the Daughter of Caractacus who came in Claudius his time to Rome But Alford digests all this well enough onely he is extremely concern'd lest she should be made the Apostle of Britain and Preach here before St. Peter But the Authour of the Antiquitates Britannicae whom he reflects upon saith no such thing as he would impute to him He onely saith That if she were a Christian she would acquaint her Countreymen as much with the Christian Doctrine as she did before with Martial 's Witt. Wherein there is no Profaneness or Absurdity But he adds that in so Noble a Family The rest of her kindred who were baptized with her might be the Occasions of dispersing Christianity in the British Nation So that there was no need for his bidding Claudia to keep at home and make room for St. Peter to come to Britain to preach the Gospel But if this Claudia were St. Paul's Disciple why might not she excite that Apostle to go into her Countrey to plant Christianity there as he had done with so much Success in other Places And whether St. Peter or St. Paul were more probably the Apostle of Britain is now to be considered And I affirm 3. That St. Paul was the most likely to come hither of any of the Apostles The several Traditions about St. James Simon Zelotes and Philip are so destitute of any ancient Testimony or Probability that the Competition among the Apostles can lie onely between St. Peter and St. Paul Some Writers of our Church History have endeavoured for particular Reasons to prove St. Peter to have preached the Gospel in Britain But their Proofs are very slight and inconsiderable and depend chiefly on the authority of Simeon Metaphrastes or other Legendary Writers or some Monkish Visions or some Domestick Testimonies of his pretended Successours or some late partial Advocates such as Eysengrenius who professes to follow Metaphrastes All which together are not worth mentioning in comparison with the Authours on the other side I shall therefore examine the Probability
might die and rather than live so long without one they chose to set up one themselves Another is the fourty years Schism in the Church of Antioch between Euzoius Meletius and Paulinus But these are onely slight and frivolous Evasions For the Cyprian Bishops never alledged the first Inconveniencie nor did the Bishop of Antioch the second No not when Alexander was unanimously chosen as Morinus confesseth and made his Complaint of the Cyprian Privilege to Innocentius I. as may be seen by his 18 Epistle To whom the Pope gave an ignorant Answer as appears by Morinus himself For he pretends that the Cyprian Bishops had broken the Nicene Canons in consecrating their own Metropolitane because saith he The Council of Nice had set the Church of Antioch not over any Province but over the Diocese By which he must mean the Eastern Diocese within which Cyprus was comprehended But there is not one word of the Diocese in the Nicene Canons and these things are refer'd to ancient Customs as Morinus acknowledgeth And he saith the Diocese of the Orient as distinguished from Asiana and Pontica was not settled at the time of the Nicene Council And yet he brings the Testimony of Innocentius to disprove the allegation of the Cyprian Bishops when he confesses that he was so mistaken in the Nicene Canons on which he grounds that Right And the Cyprian Bishops had the Nicene Canons to plead for themselves as the general Council of Ephesus thought who understood them far better than Innocentius seems to have done If what he saith had been true it is not to be thought that the Council of Ephesus would have determin'd in favour of the Cyprian Bishops But Morinus urges against them 1. That they named onely three Bishops Troilus Sabinus and Epiphanius But do they not ayer that it had been always so from the Apostles time 2. That no one pleaded for the Bishop of Antioch What then If they were satisfied of the truth of their Allegation the Nicene Council had already determin'd the case 3. They onely doe it conditionally if it were so But they enjoy'd their Privilege by virtue of it which shews it could not be disproved 4. The Cyprian Privilege was granted in Zeno's time upon finding the Body of St. Barnabas But it is evident they enjoy'd it before by the Decree of the Council of Ephesus And it was not properly a Privilege For that implies a particular exemption But it was a Confirmation of their just Rights And not onely as to them but as to all Provincial Churches So that this Decree is the Magna Charta of Metropolitane Churches against any Incroachments upon their Liberties And so the Council thought it when it appoints all Metropolitanes to take Copies of it and voids all Acts that should be made against it It is necessary now to enquire whether the Bishop of Rome had a Patriarchal power over the British Churches before the Council of Nice And the onely way to doe that is to examine the several Patriarchal rights which were allow'd in the Church And if the Marks of none of them do appear We have reason to conclude he had no Patriarchal power For however some urge the Conversion of Britain by Eleutherius as a Pretence to