have done being mov'd as I suppose at the indignity of the thing he desisted from writing and there was none afterwards found in France to maintain the Cause till of late the Author of the Book de Disciplina Ecclesiae started up who Dissertatione 1. Part. ultima says indeed that he defends Valesius's Cause against Launoy's whereas in reality he impugns and rejects it He understands the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice as referring to the Suburbicarian Churches only and restrains the bounds of the Roman Patriarchate within the limits of the Cities Vicariate thinking it most probable that only those Regions which were subject to the Vicariu Urbis were the Suburbicarian Churches to which the Patriarchal Right of the Bishop of Rome extended and to no others He denies Germany Spain France Britain Africa Illyricum and a great part of Italy to have been subject to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarchate in former times and as if it had been but a small matter to shake off the Yoak of Patriarchal Authority he hath endeavour'd to destroy the Papal Power and to reduce the Primacy of Peter to a meer Dignity of Order amongst equals I am ashamed to think of those things which this Author deduces from such like Principles as these I shall treat of them in another place if I shall think it worth while In the mean time it will be enough to observe in brief that they are so absurd and disagreeable to the Doctrine of the Church Julius 1 Epist Synodica ad Orientales Antiochiae congregatos that they run the same Fortune as Julius the first tells us befell the Eusebian's Letters that all were so full of admiration that they could hardly be induced to believe such Writings should proceed from a man who desires to seem a Catholic The Eusebians contended that the Sentence of the whole Eastern Synod could no ways be retracted by the Bishop of Rome and when the Church was offended at that Error Julius the first wrote thus That it was better according to the Gospel that a Mill-stone were hanged about his neck and so he were drowned then that one of these little ones should be offended What then would that great Prelate say if he liv'd in our times and heard it maintain'd that not the Eastern Church only but the Bishops of one Diocess the Synod of one Province have Supream Authority and that their Sentence cannot be invalidated by any other Judge Dissert 2. ca. 1. Sect. 1 p. 97. What would he say if he should hear that not only the Causes of the Eastern but likewise of the Western Bishops were to be exempt from the Jurisdiction of the See Apostolic and that it is but a feign'd story that an Apostolical Authority was so given to Peter that it might descend to his Successors whereas it was granted to the rest of the Apostles only for their time This is fictitious Ibid. Sect. 2 p. 96. Seq says that Author because we have no reason nor testimony from Scripture or Tradition to prove that the Power of Peters Apostleship descended down to his Successors and that the rest of the Apostles did not seeing that the Bishops of the Apostolical Churches are equally said to be the Successors to those Apostles by whom their Churches were founded nay all Bishops are esteemed Successors of all the Apostles These are the consequences of this mans Principles which if they might take place farewell the sollicitude which in Obedience to the Divine Precept the Bishop of Rome has had over all Churches of the Catholic Communion throughout the whole World and which he still has as becomes the Primacy of his See although Quesnellio Dissert 1. p. 79. a late Author invents another story concerning the Churches of France supposing according to his Opinion that the Bishop of Rome hath not the Gallican Churches under his charge I am unwilling to insist any longer upon this expostulation but before I conclude this Preface two things are to be observ'd the former whereof hath relation to the favourable Reader whom I would not have to suspect that the Errors of this Book are to be ascribed either to the Sacred Faculty of Paris or to the most Illustrious Gallican Clergy For although the Author calls himself a Doctor of Paris and is a French-man yet it is not at all credible that this Work of his will either please the Sacred Faculty of Paris or the most Illustrious Gallican Clergy 'T is rather to be believed that all those of the French Nation that are eminent for Learning and Piety will judge it unfit that Book should ever have been publish'd The ancient Religion of the Gallican Church which never withdrew its subjection to the Apostolical Sea and hath often profess'd it never will obliges me to believe this It would be temerity therefore to censure the most Illustrious Gallican Church for the publishing of this Book Far be it from Men eminent for Learning far be it from Doctors educated in the Communion of the Apostolic See far be it from a Clergy and Bishops that maintain the Catholic Faith whilst they are earnestly endeavouring to root out one Heresie to consent to the Principles of another not remembring that saying which St. Avitus Bishop of Vienne St. Avitus Viennen Episcopus in Epist ad Faustum Symmachum Senaeores in the Name of the Gallican Church hath 1160 years since consecrated to the memory of Posterity If the Papacy be called in question not a Bishop but Episcopacy will seem to shake Si Papa Urbis vocatur in dubium Episcopatus jam videbitur non Episcopus vacillare The second thing concerns our English Author whom I would not have to boast that he hath found a Patron for his Cause amongst Catholics For since he is a Minister of the English Church and acknowledges a Metropolitical Authority he must necessarily own that the French Author is no less an Adversary to him than to us For since that Author not only denys Patriarchal Authority to be of Apostolical Institution but Metropolitical also that the Dean of St. Saul's may be able to defend the Hierarchy of the English Church to be of Apostolical Institution he ought to exclude out of it not only Patriarchs but Metropolitans also and first to constitute a Church consisting only of Bishops and their inferior Clergy This I say he ought to do if he follow the judgment of the late French Author which notwithstanding we will never subscribe to For we shall ever oppose those Opinions by which we see the Rights of Churches are destroyed the receiv'd Sanctions of Synods perverted the approv'd Writings of ancient Bishops ridicul'd the venerable Testimonies of the ancient Fathers despised and the solid foundations of Ecclesiastical Polity subverted And never admit Principles of Division and Schism to be Rules of Catholic Religion And so much concerning the Treatise of a late French Writer now I proceed to shew the Errors of
Persons by whose means Lucius desired of Eleutherius to be instructed in the Faith and by whose aid Eleutherius did not only convert Lucius but also most of the Britains to the Faith and instituted a Church in that Country Our Author admits that Eluanus and Medroinus were sent by Lucius and he gives this Account of the Embassie Eluanus and Edwinus were British Christians themselves and therefore sent to Eleutherius Pag. 68. having been probably the Persons employ'd to convince King Lucius but he knowing the great Fame of Rome and it being told him not only that there were Christians there but a Bishop in that City the twelfth from the Apostles had a desire to understand how far the British Christians and those of Rome agreed and he might reasonably then presume that the Christian Doctrine was there truly taught at so little distance from the Apostles and in a place whither as Irenaeus argues in this Case a resort was made from all Places because of its being the Imperial City These were reasonable considerations which might move King Lucius and not any Opinion of St Peter's having appointed the Head of the Church there of which there was no imagination then 9. But since our Author confesses that Ambassadors were therefore sent by Lucius to Rome that they might perform that which the Faithful from all parts as Irenaeus testifies were then used to perform I would know this one thing of him where he finds that they observ'd this by reason of the Principality of the Roman City Certainly he could not find this in the Words of Ireneus Ireneus Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam inquit propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam which he mentions and which are taken out of his third Book Chap. 3. where this Holy Bishop of Lions directs all the Faithful to the Roman Church For to this Church saith he it is necessary that all Churches resort by reason of its more powerful Principality But where in that place doth Ireneus say that there must be resort made to Rome because of its being the Imperial City The Author here find that in the Words of Ireneus which that Father never in the least meant by them For Ireneus writes not that the City but the Church of Rome which was consecrated by the Blood of Peter and Paul was to be consulted in Controversies of Faith and that all the Faithful under Heaven ought to agree with the Roman Church because of its more powerful Principality not because of the Principality of the Imperial City its necessary saith Ireneus that resort be made to this Church by all other Churches that is by the Faithful from all parts because of its more powerful Principality Therefore the Supremacy of the Ecclesiastical Principality at Rome was the cause of Lucius's sending an Embassie thither not the Principality of the Imperial City For in the City of Rome that I may use the Words of Honorius the Emperor not only the Imperial Seat was planted but the Principle of the Priesthood And there also as * Honorius Imperator Epist ad Theodosium Augustum In urbe Roma non solum Romanum Principatum Domus Augusta obtinuit sed Principium quoque Sacerdotium accepit Augustine Epist 162. affirms The Principality of the Apostolic See ever prevail'd This Principality over the Church Christ gave to Peter and Peter left it to his Successors in the Roman See which when our Author denies he opposeth a Truth which Peron the Glory of France in his Answer to James King of England Chap. 23. proves from very many Canons of the Church and Testimonies of the Councils and Ancient Fathers I should cite more of them were not the present Question chiefly concerning the Roman Bishops Patriarchal Authority over the West not his Supremacy over the Catholic Church Divus Augustinus Epist 162. therefore that we may keep close to that which we have undertaken to treat of let us conclude with our Author that Lucius sent Embassadors to Eleutherius that they might be inform'd of him in Matters of Faith and let us acknowledg with Ireneus that the Britains no less than the Faithful in other parts of the World ought to agree with the Roman Church because of its greater Principality to which let us add with English Writers that Eleutherius the Roman Bishop made use of his Authority when he ordain'd those Legats who being sent into Britain baptised Lucius setled Churches and consecrated Bishops and from hence we may conclude that to be true which I have in the Title of this Chapter taken upon me to prove viz. That the British Church was instituted either by St. Peter or by those whom his Successors ordained Priests CHAP. II. That the Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the West and therein even of England and that this follows from the British Church's having receiv'd her Institution either from him or from his Priests as is prov'd by the Testimony of Innocent 1. The Roman Patriarchate over the whole Western Church which is asserted in the 17th Canon of the Eight General Council our Author likes not His words are recited 2. He saith that the way of proving the Patriarchal right from the exercise of it and the exercise fromthe right is ridiculous although he confesses that it is of force against de Marca and other Catholics who admit that the Pope is Patriarch over the whole West against whom only I have used that way of proof so that it cannot be ridiculeus as I use it 3. Against such Heretics who deny the Bishop of Rome to be Patriarch over the West I have not used that but another way of proof viz. the perpetual Tradition of the Ancients which the very Schismatic Greeks themselves have not been so bold as to deny 4. One of the ancient Testimonies which I have brought for that Tradition is out of S. Augustine who hath plainly deliver'd that Innocent the First had not only a Supremacy of order and dignity over the Western Church but also of Jurisdiction 5. Another of them is that of Innocent the First himself who relates that Churches were Instituted through all France Spain Africa Sicily Italy and the interjacent Islands by Peter only or his Successors or else by those whom they ordain'd Priests and affirms that all these Countries ought to acknowledge the Apostolic See as the Head of their Institutions 6. How Paul having preacht at Rome and it may be in other of the Western parts proves nothing against this is shewed from Paul himself who reckons only such Churches amongst those which were instituted by his Preaching whom himself first taught the Faith of which sort the Roman is not as having been planted by Peter before Pauls coming into Italy the same may be said of other Western Churches supposing that Paul Preach'd in them 7. Two things are objected by our Author the first in relation to matter
