A DISSERTATION CONCERNING Patriarchal & Metropolitical AUTHORITY In Answer to what Edw. Stillingfleet DEAN of St. PAUL'S Hath written in his BOOK OF THE BRITISH ANTIQUITIES.  
By Eman. à Schelstrate S.T.D.C.L. And Perfect of the Vatican Library.  
Translated from the Latin.  
With Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed for Matthew Turner at the Lamb in Holbourn. MDCLXXXVIII.   

TO JAMES the II. OF Great Britain, etc. KING. DEFENDER of the FAITH. CONQUEROR. TRIUMPHANT. PEACEMAKER.  
THE Immortal God, Supreme Governor of Kings, and Ruler of the World, hath by his Providence ordered it, as auspicious to the Catholic Faith, That in these times, wherein other Christian Princes are restoring the Kingdoms of Hungary and Greece to the Church, Your Majesty should ascend the British Throne, and invite the renowned English Nation, to embrace the true Religion by your Royal Example. It is by the conduct of Divine, not Human, Wisdom that King's reign, 
Prov 8.15.  and Lawgivers decree Justice. Which being spoken of all Princes in this World, cannot but be understood of Your Majesty, who governing the British World in Justice, reign so happily, that You seem to have ravished the hearts of all your Subjects with Love, and the Eyes of all Strangers with Admiration. It is a Maxim of the Ancients, and the Oracle of Wisdom itself, that the Love of the People is the Princes chief Safeguard. Which made Pliny the second say, in his Panegyric to Trajan, that the King's Palace is no where better secured, than where Love keeps the Court of Guard. And Themistius, the famed Grecian Orator, hath given this excellent Admonition, that it is far better to allure Subjects by Love and Favour, than to awe them with Fear and Terror. By Love men's minds are united and made to agree in one: and by Agreement Empire's cement, as by Discord they fall asunder. Which Your Majesty very well understanding, presently quelled the dissension, that in the beginning of your Reign, threatened destruction to all Britain: and, when you had cut off the Principal Conspirators, Victorious and Triumphant, You either entirely pacified or wholly restrained the minds of the rest by Sweetness and Love. Being excellently well read in the tempers of Men You knew, that he is in vain armed with dread who is not fenced with love and affection. Having therefore freed your Subjects from terror and fear, You won their hearts by your serene Countenance and affable Conversation; who the more freely acknowledge they own the Public Safety to Your Majesty, the more other Nations look upon it with admiration. O thrice happy Prince, who whilst you embrace your People with Kindness gain Veneration at home, Renown abroad, and are purchasing with God a blessed Eternity. I will not speak here of that Frankness with which you receive all, of that Clemency, which makes you easy to be entreated, of that Liberality wherewith you relieve the Needy and Miserable, of the indefatigable Industry wherewith you manage the Affairs of your Kingdom, of that firm Constancy which enables You to undertake the most difficult Enterprises. For these and many other gracious Endowments, wherewith the Great God of Heaven, hath richly adorned your Royal Mind, might here be highly extolled: But, since they would be too copious a Subject for a short Epistle, I shall only entreat this Favour, that not being mindful of Your Majesty, but my meaness you would so far condescend, as favourably to receive this small Treatise concerning Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which I have put forth in Answer to an English Author, and to protect it with the Patronage of Your Great Name. Nor can any one induce Your Majesty to believe, That I seek to shelter Novelty under the Protection of Your Royal Name: for in this small Book I do not undertake to defend an Error lately invented, but a truth anciently received. I treat concerning the Roman Patriarchate, which the Catholic Kings Your Predecessors acknowledged for the space of Thirteen hundred years; and which, even since the Schism, Your Grandfather King James of Illustrious Memory hath, not obscurely, asserted. For in the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, which he sent to Rudolphus the Emperor, to the Christian Monarches, and to both the Catholic and Protestant Princes, 
* 
Jacobus Augliae Rex, in apologia pro juramento fidelitatis.  