the Bishop of Rome's Authority yet allowing it to be true no man of understanding can pretend to derive a Patriarchal power from thence unless there were a concurrence of Jurisdiction from that time Neither were it of force if Saint Peter himself had preached the Gospel here and settled the Bishops of these Churches For by the same reason there could have been no Patriarchates at Antioch or Alexandria where he is supposed to have placed Saint Mark but if notwithstanding the Bishops of those Churches had a true Patriarchal power Then so might the Metropolitanes of the British Churches have their proper Rights Although Saint Peter himself had founded these Churches Morinus saith The Patriarchal power consisted in these four things 1. In the Consecration of Metropolitanes and the Confirmation of other Bishops 2. In calling Councils out of the several Provinces under his Iurisdiction 3. In receiving Appeals from Provincial Synods 4. In the Delegation of persons with authority from him to act in the several Provinces The first is that upon which the rest are founded As we see in the case of the Bishop of Antioch and the Bishops of Cyprus For if he could have carried the Point of Consecration of the Bishop of Constance he knew all the rest would follow In the Patriarchate of Alexandria it appears by the Epistles of Synesius That the Bishops of Pentapolis although then under a Metropolitane of their own yet had their Consecration from the Bishop of Alexandria When Justinian advanced the Bishop of Justiniana prima to the dignity of a Patriarch by giving him power over seven Provinces he expresses the Patriarchal power by this That all the Bishops of those Provinces should be consecrated by him and consequently be under his Jurisdiction and be liable to be called to his Council as Justinian elsewhere determines And when the Bishop of Justinianopolis removed from Cyprus thither he not onely enjoy'd the Cyprian privilege there but was allow'd for a Patriarch by the Council in Trullo and consequently the Consecration of the Bishops in the Province of Hellespont belong'd to him And when the Patriarchal power was settled at Constantinople that was the chief thing insisted upon at least as to Metropolitanes The first attempt the Bishop of Constantinople made towards any true Patriarchal power for all that the Council of Constantinople gave him was a mere honorary Title was the Consecrating Bishops in the Dioceses of Asiana and Pontica and Thracia And this was charged on St. Chrysostome as an Innovation in the Synod ad Quercum i. e. in the Suburbs of Chalcedon And his actings in the Council at Ephesus and Consecrating of many Bishops in that Diocese could not be justified by the Canons of the Church The best excuse is what Palladius makes viz. That his going into Asia was upon the great importunity of the Bishops and Clergy there For what Morinus saith That he did this by the Pope's authority is ridiculous It being not once thought of by St. Chrysostome or his Friends And for a Bishop of Constantinople to act by authority from the Bishop of Rome was then as absurd as for the Czar of Muscovy to act by Commission from the Emperour of Germany For it is plain That one stood upon equal Privileges with the other As fully appears by the Council of Chalcedon and the warm Debates which follow'd it between the two Sees And what could have served Leo's turn better against Anatolius than to have produced St. Chrysostome's Delegation from one of his Predecessours But in the Council of Chalcedon where the Right of the Patriarch of Constantinople was at large debated this Act of St. Chrysostome was alledged as
of the thing from the Circumstances of St. Peter as I did before from those of St. Paul and I shall endeavour to shew That his business lay quite another way and that there is no probable Evidence of his coming hither I take it for granted that the Apostles were employ'd according to the Tenour of their Commissions viz. That the Apostle of the Circumcision was to attend the Jews and of the Vncircumcision the Gentiles Now St. Paul saith That the Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter This Baronius saith was agreed at the Council at Jerusalem But he will not have it to be such a distribution of distinct Provinces as that the one upon no occasion should meddle with the Gentiles nor the other with the Jews But yet he grants that the Apostleship of the Gentiles was in a particular manner committed to St. Paul as of the Jews to St. Peter And whatever they might doe occasionally This as he proves from St. Jerome was the Principale Mandatum the Main of the Commission to either of them Which being supposed It necessarily follows that St. Peter's chief employment must be where the greatest numbers of Jews were And from hence Petrus de Marca infers That St. Peter having preached to the Jews in Judaea employed himself in converting the Jews abroad both of the first and second Dispersion The latter were chiefly in Aegypt at Alexandria where he settled Mark the Bishop over the converted Iews From thence he went to Antioch from thence to Babylon where the Head of