who doth not know or not consider that what was deliver'd by Peter the Prince of the Apostles to the Roman Church and is kept till this very Day ought to be observed by all and that nothing is to be superadded or introduced which either hath not Authority or may seem to take Example from elsewhere Especially since it is manifest that none have instituted Churches in all Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the interjacent Islands but those which the venerable Apostle Peter or his Successors have ordained Priests Or let them search whether any of the other Apostles is found or read to have taught in those Provinces if they do not read this because they no where find it they ought to follow that which the Roman Church observes from whence no doubt they had their Original least in giving themselves selves up to the Assertions of Strangers they may seem to wave the Head of their Institutions This Testimony of Innocent the First is very considerable by which it appears either that St. Peter or those whom he or his Successors made Priests instituted Churches through all Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the interjacent Islands and therefore that these ought to acknowledge the Roman Church as their special Head. For this he expresly declares in those last Words Least in giving themselves up to the Assertions of Strangers they may seem to wave the Head of their Institutions 6. Neither is there just cause why any one should object to Innocent that the Apostle Paul preach'd two years at Rome and that this appears from the Acts of the Apostles which were writ by Luke Pauls inseparable Companion For the most Eminent Cardinal Baronius in his Annals Tome 1. ad An. 4 makes answer that under the name of Peter Paul also is to be comprehended and if the answer of this Parent of Annals do not fully satisfie you let us interpret Innocent's Mind by his own Words and shew that Peter only preach'd in the West in that sense wherein the most Holy Pope asserts him to have preach'd Innocent speaks in the Place before cited concerning that Apostolical Preaching by which Churches were instituted in the Western Regions not of that which the Churches had after they were once constituted after the same manner that Paul the Apostle himself in the Epistle to the Romans Chap. 15. spake concerning the Churches that were instituted by him From Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum Rom. 15. I have fully preach'd the Gospel of Christ Yea so have I strived to preach the Gospel not where Christ was named lest I should build upon another mans Foundation but as it is written to whom he was not spoken of From which Words it is plain that Paul reckons no Church in the number of those that he had preach'd to wherein the Gospel was preach'd before which being so and evidently so from his own Words the Roman Church is not to be reckon'd as one of those which were instituted by Paul for that was instituted before his coming to the City as is plain from his Epistle to the Romans which as the very Words of it shew was written before he came to Rome and yet he asserted that even then when he wrote there was a Church instituted at Rome because Chap. 26. he sends his Salutation to many of the Faithful at Rome and Chap. 1. he derects his Epistle to all that be in Rome beloved of God called to be Saints and expressed their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole World. Therefore Paul doth not suffer us to reckon the Roman Church among those which he by his preaching instituted which Innocent the First knowing of declared that Peter only preach'd at Rome because he had found that the Roman Church was instituted by Peter before Paul came to that City the same may be said of Spain and the other Regions if any shall believe that Paul at any time preached in them for there was a Church founded in them before either by Peter or by those Priests which Peter had ordain'd and sent to those Parts so that the preaching of Paul was no Argument against Peter's instituting those Churches which way of preaching and no other is here meant by Innocent whilest he attributes the Institution of the Occidental Churches solely to Peter or to the Priests that were sent either by him or his Successors 7. These things therefore being premised for the better understanding of the Testimony of Innocent we are now to answer the Authors two Objections the former of which impugns the Matter of Fact the latter the reason of the thing deduced from the Matter of Fact. Both which Objections he proposeth in these Words But the Matter of Fact saith he Author p. 132. is far from being evident for we have great reason to believe there were Churches planted in the Western Parts neither by Peter nor by those who were sent by his Successors yet let that be granted what connexion is there between receiving the Christian Doctrine at first by those who came from thence and an Obligation to be subject to the Bishops of Rome in all their Orders and Traditions The Patriarchal Government of the Church was not founded upon this but upon the ancient Custom and Rules of the Church as fully appears by the Council of Nice And as to the British Churches this very Plea of Innocent will be a farther Evidence for their Exemption from the Roman Patriarchate since Britain cannot be comprehended within those Islands which lie between Italy Gaul Spain Africa and Sicily which can only be understood of those Islands which are situate in the Mediterranean Sea. 8. These two Objections which the Author here joyns together are to be handled distinctly And in the first place that we may speak to that which concerns Matter of Fact the Author says that all the Churches in the West were not instituted by Peter or those whom the Apostolical See ordain'd Innocent testifies the contrary of Italy Africa France Spain and the interjacent Islands which of these shall we give credit to an English Writer who upon his own Authority denies this when many hundred Monuments of Antiquity are lost in sixteen hundred years time or the most Holy Pope who liv'd above one thousand two hundred and seventy years since and had the Opportunity of seeing many Monuments of Antiquity in the Registry of the Apostolic See concerning this Matter and constantly affirms it If we ask the Opinion of our Ancestors as well those who liv'd in England as in the rest of the Western Parts adhere to the Testimony of Innocent since from the time of Dionysius Exiguus they have receiv'd it as authentic and have plac'd it amongst the Decretal Epistles religiously venerated by the whole Western Church It appears then by the Testimony of Innocent which hath been approv'd by the Judgment of all the West for almost twelve Centuries that no one hath instituted Churches either in Italy Africa
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
they were subject to the Roman Patriarch 2. The Epistles to the Bishops of Rome to the Bishops of Thessalonica and Illyricum which the Legates of Adrian the Second and Nicholaus the Frist have made mention of were not set forth in the time of De Marca Archbishop of Paris but have been publish'd since his Death by Lucas Holstenius 3. Out of these the Testimonies of Innocent the First to Anysius Caelestine the First to Perigenes Sixtus the Third to the same as also to the Synod of Thessalonica are produced from whence it is made to appear that Theodosius Echiniensis hath rightly concluded for the Roman Bishop's Patriarchal Authority over Illyricum 4. Now least any one should conclude from the foresaid Testimonies that the British Churches were equally subject to the Roman Patriarchate with those of Illyricum the Author strives to prove that the Bishop of Thessalonica was first made Vicar of the Apostolic See in Illyricum that it might the better withstand the Bishop of Constantinople who took upon him to hear the Cause of Perigenes and that Pausanius Cyriacus and Calliopus Bishops of Thessaly opposed Pope Damasus in this thing and were therefore condemn'd by Bonifacius 5. Against which it is shew'd that the Cause of Perigenes was one thing and the Cause of Perevius another and that the three forementioned Bishops of Thessaly were not excommunicated because they withstood the Pope in the Cause of Perigenes but in that of Perevius who had been rightly ordain'd 6. The Cause of Perigenes is another thing and there might a Controversie arise by reason of this between the two Churches of New and Old Rome because the Bishop of New-Rome had assumed to himself the deciding of it and had obtain'd a Law from Theodosius the Emperor to justifie this his Vsurpation 7. The Law of Theodosius was made not against the Patriarchal Right of the Bishop of Rome but against the Vsurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople and supposes the ancient Roman Patriarchal Right over Illyricum which also Bonifacius hath not omitted to urge against the Vsurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople 8. Bonifacius desired nothing against the Vsurpation of the Constantinopolitan See but what was agreeable to the Canons and according to the ancient Order as appears by the Epistle of Honorius to Theodosius and is confirm'd by the Rescript of Theodosius wherein he revokes his above mention'd Edict 9. It may be prov'd from the Example of Illyricum that Britain is subject to the Roman Patriarchate although it had not been first instituted in Christianity by the Bishop of Rome for besides the Institution of Churches there is an ancient Custom which since we are ignorant when it first began is believed to have been derived from the time of the Apostles as is proved by the Testimony of Leo the First 10. Vpon this Apostolical Institution is founded the British Churches Subjection to the Roman Patriarch of which Agatho the Pope a hundred and five Western Bishops and all the Eastern Prelates in the sixth Synod made no doubt when they admitted the British Synods to be subordinate to the Patriarchal Synod at Rome Which Justinian the Emperor hath shew'd before Pope Agatho 's time affirming that the Roman Patriarch was the Primate of all Hesperia and long before Justinian the Synod of Arles said the same as shall be shewed in the following Chapter 1. I Have shew'd in the last Chapter that the English Church appertains to the Roman Patriarchate by Right of Institution In this Chapter I am to shew that it is subject to it although it had not receiv'd its first Institution from the Apostolic See for the Confirmation of which Truth we are to observe that the Argument for the Subjection of Churches is not only drawn from their Institution but also from the ancient Custom of the Church which since we know not the first beginning of is believ'd to have proceeded from Apostolical Prescript A great part of Illyricum was converted to the Faith by the preaching of Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles who instituted Churches and ordain'd Bishops there from whence it comes to pass that Innocent hath not reckon'd the Provinces of Illyricum amongst those which were instituted by Peter or his Successors notwithstanding the Illyrican Diocess was not exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarchate For it may be collected even from Innocent himself though he hath not named the Illyrican Church amongst those which were instituted by the Apostolic See yet that it was subject to the Roman Patriarchate According as De Marca Archbishop of Paris hath collected Lib. 1. de concordia Sacerdotii Imperii Cap. 4. Num. 3. where having related the Testimony of Innocent concerning the Churches in the West that were instituted by the Apostolic See De Marca The Diocesses saith he of the Illyrican Church are only wanting to our Account which Innocent hath not made mention of in this place It is notwithstanding certain that these no less than the rest of the Western Provinces did obey the Apostolic See and honoured it as the Head of the Churches Do not take the thing upon my Credit Let Innocent speak for himself in that Epistle which he wrote to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica which was the Metropolis of Illyricum and to the rest of the Bishops of Macedonia Innocentius Epistola ad Rufum Adverti sedi Apostolicâ—e ad quam relatio tanquam ad caput Ecclesiarum missa currebat aliquam fieri injuriam cujus adbuc in ambiguum sententia duceretur when he answer'd their Letters which were brought to him by Vitalis the Arch-Deacon I have taken notice that there hath been some Injury offer'd to the Apostolic See to which there came an Appeal being sent to it as the Head of Churches concerning which Injury the Sentence was yet accounted ambiguous And moreover in another place Innocent exercised the Patriarchal Authority in retracting the Sentence of Bubalius and Taurianus Illyrican Bishops so that there can remain no doubt but the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome extended as well to the Illyrican as to the rest of the Diocesses of the West 2. De Marca writ forty years since when other Epistles of Innocent and many other Roman Bishops concerning the Power of the Roman Patriarchate over Illyricum were not yet set forth of which the Legates that were sent by Adrian the Second to Constantinople in the Dissertation against the Vicars of the Orientals who contended that Bulgaria did not appertain to the Ordination of the Roman Church Apud Anastatium Biblioth Legati Adriani II. Vid. num XIII have made mention The Apostolic See say they as you may learn from the Decretals of the most Holy Roman Prelates hath from antient time canonically ordained and exercised Authority over both the Epiruses viz. the New and the Old all Thessaly and Dardania in which the City Dardania is now to be seen the country in which it is being now from these