Scio, inquit, Patriarchas in Ecclesia primitiva extitisse, & institutionem illam ordinis, & discriminis causa amplexor: sed & inter illos de Principatu magna contentione certatum est: quod si in eo quaestio adhuc verteretur, meo libens suffragio primum locum Episcopo Romano deferrem: Ego Occidentalis Rex Occidentali Patritarchae adhaererem.   I know, saith that Prince, That there were Patriarches in the Primitive Church, and I embrace that Institution for Order and Distinction Sake: there was also great Contention amongst them, who should be Chief: but if that were still the question, I would freely give my suffrage, that the Bishop of Rome should have the first place: I being a Western King would adhere to the Western Patriarch. That which King James the First, a Prince of the same name with Your Majesty here asserts, I explain more clearly in this Dissertation; and prove from the Testimonies of the Ancients, and the Decrees of Synods, that the Authority of the Roman Patriarchate extends itself over all the West. So that I may use almost the same words which Honorius did (when he exhorted the Emperor Theodosius to preserve the Privileges long before granted to the Roman See) that the Roman Church may not lose under a Catholic Prince what she ought not to have lost under other KIngs who fell into Schism. 
Honorius Epist●ad Theod.  Suffer therefore, Most Gracious Prince, that this small Treatise may come forth under your Protection; in which the only thing, I earnestly contend for, is that the Roman Church which is the special Head of all the Western Churches, and the Principal Head of all the Churches in the World, may not be disturbed, because from thence the Rights of admonishing others issue forth all over the West, as well as over the whole World. Written from Rome by  
Your Majesties, Most humble and most obedient Servant Emanuel of Antwerp in the Low Countries   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
I Know not, Courteous Reader, how it came to be my Lot: in one years' time this proves my second Contest with Adversaries that writ in the Language of their own Countries. At the beginning of this year I had to deal with Maimbourg, who set forth a Treatise in French concerning the Roman Bishops Supremacy over the Universal Church. Now towards the end of the year I must fall to work with the Dean of St. Paul's, who hath published a Book in English, wherein he calls in question the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchal Power over all the West. The former Author's Work, though it ought not to have been written in French, did not create me any difficulty, because I understood that Language: But the second, in English, although the Idiom in some things agrees with the Dutch, yet gave me so much trouble, that I was forced, to make use of an Interpreter for the understanding of it. That therefore which I could not understand by myself, I learned by the help of a Learned English man; and when he had translated the principal Places, which relate to the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome, into Latin; it plainly appeared, that the Author did not only write against me, but also against other Catholics, who either in this present Age, or in former Times, had treated upon this Subject. He hath therefore taken upon him to confute, for Italy, Baronius the Parent of Annals, and Lucas Holstenius: For France, Cardinal Perron, Petrus de Marca, Johannes Morinus, Jacobus Sirmondus, and Johannes Garnerius: Christianus Lupus, and me, the least of them all, for the Low-Countries. Of these, such as did not understand English, if they were yet alive, would, as I conceive, join with me in this request to the Author, that if he should hereafter write of Ecclesiastical matters, he would either forbear to impugn our Writings, or else express himself in a Language we could understand. But since none of the forementioned Writers, besides myself are now living, and our Author's Book, sent out of England, was brought to me by a Noble Person, that I might return a brief Confutation of it; I thought it necessary to examine some of his Allegations. I shall not here Answer all the Objections he hath thought fit to make: for since he hath written against those things which I had deduced from ancient Testimonies, concerning the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Bishop over the West, in my Book entitled, Antiquitas illustrata, I will refute what he hath writ in answer to it, when I publish my Book de Antiquitate, etc. with the addition of three or four Ages to it, I had been for some month's time diligently bestowing my pains about this Work, when our Author's Book called me off, and required a Confutation. And about the time that I began to examine it, little thinking that I should ever have any dispute with Catholic Writers concerning this Point, lo another Book comes to my hands entitled, de Disciplina Ecclesiae, which was divided into seven Dissertations, the first whereof, treats, de forma & distributione Ecclesiarum; and Sect. 6. the Question is put, whether either Metropolitical Authority, 
Card. Perronius in responso ad Jacobum Angliae Regem cap. 30. fol. 171. & seq.  or Patriarchal Dignity were instituted by Christ or his Apostle, Cardinal Perron, that great light of France, had showed that the Patriarchal Dignity was of Apostolical Institution; Petrus de Marca, Archbishop of Paris, had asserted the same concerning Metropolitical Authority, in his Book, de concordia Sacerdotii & Imperii, 
De Marca lib. 1. de concordia Sacerdotiy & Imperij, cap. 3. § 7. & seq.  against the Innovators of this our Age. A late French Author contends, that neither of them proceeded from the Apostles, and hath recourse to the Arguments of Heretics and Schismatics, to prove (what no Catholic to this very day ever yet durst) that both these Authorities were introduced by a later Custom; and the Patriarchal Dignity was first enlarged by invading the Rights of others, and established by the Synodical Decrees of the fourth and fifth Ages. This is the opinion of that Author, which being repugnant not only to the Canons of the present, but also to the Monuments of the ancient Church, he hath not been ashamed to wrest the Sanctions of the Councils, which do not favour his purpose, to a perverse sense, to ridicule the Writings of the ancient Bishops that do not please him, to elude the eminent Testimonies of the Fathers that overthrew his Opinion, by his cavils, lastly, to tax the Practice of the peresent Church as novel, because it suits not with his humours.  