the first Dispersion lived And in this City he saith he wrote his Epistle to those dispersed Jews over whose Synagogues the Patriarch of Babylon had Jurisdiction Clemens Romanus takes no notice at all of St. Peter's Preaching in the Western parts as he doth of St. Paul's But Eusebius from Origen saith That St. Peter preached to the dispersed Jews in Pontus Galatia Bithynia Cappadocia c. And Epiphanius even where he saith That St. Peter and St. Paul did both constitute Bishops at Rome upon their going thence to preach the Gospel in other places yet he adds That St. Paul went towards Spain but St. Peter frequently visited Pontus and Bithynia which was very agreeable to the design of his Commission there being so great a number of Jews in those parts And Pontus and Bithynia seem to have been reserved as the peculiar Province of St. Peter For when St. Paul attempted to go into Bithynia he was forbidden by the Spirit which then commanded him to come into Europe And so he made for Macedonia Baronius grants that St. Peter spent the greatest part of his time in the Eastern parts but about Anno Dom. LVIII he finds him employed in the West and particularly among the Britains But what ancient authority according to his own Rule doth he produce for it He names none but Metaphrastes and yet as it falls out unluckily when the same Metaphrastes his authority is produced for St. Paul 's preaching in the Western parts he is apparently slighted by him and for the very same Reason which holds against the former Testimony viz. for quoting things out of Eusebius which are not to be found in him And elsewhere he saith he is of no authority in these matters But Metaphrastes his Testimony serves to a good purpose in St. Peter's Case viz. to clear a considerable difficulty how St. Peter if then Bishop of Rome should not be taken notice of by St. Paul when he wrote his Epistle to the Romans To which he answers That Saint Peter came to Rome the second of Claudius but being banished thence with other Jews the ninth of Claudius he spent the time then in preaching the Gospel in other places and so very conveniently finds him in Britain when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans which he placeth in the second of Nero. But it is by no means probable saith Valesius That St. Peter should come to Rome before the death of Herod Agrippa And Baronius saith That after his being delivered out of prison he went to Caesarea Laodicea and Antioch according to his own Authour Metaphrastes and then into Cappadocia Pontus Galatia and Bithynia and so returned by Antioch to Jerusalem So that if Metaphrastes his authority be good for any thing St. Peter could hardly come to Rome the second of Claudius And if the death of Agrippa followed soon after the delivery of St. Peter as Valesius thinks and St. Luke seems to intimate then he could not be at Rome till the fourth of Claudius for all agree that Agrippa died that year So that there is no certainty of St. Peter's coming to Rome the second of Claudius Yet let that be supposed And that St. Peter went from Rome on the Edict of Claudius What makes him so long absent from thence as to the second of Nero when St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans salutes Aquila and Priscilla as then present at Rome who certainly left it before on the Account of that Edict So that this Edict could be no reason of his being absent from Rome at the time of this Epistle But it falls out unhappily That though St. Peter be made by Baronius and others Bishop of Rome for twenty five years yet he can never be found in his own Diocese in all that time before his Martyrdom But one excuse or other is still found for his absence when there were several remarkable Transactions which must have discovered him if he had been at Rome As not onely upon St. Paul's writing this Epistle to the Romans but upon St. Paul's coming to Rome upon his writing so many Epistles from thence upon the defence he made for himself when he saith that all forsook him What St. Peter too So that upon the whole matter the Opinion of Lactantius in his late published Book seems most agreeable to truth That St. Peter came not to Rome till the Reign of Nero and not long before his Martyrdom And this Baluzius confesses to have been the most ancient and received Opinion in the Church since Lactantius never disputes it And what he saith of the twenty five years wherein the Apostles planted Churches was in likelihood the Occasion of that mistaken Tradition concerning Saint Peter 's being twenty five years Bishop of Rome So much may suffice to shew the greater probability That the Christian Church in Britain was rather founded by St. Paul than by St. Peter or any other Apostle CHAP. II. Of the Succession of the British Churches to the first Council of Nice THE Testimony of Tertullian concerning them cleared It extends onely to Britains The National Conversion of the Scots under King Donald fabulous Of Dempster's old Annals Prosper speaks not of the Scots in Britain Tertullian to be understood of the Provincial Britains as well as others The Testimony of Sulpitius Severus