Honorius sent to Theodosius the Emperor wherein he writes thus concerning this matter Without doubt the Church of that City from whence we receiv'd the Roman Principality Honorii Epist Theodosium Vid. num XXII and the Original of Priesthood deserves extraordinary veneration For as much as the Legates that were sent to us have desired nothing from our Piety but what is agreeable to Catholic faith discipline and equity for they require of us that those priviledges which having been establish'd long since by our fore-fathers were preservd till this time may ever remain inviolable and afterwards Wherefore we desire your Majesty that being mindful of that Christian temper which the Divine mercy hath infused into our hearts you would consider of our Pious discourse and that removing all these usurpt Rights which are said to have been gain'd by the private designs of diverse Bishops you would command that the ancient order be kept that so the Roman Church may not lose under Christian Princes what she preserv'd under other Emperors Hence it is clear that when Boniface the Pope desir'd that the Patriarchal right over Illyricum might be restor'd to him he ask'd nothing which was against the Canons or the ancient Order which was not only acknowledg'd by Honorius the Western Emperor but also by Theodosius Emperor of the East as appears by the Rescript whereby he revoked his Law in these words Setting aside all that the Bishops over Illyricum Theodosii Rescriptum Vid num XXIII by their Supplications have surreptitiously gain'd we command that to be observed which the Apostolic discipline and the ancient Canons declare Concerning which thing we have sent our Orders in writing to the Illustrious Praefecti Praetori over Illyricum according to the form of the Oracle of your perpetuity that all which hath been surreptitiously obtain'd by the Bishops being laid aside they would cause the antient Order to be especially observ'd least the venerable Church of that City which hath consecrated to us a perpetul Empire of its own name should lose the most holy privileges which were settled by the ancients These words of Theodosius are observable in which setting aside what the Bishops by their Supplications had surreptitiously gain'd over Illyricum he commands that to be observ'd which the old Apostolic Discipline and ancient Canons declare This Rescript was concerning the Patriarchal power which Theodosius at length acknowledg'd to belong to the Bishop of Rome from the old Apostolic Discipline confirm'd by the determinations of the ancient Canons So that it appears to be plainly false that Innocent the First and other Bishops endeavour'd to gain a Patriarchal power which they had not before over Illyricum by appointing the Bishop of Thessalonica to act as by Commission from them which notwithstanding after our English Writer the Author of the Treatise De Disciplina Ecclesiae hath endeavoured to obtrude upon the World. Indeed it ought not to seem so great a wonder that this should have bin said by one that was not of the Communion of the Roman Church since something is to be indulged to the Prejudice of a disturbed mind But I know not how it came to pass that a man who professes himself to live in the Communion of the Apostolic See should rashly utter those things which I can hardly relate without blushing 9. Now since the Illyrican Churches notwithstanding they were instituted by the Apostle Paul yet belong'd to the Roman Patriarchate what should hinder the British Churches from being subject to the Roman Patriarchate although Paul and not Peter had first instituted them as our English Author makes it his main endeavour to prove He ascribes the Institution of Patriarchates to ancient custom Canon 6. Nicaenus which the Nicene Council hath made mention of in the Sixth Canon commanding the ancient custom to be observed concerning it in Egypt because the Bishop of Rome hath a like custom But did this ancient custom and these Primitive Rights of the Church spring up like Mushrooms or gain'd force without any reason Before the times of the Nicene Council the universal Church was not govern'd by written Canons but by Tradition and Custom D. Augustinus lib. 5. contra Donatistas cap. 24. alibi now Tradition and Custom of which any other Original was unknown according to the Rule of the Great Augustine was to be held as coming from the Apostles so that we are to believe that these very Apostles anciently erected Patriarchates since no other Original of them is to be found Leo the Great in his Epistle to Anastafius Bishop of Thessalonica treating of the institution of Churches says that it was provided by the wisdom of the Apostles that there should be One in every Province who should have the first Vote amongst the Bishops of his Province Now who can believe that the Apostles who so accurately observ'd order in the Provinces had no regard to the greater Dioceses Since it was provided Leo primue Epist ad Anastatium Thessalonicen Vid. num XXIV by the wisdom of the Apostles saith Leo Epist 54. that there should be one in every Province who should have the first Vote amongst the Bishops of his Province again some were appointed in the greater Cities who should take upon them a greater Charge by whom the Care of the Vniversal Church might be carried up to Peter 's single See and none in any place dissent from their Head. These were the Reasons why the See of Antioch had a Patriarchal Authority over all the East and the See of Alexandria over all Aegypt And for these Reasons also a Patriarchal See was erected at Rome to the care of which the Churches of the West should of special Right appertain 10. The affixing the British Church to the Roman Patriarchate depends upon this Apostolical Institute and upon this account it was that Pope Agatho reckon'd the British Bishops amongst those that appertain'd to the Council of the Roman Patriarchate There is an evident Testimony not only of Agatho but likewise of a hundred and twenty Western Bishops concerning this Matter which is read in the Synodic Epistle to the sixth General Council Synodic Romana Agathonis Papae in these Words Agatho Bishop of the Servants of God together with all the Synods which are subject to the Council of the Apostolic See. And in the Epistle it self the Synods which are subject to the Roman Council are said to consist of the Western Bishops the multitude of which extended themselves even to the Regions which lay upon the Ocean viz. those of Lombardy Sclavonia Franconia Gaul and Britain In my Judgment Pope Agatho and the hundred and twenty Bishops could not have said that the British Churches were subject to the Roman Bishop as Patriarch of the West more clearly than they have done Neither could the Bishops of the whole Eastern Church assembled in Council at Constantinople have any way more manifestly confirm'd this Truth than by their approbation of
Age the British Bishops who as St. Athanasius testifies were present at the Council of Sardica opposed the Eusebians and contended that Athanasius was rightly absolved by Julius the First that they permitted Appeals to be made to the Apostolic See from all Provinces of the Christian World and that they declared the Memory of Peter the Apostle was to be honour'd in the Roman Bishop For so the British Prelates who together with the three hundred Bishops assembled at the Council of Sardica Canon 3. have decreed Let us honour the Memory of St. Peter the Apostle Canon 3. Sardicensis Vid. num XL. that those who have examin'd the Cause may write to Julius the Bishop of Rome and if he judges it should be heard again let it be again heard and let him assign the Judges but if he upon trial find the cause to be such that it ought not to have a second hearing what he decrees in this kind shall stand firm Whereupon the same British Bishops after the Canons were established in their Synodical Epistles ex Cresconii collectione Hilarii fragmentis Tom. 2. Conciliorum apud Labbeum edita wrote to Julius the First Epistola Synodica Sardicensis Vid. num XLI that it seem'd best and most congruous that the Chief Priests out of every Province should refer their Causes to the Head that is to the See of Peter the Apostle What could the British Bishops have written more plainly than this that the Roman See was the Seat of Peter and the Head of the whole Church to which the Bishops throughout the whole World ought to refer Matters as in the Council of Sardica they refer'd the Condemnation of the Eusebians concerning whom they thus wrote to Pope Julius Vouchsafe to admonish all our Brethren Ibid. and Fellow-Bishops by your Letters that they do not receive their Epistles that is their Communicatory Letters In which thing the British Bishops agreed with St. Ambrose and the Italian Bishops who in the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Aquileia in this very same fourth Age Concilium Aquileiense Epist ad Gratianum Imperatorem Vid. num XLII wrote to Gratian the Emperor that the Roman Church was the Head of the whole Roman World from whence the Rights of venerable Admonition flow to all 4. There is an eminent Testimony of the Popes Primacy which is taken from the very Enemies of the Roman Faith born in Britain Pelagius a Britain being first accused of Heresie by Osorius a Spanish Priest at the Synod of Diospolis and afterwards by those of the West in an Eastern Synod under Theodotus Bishop of Antioch did not only suffer his Cause to be refer'd to Pope Innocent but he also directs Letters missive to to him wherein he gave an account of his Faith. Osorius gives Testimony of the Act of the former Synod in Apologia pro libertate arbitrii contra Pelagium telling us that John Bishop of Jerusalem did at least pronounce this Sentence in the Diospolitan Synod that the Brethren and their Epistles should be sent to St. Innocent the Pope of Rome Osorius Apologia prolibertate arbitrii Vid. num XLIII and that all were to stand to his Determination St. Augustine makes mention of the second Synod affirming Lib. 1. Contra Julianum Cap. 3. that Theodotus Bishop of Antioch presided in it and that he had the Letters by him which that Bishop and Praylus Bishop of Jerusalem sent to Innocent concerning this Matter D. Augustinus Lib. 2. de gratâ—a Christi Cap. 2.1 De Libro fidei quem Romanâ— ipsis litteris misit ad eundem Innocentium Lastly that Pelagius presented a Treatise containing his Faith to Innocent the First St. Augustine Lib. 2. de Gratia Christi Cap. 21. informs us in these Wâ—rds concerning the Treatise of his Faith which he sent to Rome together with Letters to the same Innocent Would â—elagius have suffered that his Cause should have been remov'd from the Synod of Eastern Bishops to the Tribunal of the Bishop of Rome and have been Solicitous to clear himself before Innocent in the Treatise of his Faith which he sent him if Innocent's Authority had not been at all valued in Britain the Place wherein Pelagius had his Birth and Education Would not he rather have declin'd the Sentence of the Apostolic See and rejected the Judgment of the Roman Church in this Point 5. It was so far from this that Celestius the Disciple of Pelagius and a Scotch-man being accused of the same Heresie in another part of the World by Paulinus Deacon to St. Ambrose and condemn'd in the Synod of Carthage in Africa thought fit to appeal to the Bishop of Rome for his Tryal This we find to be written by Marius Mercator in Commonitorio Marius Mercator in Commonitorio from which Sentence he thought fit to appeal to the Examen of the Bishop of Rome Could he judge him to be appeal'd to whom he thought to have no Authority to Judge Paulinus declar'd himself of another Opinion in the Libel he offer'd to Pope Zosimus speaking in this manner concerning Celestius he Paulinus in libello Zosimo Papae oblato that had made his Appeal to the Apostolic See was absent who ought to have maintained the Merits of his Appeal St. Ambrose's Deacon could not more evidently have asserted that the See Apostolic had a Right to receive Appeals and that Celestius ought to have pleaded the Points of his Appeal before the Roman Bishop as his Superior But although Celestius neglecting his first Appeal fled into Bsia and Thrace yet being driven thence Marius Mercator in Commonit he made all the hast he could to the City of Rome in the time of Pope Zosimus of blessed Memory as Mercator testifies and there after his Tergiversations and Errors were detected he and Pelagius were condemned by Pope Zosimus of blessed Memory concerning which Epistle of Zosimus sent throughout the whole World was confirm'd by the Subscriptions of the Holy Fathers as we are told in Commonitorio above mention'd with which St. Prosper agrees asserting that the Decrees which were made against â—elagius and Celestius were brought out of Africa to Pope Zosimus S. Prosper in Chronico which being approv'd of the Pelagian Heresie was condemn'd throughout the whole World. As far therefore as we can collect from the management of the whole Cause of Celestius and Pelagius it was so certain in the time of Innocent the First that it belong'd to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop as Superior that not only the Eastern and African Councils freely acknowledge this but Pelagius and Celestius the very Pests of Mankind durst not deny it Moreover when the Epistle of Zosimus which condemn'd the Pelagian Heresie being transmitted through every Church under Heaven came at last to Britain there is no doubt to be made but that Heresie was condemned by the Subscriptions of the British Fathers Whence Venerable Bede observes that the Pelagian
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
Head but also Autocephalic that is under its own proper Jurisdiction only and subject to no Patriarch from the time that the Faith first began to be planted there till the coming of Augustine the Monk. There are therefore two things which the Author hath undertaken to prove against me one that the Bounds of the Roman Patriarchate ought to be restrain'd so as not to extend to Britain the other that the Hierarchy of the English Church which acknowledges no Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan is Ancient 'T is chiefly for the Proof of these things the Author hath made use of his utmost Endeavours Industry and Ability not treading in the Foot-steps of the Ancients but walking in new Paths which lead from the Truth as I shall endeavour briefly to shew in this Dissertation For whereas this Author hath brought those things for the Proof of his Opinions which have been lately invented partly by him and partly by Launoy I thought it might be profitable to lay them before you and to shew in the following Discourse how far different they are from the true Discipline of the Church from the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers from the Decrees of Councils and from the Sense of all Antiquity I shall therefore divide this Dissertation into six Chapters in the four first of which I shall alledg those things which relate to the Origin of the British Church and the Patriarchal Rights over it in the two last I shall examine those things that the Dean of St. Paul's hath written to prove that the Metropolitical Authority is Supreme and confute them by the Testimonies of those very Authors which he alledges He thought that the Patriarchal and Papal Authority was unknown to the British Church in the six first Ages and that this was manifestly prov'd from the Answer of Dinoth the Abbot and the Sayings of the Monks of Banchor I shall shew that there was no doubt at all made concerning the Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome but that Britain did venerate the Authority of the Apostolic See from the time that King Lucius First embraced the Catholic Religion till the breaking in of the Saxons and the coming of Augustine the Monk. And when I shall have made this appear from several Monuments of the British Church and by the Histories of that Nation I shall conclude with an Exhortation to the Ministers of the English Church in which I shall plainly shew them how far those Err from the Truth who think that the Church fail'd thoughout the whole World and was afterwards found by a few Persons in a narrow Corner of the Earth I shall bring the Testimony of Optatus Milevitanus wherein he reproves the Donatists for the like Error because they heretofore reduc'd the Catholic Church to a small number and confin'd the large Extent of Kingdoms as it were to a narrow Prison I shall bring other Testimonies of the Ancients by which it will appear that the true Church is to be found diffused throughout the whole World because it is Catholic and that it is one because it agrees in the Society of one Communion under One visible Head and that none can obtain Salvation who is either divided from that