In the year 1662. Launoy a Divine of Paris set forth a small Treatise, entitled the recta intelligentia Sexti Canonis Nicaeni; in which, after the Disputes of Sirmondus, and other Catholics against Salmasius, and the Heretics that were his followers, he proposes two principal things, which he thought gave most light for the finding out of the true sense of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice. One was, that it did not treat of Patriarches, and their Rights. The other, that it only referred to Metropolitans, and the right which they have in the Ordination of Bishops. He hath many Arguments to this purpose, and that, as be there forespeaks, saving the Authority of the Apostolic See, which the Heretics impugned from this Nicene Canon. 
Henricus Valesius Dissert. de Canone 6. Nicaeno. Tom. 2. Hist. Eccles. post. Socratem & Zosomenum.  But in France he was opposed by Henricus Valesius; who showed from the Decrees of the Synods, and the Writings of the Fathers, that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, was to be understood of Patriarches, and could no ways be interpreted as referring to Metropolitans only; so that the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome, depended very much upon the true sense of it. This Dissertation of the Learned Valesius displeased Launoy: he therefore, in the year 1671, sets forth a Defence of his Treatise, in which he so admits of Patriarches at the time of the Nicene Council, that he hath plainly showed them, though against his will, to be a more eminent sort of Metropolitans, Hadrianus Valesius treats of this Book of Launoy in the life of Henricus his Brother, which Guilielmus Batesius lately set forth at London amongst the lives of Choice men: and he attests that Launoy made a sort of cavilling answer, which, saith he, Valesius would not have to be read to him, 
Hadrianus Valesius.  affirming that there was no further matter for a dispute, and being fully persuaded, that his Writings could no ways be confuted, or invalidated by Launoy. Valesius therefore despised the Answer of Launoy, accounting it a mere Cavil. William Beverege the English Writer, did not so esteem of it, but the year after [Tomo 2. Pandectarum in Annotationibus ad Canonem Sextum Nicaenum] undertook to defend Launoy, and answer the Arguments of Valesius. The chief reason that moved Beverege was the Schism of the English Church; which, hitherto unjustifiable, seemed now to have some foundation from the opinion of Launoy. England acknowledged no Power superior to that of a Metropolitan; and because this Error might easily be confuted from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, in which the Dignity of the three Patriarches is explained; Beverege undertook to defend Launoy's Allegation, and lays it down for a Truth, that the Institution of Patriarches was after the Nicene Council. For thus the English Church had a Precedent for Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in the three first Ages, to defend their modern Schism, Launoy was yet living, when Beverege's Work was published; and seeing the Hereties drew a far different consequence from his Opinion than he thought they would have done; being moved, 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' 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 Yoke of Patriarchal Authority, he hath endeavoured to destroy the Papal Power, and to reduce the Primacy of Peter to a mere 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 Millstone 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 lived in our times, and heard it maintained that not the Eastern Church only, but the Bishops of one Diocese, the Synod of one Province have Supreme 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 feigned 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 Peter's 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 man's Principles, which if they might take place, farewell the solicitude 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 observed: 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 Frenchman, 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. 'Tis 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 published. The ancient Religion of the Gallican Church, which never withdrew its subjection to the Apostolical Sea, and hath often professed 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 Heresy, to consent to the Principles of another: not remembering 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 Patriarches 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 judgement 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 received Sanctions of Synods perverted, the approved Writings of ancient Bishops ridiculed, 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 show the Errors of the English Author, which are here summed up, together with the Truths by which they are confronted, that the Reader may observe them all at one view.   