Head by Schism or separated by Heresie So that St. Jerom did not write by way of Exaggeration as a certain Person of late hath rashly given out but truly to Pope Damasus I saith he following none but Christ in the first place do consociate in Communion with your Beatitude that is the See of Peter I know the Church is built upou that Rock Whoever eats the Lamb out of this House is prophane If any one is not in the Ark of Noah he shall perish when the Deluge reigns CHAP. I. That the British Church was instituted either by St. Peter or his Successors 1. The Opinion of an English Author who contends that the British Church was instituted by Paul rather than Peter The Testimony of Gildas the wise is not alledged by him it may be because he foresaw that it proved the Institution of the British Church by Peter 2. The Testimony of Eusebius brought out of Metaphrastes by which it appears that the British Church owes its Institution to Peter The same thing is proved by Metaphrastes asserted by John V. and affirmed by Kenulphus King of the Mercians 3. The Testimonies of Eusebius Theodoret and S. Jerome are produced out of which the Author is confident he shall clearly prove that the Islands scituated in the Ocean were first instructed in the true Faith by Paul. 4. The foresaid Testimonies of Eusebius are weighed the two former of which make nothing for Paul's coming into Britain rather than Peter's and the third of Jerome intimates not that Paul preach'd the Faith from the Spanish to the British Ocean as our Author believes but from the Arabic to the Spanish Ocean which is nothing at all to the purpose 5. The Testimony of Clemens Romanus is cited in which it is asserted that Paul came to the Borders of the West it is not said that he came to Britain 6. The Opinion of Launoy who questions the Authority of this Epistle of Clemens is disapproved of and the Testimony of Severus Sulpitius is brought wherein it is said that the Religion of God was received more lately beyond the Alpes and the distinction of our Author for avoiding the difficulty mov'd from the Testimony of Severus is rejected 7. Venerable Bede agrees with Severus Sulpitius whilst he puts us in mind that King Lucius was converted to the Faith about the time Sulpitius tell us that the Faith was receiv'd beyond the Alps with whom Tertullian seems to concur in Opinion who liv'd almost at the same time that Luclus King of Britain was converted under Pope Elcutherius 8. Other Testimonies of the Ancionts concerning the Conversion of King Lucius are brought likwise the Opinion of our Author concerning the Embassie that Lucius sent to Pope Eleutherius at Rome viz. That this Embassie was sent to Rome because it was the Imperial City as he asserts out of Irenaeus 9. The Testimony of Irenaeus is cited and it is shewed that our Author miss-interprets him Irenaeus asserts that all the Faithful ought to consent to the Roman Faith not because of the more powerful Principality of the Roman City but of the Roman Church The Emperor Honorius 's Testimony concerning the Principality of the Imperial Seat and the Principle of Priesthood's being establish'd at Rome the Authority of Augustin is added who tells us that the Principality of the Apostolic See ever prevail'd at Rome which when our Author denies he opposes a manifest Truth IN treating concerning the Antiquities of the British Church its Primitive Institution is to be enquired after which Modern Writers have attributed to divers Apostles and divers Disciples of Christ I have not leisure to recite all their Opinions in this Dissertation but shall only weigh that of our Author who to exclude the
Bulgarians called Bulgaria Nicholaus the First gives us the Names of those Roman Bishops which the Lagates sent by Adrian the Second to Constantinople makes mention of without reciting their Names Epist 2 Nicholaus primus Epist ad Michaclem Imperatâ—râ—m Vid. â—um XIV when he wrote to Michael the Emperor concerning the Illyrican Diocess Which was in the time of our Ancestors enlarged by the Sacred Dispositions of the Holy Popes Damasus Siriciuâ— Innocentius Bonifacius Coelestinus Sixtus Leo Hilarius Simplicius Faelix Hormisda Whose Institutions sign'd by them in those Parts we have taken care to direct to your Imperial Majesty by our Legates to the intent that you may know the truth of this Matter And the Decretal Epistles of these Popes which were extant in the times of Adrian the Second and Nicholaus the First are those which De Marca never saw and which the learned Men of his Time lamented the loss of as a great Damage to Ecclesiastical Learning the Apostolic See it self not being able to produce them Because it had lost those Decretals formerly kept in its Registry as either burnt or torn upon the Incursion of Enemies or spoil'd by the Injury of Time. Wherefore they were to be fetch'd from some other place were they any where to be found as Lucas Holstenius really did near thirty years since who having made search amongst the Manuscripts of divers Countries found the Acts of the Roman Synod under Boniface the Second in which it is related that Theodosius Bishop of Ecchinus cited many of the Epistles of the foresaid Popes which manifestly demonstrated the Roman Patriarchal Power over Illyricum 3. I omit the Epistles of Damasus and Siricius and begin with those of Innocent the First whom I before mention'd in that which is fourth in order according to Holstenius he makes mention of his Predecessors in these Words To you saith he speaking to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica Innocentius primus Epistola inter Holstenianas 4. Vid. num XV. Vicar of the Apostolic See in Illyricum Such and so great Men my Predecessors heretofore in this See that is to say Damasus Siricius and the above mention'd viz. Anastasius of blessed Memory have shew'd so much deference that they have given your Holiness who are most just a Power to take cognisance of all things that were done in those Parts I give you again to understand that I the least of them am of the same Judgment and desire the same thing Which is also confirm'd by Innocent in his Epistle to Rufus Successor to Anysius and by Caelestinus who writing to Perigenes Reynatus Basilius and other Illyrican Bishops told them that he did not appoint any new thing Neither saith he Coâ—leâ—â—inus primus Epistola 13. meer Holsten Vid. num XVI is this Care new which the Apostolic See takes of you this Experiment we make use of has been often order'd by our Ancestors the watchful Superintendence over you was ever given in charge to the Church of Thessalonica And afterwards there are some Faults not of a light nature which being innate to those Provinces cannot come to us who are at so great a distance or all being now so remote they are not related unto us after some space of time as they were first acted All which by the Intercession of our Brother and Fellow-bishop Rufus whose Experience 't is clear has been approv'd in all Causes and Acts of his Life our Will is be rescinded To whom we have delegated our Authority over your Province that to him most dear Brethren all your Causes may be refer'd let none be ordain'd without his Advice let none enter upon his Province without consulting him let them not presume to call an Assembly of Bishops without his Consent if there be any thing to be refer'd to us let it be done by him Sixtus the Third in his Epistle to Perigenes confirms the same to Anastasius Successor to Rufus testifying that he knew of no new thing that was granted to him but that saith he Sixtus III. Epist ad Perigenem inter Holsten Vid. num XVII Ejusdem ad Episcopes Illyrici inter Holsten Epistola 17. Vid. ibid. which our Predecessors delegated to his Predecessors having regard to Ecclesiastical Discipline is now again constituted He confirms the same things in his Epistle to the Synod of Thessalonica as also in his Epistle to all the Bishops of Illyricum where he saith thus All the Illyrican Churches as we have receiv'd from our Ancestors and we our selves have confirm'd are now under the charge of the Archbishop of Thessalonica that by his care he may determine those Controversies which sometimes arise amongst his Brethren and that all things which are done by any particular Priests may be refer'd to him Let there be a Council call'd when it is needful and as often as he having regard to emergent necessities shall order it that the Apostolic See being inform'd by his Relation as in good reason it ought to be may confirm its Acts. And these things if I am not deceiv'd do plainly shew that Theodosius Bishop of Ecchinus did speak truth Synodus Romanus sub Bonifacio Vid. num XVIII when in the Roman Synod before Pope Boniface he said it was manifest that although the Apostolic See justly claims the principality over all Churches in the whole World it was necessary that to it alone Appeals should be made in Ecclesiastical Causes yet that the Venerable Bishops of the Roman See did in a more especial manner claim a Jurisdiction over the Illyrican Churches 4. That Illyricum was subject to the Roman Patriarchate is so manifest from the above cited Testimonies that no body can deny it seeing therefore that the Illyrican Churches had not their first institution from Peter or his Successors some may deduce from thence that it is not at all necessary for the asserting of the British Church's Subjection to the Roman Patriarchate that it should have been instituted by Peter or his Successors Our Author therefore foreseeing this since he could not deny the Testimonies of the Decretals above mentioned resolv'd to oppose them asserting that the Roman Bishops who wrote those Decretal Epistles were guilty of Innovation and Usurpation over the Rites of Metropolitans Let us hear his feigned Stories which since they abound with Errors are to be exposed to the end that they may be confuted Writing therefore concerning the Power of the Roman Patriarch over Illyricum as delegated to the Bishop of Thessalonica by the Decretal Epistles above mention'd He saith that Leo himself in his Epistle to Anastasius Author p. 115. derives this Authority no higher than from Siricius who gave it to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica certa tum primum ratione commisit ut per illam Provinciam positis quas ad disciplinam teneri voluit Ecclesiis subveniret Siricius immediately succeeded Damasus who died according to Holstenius 11. Dec. 384. three years after the Council of Constantinople had advanced
Apostolic Authority over England and that not only the ancient Britains but also the Saxons as soon aâ— they were Converted to the Faith acknowledg'd this with due veneration 9. And so much of some ancient Monuments from whence we have deduced that the British Nation did acknowledge the Popes Authority in the first Ages It now only remains that we return an Answer to the Objections raised from the Manuscript set forth by Spelman and the Acts of the British Synod which our Author cites out of Venerable Bede And first as to the Manuscript set forth by Spelman it doth not seem to be so ancient but that it might have been written since the Schism But saith Spelman at what time this Manuscript was written Spelmans Tom. 1. Conciliorum dugliae or by what Author I cannot learn either from the Manuscript it self or by any other means but I believe the Book may be found in the Cottonian Library Spelman tells us that he had no certainty concerning the Author of this Manuscript But on the contrary plainly intimates that he was in great doubt concerning the matter moreover since he confesses he was ignorant of the time when this Manuscript was written we may easily gather from hence that it was not ancient Nay the Style manifestly discovers that it is modern and could never have been Penned in the time of Augustine the Monk and of Gregory the Great Lastly it is there affirmed that the Britans and Dinoth the Abbot answer'd Augustine that they would own no Subjection to him Monumertum Anglicanum supposititium because they were under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk. Whereas it is manifest that there was no Archbishop of Caerleon upon Vsk at that time and that the Metropolitan Jurisdiction had for above a hundred years before been transferr'd to Menevia As to the acts of the Synod which the Author cites against us out of Venerable Bede others have heretofore made answer that there was no dispute between Augustine and the British Bishops concerning the Primacy of the Bishops of Rome but only about some Traditions of their Church concerning which Augustine argued in this manner with the Bishops Indeed saith he to them Venerab Bedâ—â— lib. 2. Hist cap. 2. Vid. num L. you do not only act contrary to our custom but likewise to that of the Vniversal Church in many things and yet if you will comply with us in these three things the observation of Easter at the right time the administring Baptism in which we are regenerated to God according to the Rite of the Holy Roman and of the Apostolic Church and in the joyning with us to preach the Gospel to the English we will bear with you in all other things wherein you act contrary to our custom But they made answer that they would not do any of these things nor accept of him as their Archbishop Thus far Bede from whose words it is apparent if I mistake not that the question was not concerning the Primacy of the Roman Bishop but about Augustines Metropolitical jurisdiction over them and that the British Bishops only contended that they ought not to pay subjection to Augustine as their Archbishop And although upon this account they refused to receive some other things that were of Ecclesiastical Tradition yet in this they did not oppose the Roman Church only but the Churches throughout the whole World where they were said to act many things inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity concerning which Venerable Bede in his Second Book above mentioned gives us this relation Ibid. Vid. num LI. When after a long disputation held they could not be brought either by the supplications perswasions or reprehensions of Augustine and his Companions to give their assent but rather chose to prefer their own Traditions before those of all the Churches which agree with one another in Christ throughout the whole world besides The Holy Father Augustine put an end to this long and troublesom contention by saying thus Let us beseech God who makes men to live in unanimity in their Fathers house that he would vouchsafe to discover to us by a sign from Heaven which Tradition is to be follow'd and which way we ought to take to arrive at his Kingdom let some Person that labours under an infirmity be brought and let his faith and works be believ'd to be devoted to God and be followed by all by whose prayers he shall be cured Which when his Adversaries although with reluctancy yielded to a certain blind man of English Race was brought who being offered to the British Priests for a cure and obtaining none by their Ministry at length Augustine as obliged upon so just an occasion bends his knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ beseeching him that he would restore the sight of the blind man which he had lost and by enlightning the body of one man irradiate the minds of many Believers with the light of spiritual grace The blind man forthwith had his sight restored and Augustine is by all proclaim'd a Preacher of Divine light Whereupon the Britains confess'd they had plainly found that way of Righteousness to be true which Augustine taught Thus far Venerable Bede who no where mention'd any Controversie about the Popes Supremacy but concerning Traditions viz. the observation of Easter and some certain Rites in the administration of Baptism as is above remark'd 10. But though these things are true and confirm'd to be so by the Testimony of Venerable Bede yet let us suppose that amongst other things the Bishop of Romes Primacy was also controverted who sees not that the acts reorded in Venerable Bede fully confute our Authors Plea The acts testifie that the Britains contended about Traditions which they prefer'd before all Churches which agree amongst themselves in Christ over the world so that if the question was concerning the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome it is manifest that all the Churches in the World did then ackowledge the Primacy of Peters Successor as Gregory the Great also testifies Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Vid. num LII lib. 4. Epist 32. writing to Mauritius For 't is manifest saith he to all that knowthe Gospel that the care of the whole Church was by the word of our Lord committed to S. Peter the Prince of all the Apostles Therefore in the time of Gregory the Great all that were acquainted with the Gospel knew the Successor of Peter the Prince of the Apostles whom the faithful from the very first Ages of Christianity styled the Bishop of Bishops so that the Britains opposed his Primacy against the judgment of the whole Catholic World. Supposing therefore that the Britains amongst other Traditions rejected also that of the Primacy of the Roman Bishop what could be gather'd from hence but that as Baronius the Parent of Annals hath observed after the Saxons had broken in upon them they deserted the Doctrines and Rites of the Catholic
Sacramentis contra Lutherum But it cannot be denied said Henry the Eighth at that time but every Church of the Faithful owns and reverences the Holy See of Rome as their Mother and Primate If every Church did allow of this in the time of Henry the Eighth if they all recognized this one See of St. Peter what Reason what Right what Equity could this very Henry the First of all the Kings of England have to set up another See against this peculiar See and offer to restrain the Bounds of its Primacy I know indeed that your Author against whom I have hitherto written hath made the same Answer to this that Luther did in the time of Henry the Eighth that the Pope had not obtained a Power so great and of so large an Extent as this by the Command of God or by the Consent of Men but had usurped it to himself But because he agrees with Luther in opposing the Popes Power it is but reasonable he should hear what Answer Henry the Eighth hath made to him in the Person of Luther I would have him to tell me when it was that he enter'd forcibly upon this large Possession The first beginnings of so immense a Power could not have been unknown to us especially if they had happened within the Memory of Man. But if he shall say that it is an Age or two since the thing was done let him give us an account of it from History Or else if it be so ancient that the Original of it although it be so considerable a Matter is obliterated he knows it is the wise Provision of all Laws that when the Right to any thing is so far beyond the Memory of Man that it cannot be known what a beginning it had it should be presumed to have had legitimate one and it is plainly forbidden by the consent of all Nations that those things should be unsetled which have for a long time continued in a setled State I very much admire how he could ever hope to find Readers either so credulous or so stupid as to believe an unarmed Priest all alone having no Guard to attend him no just Right to support him nor Title to rely upon could so much as hope ever to obtain so great a Dominion over so many Bishops that were his Equals in so many different and far distant Countries Much less can any one believe that all People Cities Kingdoms and Provinces were so prodigal of their Concerns Rights and Liberties as to give a Priest that was a Stranger to them and to whom they owed nothing so great a Power over them as he could scarce dare to wish for These things are manifest and the more remarkable because written by that King of Great Britain under whom your English Church separated from the Roman for a Reason which I am ashamed to relate neither is it fitting for you to hear it and contrary to the perpetual Tradition of the Ancients contrary to the Faith of your Ancestors contrary to the Consent of all Catholics broke into open Schism and fell from Schism into Heresie and from Heresie into the Abyss of those Errors which are now fresh in the Memory of Men and which Posterity will ever have cause to lament Of these Errors I need not make a Catalogue or produce any Testimony since you are too well acquainted with them only I should indeed think my Pains very well bestowed if I could by any means recal you from Heresie and Schism which are the Sourses of so many Evils to a sound Mind and move you to repent whilst you have time After the Darkness of Schism the Light of Truth shone forth to you under the Reign of Mary your Queen which Britain calling to mind its ancient Faith receiv'd with due Veneration After the Night of Heresies into which Britain fell back under the Reign of Elizabeth Faith like the Morning seems to rise again under the Government of a Catholic Prince whence we may hope the Light of Truth which your Ancestors enjoyed for so many Ages will break forth among you into open Day and again recover that Place from whence a hundred Years since it was forced into Banishment This is what all those Churches with whom you have formerly held Communion earnestly desire This is what Spain Portugal France Germany Bohemia Poland Dalmatia Italy Sicily and the other Western Regions in which the ancient Religion now flourishes with so much Splendor continually pray for This is what the Churches still remaining in Grece Asia Palestine Mesopotamia Persia Armenia and all the East will joyfully entertain This the vast Provinces of the new World inhabited by so many People so many Nations so many Families This the far distant Inhabitants of China many of which have in the former and in this present Age embraced the Christian Faith This innumerable Islands scattered every where up and down in that Sea we call the ocean will receive with joyful Acclamations This will be most acceptable to Rome the Mother Church which first brought you forth to God and Religion neither could any thing be more delightful to Her than to receive You as a kind Parent amongst so many others which at this time are returning to Her from Heresie and Schism and cherish you in her Bosom All the other above mention'd Churches throughout the World are subject to this Roman See and all these joyn'd together constitute the Catholic Church from which none can be separated who desires to be one of the Faithful and would attain Salvation Would to God therefore that you would look after the Salvation of your own Souls whilst the Catholic Church spread over the Face of the whole Earth waits earnesily for your Conversion that you would return to the Communion of that Church out of which there is no Salvation Epist ad Ephes c. 5. There is one Lord and one Faith saith Paul. That Faith is found in the Church which is but one D. Ambrosius in cap. 4. Lucae as the Apostles in their Creed have taught us This Church is the House that I may use St. Ambrose's Words of which as Damasus was at that time Rector so Innocentius is now D. Hieronymus Eâ—â—stâ—ad Damasum Whosoever eats the Lamb out of this House saith Jerome is Prophane and since he is not in the Ark of Noah he shall perish when the Deluge reigns Julianus Cardinalis apud Pium 2. in Bulla ad Vniversitatem Colomensem Latinerum Graecorum Doctorum una vox est salvari non posse qui Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae non â—enet unitatem Nor is this the Sense of Jerome only but of the rest of the Fathers for as Julianus President of the Synod at Basil rightly observ'd The Latin and Greek Doctors say all with one Voice that he cannot be saved who lives not in Unity with the Holy Roman Church Testimonia in Idiomate quo ex Authoribus in hoc Libro citantur hic conscripta
this p. 48 Which were the greater and which the lesser Dioceses p. 60 61 The name of Diocese was known in the time of the Nicene Council p. 62 E. The Bishop of Rome publisht Easter day after the time of the Nicene Council p. 69 71 The charge of computing Easter day was imposed upon the Patriarch of Alexandria by the Nicene Synod p. 71 Pope Eleutherius receiv'd an Epistle from King Lucius 13. Britain was Converted to the Faith under him p. 12 The Epistles of the Bishops of Rome concerning the Roman Patriarchal Power over Illyricum p. 40 41 42. The Testimony of Eusebius shewing where the Gospel was Preach'd by the Apostles p. 7 The Eusebians vainly attempted to draw Julius the first to their party 80. they were the first in the World that ever dreamt that the judgment of the Eastern Council was supreme p. 80 81 F. France vid. Gaul Frumentius Bishop of Aethiopia had his Mission from Athanasius p. 32 G. Gaul when converted to the Faith. p. 10 The Catholic Writers of Gaul defended the Roman Bishops Patriarchal Authority over the West against the Hereticks p. 21 Germanus Bishop of Auxerre came as Vicar of Pope Celestine into Britain p. 99 The Testimony of Gildas the Wise concerning the Preaching of the Gospel in the time of Tiberius 2 his Testimony concerning Peter See in Britain p. 4 The Schismatic Greeks acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be Patriarch of the West p. 21 H. A very clear Testimony of Henry the Eighth concerning the Popes Primacy 111. he was the first King of England that fell into Schism p. 111 The Epistle of Honorius the Emperor to Theodosius concerning the preserving the priviledges of the Apostolic See. p. 51 I. What Iames King of England believ'd concerning the Institution of Patriarchs and concerning the Roman Patriarchate in particular p. 20 The testimony of Ierome concerning Paul's preaching the Gospel from Ocean to Ocean 8. his testimony concerning the Authority of the Patriarch of Antioch over the Metropolitan of Cesarea p. 86 Illyricum though converted to the Faith by Paul the Apostle was notwithstanding Subject to the Roman Patriarchate as appears from many Epistles of ancient P. P. p. 38 c. The testimony of Ireneus concerning the more powerfull Principality of the Roman Church p. 14 Iuiius the first reprehends the Eusebians for declining the judgment of the Apâ—stolic See. p. 81 Iustinian the Emperor acknowledges the Roman Bishops Patriarchate over the West p. 55 L. Launoy opposes the authority of Clements Epistle to the Romans without any ground 10. he gave occasion to the Ministers of the English Church to defend their Schism with the greater obstinacy See Preface Lucius was the first King of England that was Converted to the Faith. 12 he sends Embassadors to Pope Eleutherius 13. Whether leaving his Kingdom he went into Germany and converted Bavaria to the Faith. p. 31 M. The English Manuscript set forth by Spelman is of no credit or authority p. 102 Meletius was Second in dignity to the Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt 87. he was a Metropolitan under Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria p. 88 The Metropolitical Authority was instituted by the Apostles Preface It is not suprem p. 78 The Metropolitan of Cesarea was in ancient time subject to the Patriarch of Antioch 85. the Institution of Metropolitans in Britain in the time of Gregory the Great p. 34 It is necessary that those who plant Churches should have a true Mission p. 29 N. The 6. Canon of the Council of Nice 82. it doth not treat of the authority of Metropolitans as Supreme p. 86 O. The Testimony of Optatus Milevitanus concerning the Roman Church p. 110 How the Ordination of Metropolitans belonged to the Patriarchs p. 33 P. The Pall when first received and by whom p. 33 There were Patriarchs in the Primitive Church p. 20 They had their Original from Apostolical institution 53. there are three Patriarchal rights p. 18 The Patriarchal right over Illyricum p. 50 S. Patrick Legate to Celestine I. p. 100. Where Paul the Apostle preach't the Gospel 8. he was not the firft Planter of the Roman Church 25. whether he Preach't in Britain p. 6 It was most just that the cause of Paulus Samosatenus should be remov'd to the tribunal of the Bishop of Rome p. 80 Pelagius consented that his cause should be brought before Innocent the first after it had bin heard in the Eastern Synod 96. how his Heresy was condemn'd by Zosimus and the censure that Zosimus passed against it was approv'd by every Church under Heaven p. 98. Who determin'd in the cause of Perigenes and when p. 48 c. The cause of Perrevius different from that of Perigenes p. 47 Peter head of the Apostles 109 110. his memory to be honour'd 81. he instituted three Patriarchal Sees 30. he and his Successors instituted all the Churches in the West 24. he had instituted the Roman Church before Paul came to Rome 26. his See in Britain p. 4 c. R. The Roman Church hath the more powerful Principality for which cause it is necessary that every Church should have resort unto it 14 15. the whole World hath intercourse with it by communicatory Letters 110. the Principality of the Apostolic See always prevail'd in it 1â— as the imperial Seat had its Principality so likewise had Priesthood its Principle in it ibid. The Roman Bishop is Patriarch of the West 89. he had Metropolitans under him 89. he is the Head of the Institutions in the West 30. Britain appertains to his Patriarchate 38. the Roman Bishop had always the right of promulgating Easter day 72. his Authority is shew'd from those things which happened concerning Easter in the time of Victor 73 74. all Provinces are to refer their Causes to him as Head of the Church p. 95. S. The Testimonies of the Council of Sardica for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome p. 95 The Authority of Severus Sulpitius for the preaching the Gospel in Gaul in the third Age. p. 12 Divers Errors of Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls set down Prolegom p. 7. 9. 11. 14. 19. 20. 27. 43. 45. 46. 48. 60. 61. 64. 68. 77. 78. 79. 82. 83. 84. 92. T. Theodosius junior being circumvented by the Bishop of Constantinople withdraws Illiricum from the Roman Patriarchate 48 49. he repeals the Law that he made concerning this matter p. 52 Thule an Island in Iceland p. 9 V. Pope Victor judg'd that the Question concerning the Feast of Easter was to be decided by him 72. he terrifies the Astatic Churches that withdrew their Obedience with the censure of Excommunication p. 73 FINIS Post-script SInce this Dissertation which the Author not being acquainted with the English Tongue was obliged to write in Latin is an Answer to what the Dean of Paul's hath Written in English 't was thought convenient it should be Translated that both Writers might appear in the same Language And it was the part of the Interpreter to render the true Sence of the Latin Treatise which he hath carefully endeavour'd to do Leaving it now to the Reader to Judge of the Works of these two Authors and Intreating him either to Excuse or Correct some Errata of this Impression in the manner following Some Errors Corrected REad Venantius pag. 9. Pausianus p. 36. Nectarius p. 48. ad Theodosium p. 5 in margine Anastasium p. 54 in marg Dieceses p. 60. Praefecti Pretorio p. 61. Chap. V. p. 89. Britain instead of Great Britain 112. c. BY HIS MAJESTY's Letters Patents under His Great Seal of England dated the tenth day of November in the 3d. Year of his Majesties Reign there is Granted to Matthew Turner of Holborn Bookseller and his Assigns only full and sole Power Licence Priviledge and Authority to Print and Reprint either in Latin or English and also to Vtter and Sell at any Place within His Majesties Kingdom of England Dominion of Wales and Town of Berwick upon Tweed the several Books Following viz. I. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent II. The Works of Lewis de Granada III. The Works of S. Francis de Sales IV. The Devotional Treatises of St. Augustin V. The Works of Thomas of Kempis VI. The Devotional Treatises of St. Bonaventure VII Father Person 's Christian Directory or Book of Resolution VIII Father Person 's Treatises of the Three Conversions of England IX A Journal of Meditations for each day in the Year By N. B. X. Meditations used at Lisbon Colledge XI The Christians Daily Exercise by T.V. XII Paradisus Animae Christianae XIII The Key of Paradise XIV Stella's Contempt of the World. XV. The Works of Hieremias Drexelius XVI The Devotional Treatises of Cardinal Bona. XVII Beda's Ecclesiastical History of England XVIII Turbervil's Manual of Controversies XIX Vane's Lost Sheep Returned XX. The true Portraicture of the Church XXI The Catholic Scripturist XXII Historical Collections of the Reigns of Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth Queen Mary Queen Elizabeth and King James XXIII The Devotional Treatises of Cardinal Bellarmin XXIV The Question of Questions XXV The Works of Lewis de Puente XXVI The Works of Alphonsus Roderiguez XXVII The Poor Man's Devotion As by the said Letters patents doth more fully appear
Opinion of Baronius That the British Church was instituted by Peter ascribes it to Paul the Apostle and is confident he can prove it clearly But before he sets upon the Question he rejects the Opinions of some Authors who thought that other Disciples of Christ pass'd over the British Sea Gildas in Ep. de Excidio Britanniae Sect. 6. vide num I in fine and contends that Gildas the wise doth not make for their purpose who in his Epistle De Excidio Britanniae thus writes In the mean time Christ the true Sun first indulg'd his Rays that is the knowledg of his Precepts to this Island shivering with Icy-cold and separate at a great distance from the visible Sun not from the visible Firmament but from the supream everlasting Power of Heaven For we know that in the latter end of the Reign of Tiberius that Sun appeared to the whole World with his glorious Beams in which time his Religion was propagated without any impediment that Prince against the will of the Senate threatning Death to all that should inform against the Soldiers of Christ Which Precepts although they were coldly entertained by the Inhabitaâ—â—â— yet some received them entirely others more imperfectly till the time of the nine years persecution of Dioclesian the Tyrant in which the Churches throughout the whole World were subverted There are some who gather from this Testimony of Gildas that the Gospel was preached in Britain about the last year of Tiberius which our Author deservedly rejects and shews that they did not understand the Testimony of Gildas For he says that Gildas makes a distinction between the Preaching of the Faith through the whole World and the promulgating the Gospel in Britain He acknowledges the first to have happen'd at the end of the Reign of Tiberius at which time as Eusebius in his Chronicle testifies Pilate made a Report to Tiberius of the Divinity of Christ and the Persecution of the Christians in Palestine and Tiberius as Tertullian in his Apologetic testifies referr'd it to the Senate who denying their Suffrage for giving Christ place amongst their Gods Tiberius notwithstanding continued his former Opinion threatning Death to those who should persecute the Christians For then the Gospel might have been every where freely Preach'd as Gildas in the beginning of the fore-cited Testimony most clearly says it was The other concerning the Preaching of the Faith in Britain Gildas asserts to have happened almost at the same time which Testimony our Author might have urg'd above the rest for the Apostles Preaching of the Gospel in Britain had not he perhaps foreseen that Gildas might be cited rather for Peter's coming into Britain than for Paul's Indeed in one place of that Epistle Gildas reprehends the Manners of the British Clergy saying That they usurp'd the See of Peter the Apostle with unclean Feet Sedem Petri Apostoli immundis pedibus usurpare Gildas Sapiens Which Place when our Author towards the End of his Treatise had objected against himself he answers That the See of Peter mention'd by Gildas makes nothing to the purpose of which if you ask him the Reason you shall obtain no other but this That the See of Peter the Apostle which Gildas placeth in Britain when he saith it was usurp'd by the British Clergy with unclean Feet doth not please our Author Gildas Sapiens The Testimony of Gildas admits of a twofold Sense the first is that Peter was in England that he there instituted an Episcopal See and that he ordain'd Deacons and Priests which is historical and prov'd by more than Gildas The second that the British Clergy owe their Institution to Peters See which sense is admitted by others Neither of these Senses pleases our Author and therefore he thinks that Gildas is not to be thus urged amongst those who have treated of the Institution of the British Church 2. Eusebius apud Metaphrastem Simonem Petrum duodâ—â—m quidem annos esse versatum in Oriente viginti autem tres annos transegâ—sse Romae in Britannia in Civitatibus quae sunt in occidente But Eusebius in Metaphrastes confirms the former Historical Sense of the English Church being instituted by Peter in these Words Simon Peter was conversant in the East twelve years he spent twenty three years at Rome and in Britain and in the Cities which are in the West Armagh relates this Testimony out of * Metaphrastes ad diem 29. Cumque Ecclesias constituisset Episcopos Presbyteros Diaconos ordinasset duodecimo anno Caesaris Neronis rursus Romam reversum esse Metaphrastes who in his Commentary concerning Peter and Paul at the 29th Day of June affirms also of Peter that he tarried a long time in Britain and converted many Nations not named to the Faith and when he had constituted the Churches and ordained Bishops Priests and Deacons in the twelfth year of Nero Caesar he again return'd to Rome To these may be added John V. who 900. years since in his Epistle to Ethelred and Alfred English Saxon Kings in Malbur Lib 3. tells us that he rejoyc'd to see the Fervor of Faith in them * Joannes V. Quam ex praedicatione Principis Apostolorum Deo vestros animos illuminante accepistis efficacitèr tenetis which saith he you receiv'd by the preaching of the Prince of the Apostles God enlightning your minds and still efficaciously retain And 850. years since †Kenulphus Merciorum Rex Vnde tibi Apostolica dignitas inde nobis fidei veritas innotuit Kenulphus the King of the Mercians in his Epistle to Leo III. had these Words From whence your Apostolical Dignity was derived from thence the verity of Faith was made known to us 3. Now the Testimonies are to be produced by which the Author endeavours to vindicate the Right of Paul rather than of Peter to this Province And the first Testimony which he brings is that of Eusebius Caesariensis whom he cites as having writ in the Third Book De Demonstratione Evangelica Chap. 7. That after the Conversion of the Romans Persians Armenians Parthians Indians and Scythians the Apostles past over the Ocean * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoretus in Fsal 116. to those which are called the Eritish Islands The second is that of Theodoret who in the first Tome upon Psalm 116. asserts that the Faith was preached by Paul not only to Spain but also to the Islands that lie in the Ocean Therefore saith the Author in all probability the British Islands are understood by him Concerning which the same Theodoret Tome 4. Serm. 9. writ That our Fish rmen and Publicans brought the Evangelical Laws amongst them To Theodoret he adjoyns Jerome who upon the fifth Chapter of Amos writes concerning Paul That he bent his Course to Spain and went from the Red-Sea and from one Ocean to another imitating his Lord the Son of Righteousness of whom we read that his going forth is from
of Fact whilst he denies that the Churches in the West and especially in Britain were instituted only by Peter or by Priests which had their mission from the Apostolic See. The second to invalidate the reason alledged by Innocent viz. That there is no connexion between the Institution of a Church and its Subjection and so that a Patriachal right over Churches doth not accrue from the instituting of them 8. The first Objection is answered and it is shew'd that we ought rather to believe Innocent then the Author about this matter of Fact. For Innocent tells us that Churches were Instituted in the Islands that lay between Italy Africa Spain and France by Peter only Now Britain may be reckon'd amongst these Islands since it is not only adjacent to France but interjacent as to some part moreover it ought to be accounted in the number of these since it is made to appear that a Church was instituted in Britain if not by Peter yet by the Priests that were sent by Eleutherius Peters Successor 9. The second Objection is answer'd and the reason drawn from matter of Fact is made good also the connexion between the Institution of a Church and its Subjection is shew'd since a Church can be instituted by none but him that hath a true mission and that hath jurisdiction which properly appertains to a Superior so that Innocent doth rightly call the Apostolic See the Head of the Institutions 10. It is shew'd that what is objected by the Author coucerning Churches being instituted through all Bavaria and Rhetia by King Lucius depends upon weak Testimonies which if they were true would make nothing for the Authority of the English Church over Bavaria and Rhetia unless it could be made out that Lucius was sent into those parts by Authority of the English Church and that he ordain'd Bishops by the same Authority which will never be proved 11. For the Subjecting of Bishops of a Country to any Patriarch by virtue of their Ordination it is sufficient that their first Bishop be Ordained by this Patriarch as is proved from the the example of Frumentius the first Bishop of Aethiopia the Testimonies of Nicolaus the first Gregory the Great and the eighth general Council 1. HAving treated in the foregoing Chapter of the Origin or first Institution of the British Church we are now to treat of its Subjection to the Roman Bishop as Patriarch of the West concerning which our Author in his Third Chapter states the Question against me in these words Author p. 112. The present Keeper of the Vatican Library having endeavoured in a set Discourse to assert the Popes Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches I shall here examin the strength of all that he produceth to that purpose He agrees with us in determining the Patriarchal Rights which he saith lie in these three things 1. In the right of Consecration of Bishops and Metropolitans 2. In the right of summoning them to Councils 3. In the right of Appeals All which he proves to be just and true Patriarchal Rights from the Seventeenth Canon of the eighth general Council And by these we are contented to stand or fall So this Author in the very beginning of his Disputation who if he would hear the Rule of the Eighth general Council might plainly be shew'd to have been vanquish'd before he began to fight For that Canon was made to renew the Bishop of Romes Patriarchal authority over the Metropolitans in the West which doth not at all promote our Authors design but quite overthrows it as we shall see hereafter 2. In the mean time let us proceed to the Authers Pleas by which he contends I have not rightly prov'd that the three Patriarchal Rights above mention'd belong to the Roman Bishop over all the West For when I had confirm'd the Right from the use of those Countries in which the Roman Bishop had exercis'd it I shew'd from the Right it self that the exercise or use thereof did belong to him even in those other Regions of the West where by reason of some certain priviledges granted them he often abstain'd from the exercise of this Right But our Author complains of this as an absurd way of arguing For this way of proving saith he is ridiculous viz. Author p. 119 to prove that the Pope had Patriarchal Rights because he exercised them and then to say though he did not exercise them yet he had them and so prove that he had them because he was Patriarch of the West And as it folloâ—s Author p. 12â— this way of proving may be good against de Marca who had granted the Pope to be the Western Patriarch but it is ridiculous to those that deny it Here again the Author stumbles and makes himself a laughing-stock whilst he endeavours to expose me as so for the way of proof which I have used He confesses that the way of proof which I have taken is good against de Marca and all those that call the Pope the Patriarch of the West which all Catholics did until the year 1678 wherein I publish'd my Book intitled Antiquitas Illustrata although all Catholics did not agree that there was a perpetual exercise of the Patriarchal Jurisdiction in all the Western Provinces I did therefore treat Disert 2. Antiquitatis Illustratae cap. 4. in three Articles concerning the threefold Patriarchal Right above mention'd against those Catholics who allow'd the Roman Bishop to be Patriarch of the West but notwithstanding contended that he ought not to exercise a Patriarchal Jurisdiction in all the Western Parts using that way of Proof which the Author himself confesses of force against them so that it cannot be at all ridiculous 3. And I know not upon what account he can object to me that this way of arguing is not of force against him who at this time undertakes to deny the Bishop of Romes Patriarchal Right over the whole West For to speak the truth could I divine seven years since that six years after that an English Author should oppose the Roman Bishops Patriarchate which James King of England Jacobus Rex Anglie In Apologia pro Juramento Fidelitatis plainly admitted I know saith he that there were Patriarchs in the Primitive Church And afterwards there was great contention amongst them for the Supremacy then he adds But if the Question were still about this matter the Roman Bishop should have my suffrage for the Precedence I being a Western King would adhere to the Western Patriarch Here both the former and the latter words of King James are to be observ'd He affirms in the former that there were Patriarchs in the Primitive Church that is when a Church began first to be propagated in the latter that if the Question were now put concerning the chief Patriarch he would adhere to the Roman as being Patriarch of all the West Which is exprest in those words I being a Western King would adhere to the Western Patriarch Which
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
detest the Error they have imbibed concerning the Supremacy of the Metropolitcal Authority 8. Thus far enough of the Patriarchate of Antioch Let us now speak of that of Alexandria It is confest that the Bishop of Alexandria had a power over many Provinces before the time of the Nicene Council which the Sixth Canon of Nice plainly declares whilst it ordains that the ancient custom should be observ'd according to which the Bishop of Alexandria exercised a jurisdiction over Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis This is expresly commemorated of Dionysius who govern'd the Church of Alexandria Sixty years before the Nicene Council by St. Athanasius lib. de sententia Dionysii contra Arianos in these words D. Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Vid. num XXXVIII In Pentapolis of the upper Lybia some of the Bishops embraced the opinions of Sabellius and their fictions did so much prevail that the Son of God was scarce any more Preach'd in their Churches Vpon the discovery of which Dionysius to whose charge those Churches belong'd sent Legates to withdraw the Authors of these things from their false opinions Therefore according to the testimony of Athanasius the Churches of upper Lybia Epiphanius Haeresi 68. Vid. num XXXIX or Pentapolis as also other Churches distributed through the rest of the Provinces of the Egyptian Diocese were under the charge of Dionysius as St. Epiphanius informs us Heresi 68. where he detests the Original of the Meletian Schism Meletius saith he and the Martyrs especially Peter Archbishop of Alexandria were then in bonds and Meletius though he excell'd the other Bishops of Egypt yet was second to Peter in dignity as being his Suffragane yet subject to him and referring Ecclesiastical Causes to his Jurisdiction For it is the Right of the Arch-Bishops of Alexandria to administer Ecclesiastical Affairs throughout all Aegypt and Thebais Mareotis Lybia Ammoniaca and Pentapolis From these ancient Testimonies the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria over all the Provinces throughout Aegypt is clearly proved neither do I see that any doubt can be made of this it remains therefore for us to consider whether there was at that time no Metropolitan Bishop to be found in any of the Provinces of Aegypt 9. This our Author denies as to the times before the Nicene Council but upon what ground I know not For Meletius held a Bishoprick in Thebais before the time of the Council of Nice and St. Epiphanius in the place above mentioned hath recorded that he in the time of St. Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was crown'd with Martyrdom about fourteen years before the Nicene Council excelling the other Egyptian Bishops was the second to Peter in Dignity Now how could Meletius then have obtain'd the second Place to Peter by what Right could he have excell'd the other Egyptian Bishops unless he had been a Metropolitan If you would have a farther Confirmation of the thing consult St. Athanasius who tells us that Meletius ordain'd Bishops in Egypt and in the Breviary of the Bishops consecrated by Meletius names John Bishop of Memphis in the last place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Memphis Bâ—â—â—â—â—um Eâ—â—â—coporum à Meletio orâ—â—natâ—um John commanded by the Emperor to be together with the Archbishop Meletius therefore was an Arch-bishop to whom John Bishop of Memphis was by the command of the Emperor to be an Assistant and this St. Athanasius expressy affirms Haeresi 69. where he tells us that Arius drew to his party Secundus Bishop of Pentapolis together with some others and that all this was done without the knowledge of S. Alexander until Meletius Arch-bishop of Thebais in Aegypt D. Epiphanius and again until Meletius Arch-bishop in Aegypt and subject to Alexander had inform'd Alexander of the whole Business Thus Epiphanius twice calls Meletius Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and affirms that he was subject to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria so that there is no question but the Patriarch of Alexandria had a Metropolitan under him before the time of the Nicene Council and whereas our Author owns no Metropolitan to have been in Thebais this proceeds from his Ignorance in Ecclesiastical History 10. Since therefore these things are so clear that they cannot be call'd in question let our Author now say that the Parity between the Patriarchate of Alexandria and that of Rome lay in this that neither of them had Metropolitans under him For since it hath been shew'd that there were not only many Provinces but likewise several Metropolitan Bishopricks under the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria before the time of the Nicene Council since the fixth Canon of the Council of Nice decrees that the ancient Custom should be observ'd viz. that the Bishop of Alexandria should have Authority over Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis because the Bishop of Rome hath a like Custom hereby the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria not only over Bishops but also over Metropolitans is confirm'd from the Example of the Roman Patriarch who consequently must have a Jurisdiction over Metropolitans Neither hath any one reason to alledge the Paraphrase of Ruffinus concerning the Suburbicarian Regions against us and to affirm with Salmasius that these were confined within the space of a hundred Miles from the City or within the Bounds of the Lieutenancy of the City as a late French Author would have them to be All which I shall refute at large in the second Edition of Antiquitas Illustrata and shew to be erroneous In the mean time who will not admire that there should be such Men to be found who notwithstanding they may plainly see that the Bishop of Antioch had fifteen Eastern Provinces and the Bishop of Alexandria six Provinces of Aegypt under thier Jurisdiction yet can have the confidence to affirm that the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome was confin'd to the narrow space of a hundred Miles or but few more from the City If the Bishop of Alexandria obtain'd a Patriarchal Jurisdiction over a larger Diocess of the Empire because the Roman Bishops had the like Custom then we must of necessity allow the Roman Bishop to have obtain'd a Jurisdiction over at least a like Diocess of the Empire But the first Council of Arles ten years before that of Nice expresly declared that Sylvester Bishop of Rome held not only one but many greater Diocesses nor is it any where read that these Diocesses were taken away from Sylvester in so short a space of time it must then be held for certain that he retain'd them all at the time of the Council of Nice and consequently that the Popes had not only a Patriarchal Jurisdiction over the Provinces that were near the City of Rome but also over all the rest of the Western Provinces amongst which the British are to be reckon'd CHAP. VI. That the British Church acknowledged an Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan from the time that the Christian Religion was first planted there till such time
as it was again restored by Augustine the Monk under Gregory the Great 1. Our Author hath conjectur'd from a certain Answer made by the British Bishops and the Monks of Banchor to Augustine Gregory 's Legate that Britain did acknowledge no Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan till such time as Gregory the Great was Pope which he endeavors to prove from Bede and Spelman from an ancient English Manuscript 2. The Manuscript set forth by Spelman and approv'd of by our Author is suppositious and lately invented The English Church from the time of its first planting hath acknowledg'd an Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan in the Roman Bishop as is shew'd from the first Council of Arles wherein three British Bishops were present 3. The same thing is prov'd from the Canons and Epistle of the Council of Sardica wherein St. Athanasius mentions the British Bishops to have been present 4. Pelagius a Britain discover'd this when after his Heresie was condemn'd in an Eastern Synod he would not only have his Cause brought before the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop but sent also a Book wherein he gave an Account of his Faith together with an Epistle to Innocent the First as appears from the Testimony of Augustin and Osorius 5. Celestius the Disciple of Pelagius being of the British Nation also acknowledg'd this more clearly whilst being condemn'd for his Heresie in the Council of Carthage he thought fit to appeal from the Sentence of the Synod to the Tribunal of the Bishop of Rome as Marius Mercator testifies For 't was his Duty to prosecute that Appeal as Paulinus Deacon to St. Ambrose asserts 6. The Mission of Bishops into Britain from the Apostolic See and their Reception there confirms this same thing as St. Prosper tells us from Germanus Antisiodorensis whose Testimony in this case ought not to be contemn'd 7. Venerable Bede testifies the same thing concerning Palladius the Apostle of the Scots and Mattheus Westmonasteriensis of St. Patrick the Apostle of Ireland 8. This is likewise manifestly prov'd from what Gregory the Great did for the Restauration of the Catholic Religion in Britain For he sent Augustine as Legate of the Apostolic See that he might institute Churches ordain Metropolitans and Consecrate Bishops in the Island who should be all bound to obey his Authority 9. Neither did the Monks of Banchor or the British Bishops oppose the Popes Authority at the time when Augustine was Legate there For the Manuscript containing the Answer of the Abbot of Banchor set forth by Spelman is supposititious and the Acts recorded by Bede only hint to us that a Question rose amongst them there concerning some particular Rites but not concerning the Primacy of the Pope 10. But supposing that the Monks of Banchor had contradicted the Popes Primacy this Opposition can be no Proof against it since Augustine shew'd that what they held was false by a Miracle which gave Divine Testimony to the Truth which he asserted 1. OUR Author in the Conclusion of his Book proposeth these things which are supposed to be spoken by the Monks of Banchor and the British Bishops upon the occasion of Augustine's being sent amongst them concerning which he hath these Words Pag. 357. Augustine being furnished with such full Powers as he thought desires a Meeting with the British Bishops at a Place called Augustinsac as Bede saith in the Confines of the Wiccii and the West Saxons but at this Place the British Bishops gave Augustine a Meeting where the first thing proposed by him was that they would embrace the Unity of the Catholic Church and then joyn with them in preaching to the Gentiles for saith he they did many things repugnant to the Unity of the Church which was in plain terms to charge them with Schism and the Terms of Communion offer'd did imply Submission to the Church of Rome and by consequence to his Authority over them But the utmost that could be obtain'd from them was only that they would take farther Advice and give another Meeting with a greater Number And then were present seven Bishops of the Britains and many learned Men chiefly of the Monastery of Banchor where Dinoth was then Abbot and the result of this Meeting was that they utterly refused Submission to the Church of Rome or to Augustine as Arch-bishop over them So far our Author observing that the Truth of this History did not only depend upon the Testimony of Bede but likewise upon the Authority of a Manuscript set forth by Spelman in which Dinoth the Abbot of Banchor is reported to have said that he knew not who that Pope was whom they called Father of Fathers Patrem Patrum to whom Augustine would have the British Bishops pay Obedience And although he confesses that this Manuscript was by some judg'd to be supposititious yet he brings Spelman's Authority for it Pag. 360. Ex Tomo 1. Conciliorum Spelmanni who saith he sets it down at large in Welch English and Latine tells from whom he had it and exactly transcribed it and that it appeared to him to have been an old Manuscript taken out of an older but without Date or Author and believes it to be still in the Cotton Library Here is all the appearance of Ingenuity and Faithfulness that can be expected and he was a Person of too great Judgment and Sagacity to be easily imposed upon by a Modern Invention or a new found Schedule as Mr. Cressy phrases it 2. It may be easily collected from these Words of the Author that although he makes use of Bede's Authority as the chief support of his Cause yet he doth not deny the Authority of the Manuscript set forth by Spelman which ought to be rejected as a modern Invention as may easily be shewn For it is not at all probable that Dinoth Abbot of Banchor should speak those things concerning the Power of the Bishop of Rome which he is reported to have done in that Manuscript For the Pope's Authority was no News to the British Islands Neither was the Roman Bishops Patriarchal Authority over the British Churches any modern Invention Whoever shall peruse the ancient Records of the English Church will as I suppose easily find these things are not to be denied For if they had been new and lately invented why then should Eborius Bishop of York Restitutus Bishop of London Adelphus Bishop of the * Coloniae Londinensium London Colony and others of the British Clergy being present in the Council of Arles at the beginning of the fourth Age have sent the Acts of that Council to Sylvester that he might publish them to all Patres Arelatenses epist Synodica How could they have acknowledged that he held the greater Diocesses How could they have written that the Apostles daily sate in the Roman See if they had not believed an Apostolical Authority had still remained in that See 3. It is manifest that about the middle of the same
Church and receded as Schismatics from the center of Ecclesiastical Communion What else can we conclude but that God was willing to shew the falshood of the Schismatical Church of Britain by the Miracle which he wrought upon Augustine's intercession Do not the Acts of the British Synod recorded in Bede testifie that Augustine did by so manifest a Miracle demonstrate the truth of those things which he proposed to the Britains that they were forc'd to confess it was the true way of Justice which Augustine Preach'd If these things cannot be denied as it is most certain they cannot what do the modern English Authors mean when they object against Catholics the answer of the Britains and the Monks of Banchor Will they not at length be convinc'd that they oppose nothing but their own Errors which are the vain Forgeries of Men against that Truth which hath been confirm'd by a Divine Testimony and that the rest of the Church hath just reason to condemn them for having lost both Truth and Modesty at the same time I am weary of vainly spending my time in matters so clear so manifest so perspicuous and of being again forc'd when Religion is the subject to bring a new Evidence of that Truth which all the English Writers of former Ages all men that have been eminent in Britain for Sanctity and Learning and lastly even the Bishops who have been present in the several Councils that have been held in England Scotland and Ireland have acknowledg'd and defended I will therefore conclude my Discourse with the following Exhortation AN EXHORTATION TO THE MINISTERS OF THE English Church WHen Philo the most Eloquent of the Hebrews address'd his Oration to Caius the Emperor Philo in Oratione pro Gente Hebraeorum ad Caium Caligulam and the Roman Senate How long saith he shall we old Men be Children as to the Body gray indeed through Age but as to the Mind through want of Knowledge very Infants whilst we believe Fortune the most inconstant thing in the World to be stable but Nature to be unstable whereas it is most constant Pardon me I beseech you most excellent Ministers of the English Church if I make my Address to you in the Words of Philo tho somewhat alter'd How long will you who are ancient in Body be Children in Minds and meer Infants for want of knowledg of Religion whilst you think the Catholic Church unstable which is yet most constant and your own which is rent from the Body of the Catholic Church will be stable You have chang'd the true Estimate of things attributing that to a part which is only the Property of the whole and imagining with your selves that the Catholic Church is defectible Matthaei 16 cap. 1. ad Timoth 3. which the eternal Truth hath promised shall never fail and which the Doctor of the Gentiles hath called the Pillar and Ground of Truth You thought that the true Faith was lost in the Catholic Church spread over the Face of the whole World but found again by you in England little considering how truly that Objection might be made against you which Henry the Eighth your King in the Age before this made against Luther that like the Donatists you reduce the Catholic Church to a very small number whispering of Christ in a Corner It was the Judgment of the great Augustine and of St. Optatus Milevitanus Optat. Melcvit Lib. 2. contra Parmenianum Quasi in carcerem latitudo Regnorum that the Church was not to be shut up in some Corner but to extend it self to the utmost Bounds of the World the latter of these Holy Fathers Lib. 2. reprehends Parmenianus the Chief of the Donatists for endeavouring to make void that Promise of God the Father of giving to the Son the uttermost parts of the Earth for his Possession whereas he had confined the large Extent of his Dominions as it were to a narrow Prison Then he asserts the Church that it may be Catholic ought to be extended to all parts of the World and that the first Mark to distinguish it by was Vnity which consists in the Communion it holds with St. Peter's See which is but one and this he believ'd so manifest that he thought Permenianus himself could not deny it Negare non potes inquit loco supracitato Stire te in Vrbe Roma Petro Primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse callatam in qua sederit emnium Apostolorum Caput Petrus undè Cephas appellatus est in qua una Cathedra uni as ab â—mâ—â—bus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent ut jam schismaticus peccater esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collâ—caret Ergo Cathedra unica que est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus enumerata longa Romanorum Pontificum serie usque ad Siricium sub quo scribebat Siriâ—â—us inquit hodie qui noster est Sociuâ— cum quo nobis totus Orbis commercio formatarum in una Communionis Societate concerdat You cannot deny saith he in the place above cited but that you know that the Episcopal See of the City of Rome was granted to Peter as the Chief in which Peter the Head of all the Apostles sate from whence he was called Cephas in which one See Unity was to be preserved by all least the rest of the Apostles should claim a Superiority to any of their Sees So that now he would be a Schismatic and a Sinner who should set up another See in opposition to this peculiar See. Therefore in this one See only which is its chief Dowry Peter first sate to whom Linus succeeded and so reckoning up a long Series of Roman Bishops till he came to Siricius in whose time he wrote who saith he is our Fellow-Bishop with whom the whole World agrees as we do in one Society of Communion by intercourse of Communicatory Letters There was then a true Church in time past which diffused throughout the whole World made Peter's one See the Center of its Vnity and communicated with the Roman Church as a Sign of one Faith and Religion by Communicatory Letters This was the Sentence of Optatus Milevitanus and the rest of the Fathers which because the Donatists durst not deny they had constituted a Bishop of their own in the City of Rome who as St. Augustine tells us was called Rupensis and Montensis a Rupe vel Monte from the Rock or Hill wherein he conceal'd himself If therefore the Popes Authority was so manifest in former Ages that the Schismatical Affricans themselves could neither be ignorant of it nor deny it how comes it to pass that you in England now do not at all acknowledg it was perhaps the Knowledge of it so obliterated in the latter Ages that it could not be discovered by your Ancestors when they separated from the Communion of the Apostolic See Henricus Octavus libro de 7.
Romanae Ecclesiae Caelestino primus mittitur Episcopus ibid. NUM XLVII Matthaeus Westmonasteriensis Audita verò morte Palladii Patricius Theodosio Valentiniano imperantibus à Papa Caelestino ad partes occiduas missus est ut vexillum S. Crucis Gentibus praedicaret Cumque ad Britanniam pervenisset praedicavit ibi verbum Dei à Genti-incolis gratanter est susceptus Deindè ad Scotos se conferens praedicavit verbum Dei quod non potuit alligari ibid. NUM XLVIII Jocelinus in vita S. Patricii Illique inquit vices suas committens atquen legatum suum constituens quaecumque in Hibernia gesserat constituerat disposuerat auctoritatis suae munimine confirmavit Pag. 101 NUM XLIX Auctor vitae Gregorii Magni Gregorius cum primum in toto Orbe gereret Pontificatum conversis jamdudum ad fidem veritatis esset praelatus Ecclesiis ibid. NUM L. Venerab Beda lib. 2. Hist cap. 2. In multis quidem nostrae consuetudini imò Universalis Ecclesiae contraria geritis tamen si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis ut ministerium baptizandi quo Deo renascimur juxta morem Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis ut Genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis verbum Domini caetera quae agitis quamvis moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus At illi nihil horum se facturos neque illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant Pag. 103 NUM LI. Ibid. Qui cum longa disputatione habita neque precibus neque hortamentis neque increpationibus Augustini ac sociorum ejus assensum praebere voluissent sed suas potius traditiones universis quae per Orbem sibi in Christo concordant Ecclesiis praeferrent Sanctus Pater Augustinus hunc laboriosi ac long◠certaminis finem fecit ut diceret obsecremus Deum qui habitare facit unanimes in domo Patris sui ut ipse nobis insinuari caelestibus signis dignetur quae sequenda traditio quibus sit viis ad ingressum Regni illius properandum Adducatur aliquis aeger per cujus preces fuerit curatus hujus fides operatio Deo devota atque omnibus sequenda credatur Quod cum adversarii inviti licet concederent allatus est quidam de genere Anglorum oculorum luce privatus qui cum oblatus Britonum Sacerdotibus nil curationis vel sanationis horum ministerio perciperet tandem Augustinus justa necessitate compulsus flectit genua sua ad Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi deprecans ut visum caeco quem amiserat restitueret per illuminationem unius hominis corporalem in plurimorum cordibus fidelium spiritualis gratiae lucem accenderet Nec mora illuminatur caecus ac verus summae lucis praeco ab omnibus praedicatur Augustinus Tum Britones confitentur quidem intellexisse se veram esse viam Justitiae quam praedicaret Augustinus c. Pag. 104 NUM LII Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Cunctis enim Evangelium scientibus liquet quod voce Dominica Sancto omnium Apostolorum Petro Principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est Pag. 105 THE INDEX A. WHat Provinces there were in Aegypt and to whom they were Subject p. 87. The Aegyptians did in the third Age acknowledge the Authority of the Roman Bishop as Supreme p. 79 Aethiopia appertains to the See of Alexandria because Athanasius sent a Bishop thither who planted the Aethiopic Church p. 30 The Epistle of Agatho shewing of what Bishops the Patriarchal Synod of the Bishop of Rome consists p. 54 Agricola first brought the Pelagian Heresie into Britain p. 98 The Bishop of Alexandria had the care over all Aegypt committed to him 82. The Nicene Council intrusted him also with the Computation of Easter day 68. He had Metropolitan Bishops under him p. 84 The Bishop of Antioch had also Metropolitan Bishops under him before the time of the Nicene Council p. 84 Appeals to the Bishop of Rome as being Successor to Peter are to be admitted of p. 81 It appears from the Testimony of the Council of Aquileia that the Roman Church is the Head of the whole Roman World. p. 96. The first Canon of the Council of Arles is recited from several Manuscripts p. 66 The Council of Arles refers the determination of Easter day to Pope Sylvester 59. How the defect in the citation concerning the publishing of the Feast of Easter is to be supplyed p. 59 The Testimony of Augustine the Bishop concerning the Roman Patriarchs Authority over all the West 22. Augustine the Monk was Gregory the Great 's Legate 101. he institutes Metropolitans by Authority receiv'd from the Apostolic See. 102. he proves the truth of Catholic Religion by miracle p. 105 B. What Testimonies prove Britain to have been converted to the Faith by Peter 4. Severus Sulpitius affirms that Britains first Conversion to the Faith was in the third Age. 11. Bede and Tertulian testifie the same 12. Britain was longer preserv'd from the Pelagian Heresie than the other Western Regions 98. Faith and Discipline were restored in it by Augustine the Monk under Gregory the Great The Acts of the British Synod concerning those things which Augustine wrought for the restoring of Religion in England p. 103. The British Bishops did acknowledg in the Council or Arles that the greater Dioceses did belong to Sylvester the Bishop of Rome and that the Apostles did daily sit in the Roman See. 94. They profess'd in the Council of Sardica that the Memory of Peter was to be honoured 95. They acknowledg'd that they appertain'd to the Patriarchal Synod of the Bishop of Rome 55. When they began to deviate from truth and Ecclesiastical Discipline 101. How bad a cause they endeavoured to defend against Augustine Legate of the Apostolic See. p. 106 C. The Bishop of Caesarea being Metropolitan of the Chief part of Palestine was Subject to the Patriarch of Antioch p. 85 Pope Caelestine sent his Legates into Britaem p. 99 The Catholic Church is the Pillar and ground of truth the Faith of which Church never fails p. 109 The Testimony of Clemens Romanus concerning Paul the Apostles Preaching p. 9 Caelestine was of opinion that appeal was to be made from the judgment of the African Synod to the examen of the Roman Bishop p. 97 The Fragments of the Council of Palestine concerning Easter p. 72 The 8th general Council hath taught us in the 17th Canon that the Metropo itans of the West did appertain to the Roman Patriarchate p. 35 The Council of Arles c. See Arles c. What Customs were introduced by the Apostles and how they may be known to have been so p. 53 The Church was chiefly governed by Custom before the time of the Nicene Council p. 53 The Testimony of Cyril of Alexandria concerning the Computation of Easter-day p. 71 D. Pope Damasus constituted a Vicar in Illyricum and why he did