THE ERRORS, Which are Confuted in this DISSERTATION ARE Here set down together with the TRUTH'S Confronting them.  
ERRORS. TRUTHS.  
ERRORS. 1. THat Peter rather Preached the Gospel in Britain than Gaul, depends upon slight Testimonies viz. Those of Simeon Metaphrastes, the Legendary Writers, or the Monkish Visions. Origines Britannicae chap. 1. p. 45.  
TRUTHS. 1. That St. Peter preached the Gospel in Britain depends upon the the Testimonies of Eusebius, Innocent the first, Gildas the Wise, John the V Kenulphus King of the Mercians, and Metaphrastes, chap. 1, & 2. Of this Dissertation.  
ERRORS. 2. That St. Paul declared the Faith to the Britain's, is had from the Testimonies of Clemens Romanus, Eusebius, Theodoret, and St. Jereme, who in his Commentary upon the 5 chap. Of the Prophet Amos says, that St. Paul having been in Spain, went from one Ocean to another, and that his diligence in Preaching extended as far as the Earth itself. chap. 1. p. 37.  
TRUTHS. 2 The Testimonies of Clement Eusebius and Theodoret either relate not at all to Paul's coming into Britain, or else may be equally understood of Peter and Paul's coming thither. St. Jerome, upon the 5. Chapter of Amos, says, that Paul was called by the Lord to go from Jerusalem even to Spain, and to take his course from the Red-Sea, and even from Ocean to Ocean, which does not signify that he preached the Gospel, from the Spanish Ocean to the British Ocean, but from the Arabic Ocean, which is adjacent to the Red-Sea, to that Ocean which washeth upon the Spanish Coasts. chap. 1. num. 4.  
ERRORS. 3. When Sulpitius Severus asserts, that Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul in the time of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, the Christian Religion being more lately received beyond the Alps, he relates the former of these things as certain, the latter as doubtful. chap. 2. p. 55.  
TRUTHS. 3. Sulpitius Severus [lib. 2. Historiae] saith: that the fifth Persecution was carried on under Aurelius the Son of Antoninus, and that then Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul, the Christian Religion being more lately received, beyond the Alps. He relates both these things as equally certain, neither doth he doubt more of the latter than of the former. chap. 1. num. 6.  
ERRORS. 4. Lucius' King of the Britain's scent his Ambassadors to Rome as to the place, whither, as Irenaeus argues in the like case, resort was made from all places, because of its being the Imperial City, so saith our Author. chap. 2. p. 69.  
TRUTHS. 4. St. Irenaeus [lib. 3. cap. 3.] asserts, not of the Roman Imperiality, but of the Roman Apostolical Church: that it is necessary that all Churches, that is, the Faithful from all parts, resort to it, by reason of its more powerful Principality. So that King Lucius sent his Ambassadors to Pope Eleutherius at Rome, by reason of the Principality of that Church, and upon no other account. chap. 1. num. 9  
ERRORS. 5. The Council of Arles in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester have writ: who holdest a greater Diocese. For so that place is to be read. chap. 2. p. 83. & chap. 3. p. 130.  
TRUTHS. 5. The Council of Arles in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester, set forth first by Pythaeus, afterwards by Sirmondus from the Gallican, M. S. S. say: who holdest the greater Dioceses, and so that place is to be read. chap. 4.  
ERRORS. 6. It is doubtful, whether the distribution of the Empire into Dioceses were made by Constantine at the time of the Council of Arles, and it seems more probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice, Dioceses not being mentioned there, but only Provinces, Chap. 3. p. 130.  
TRUTHS. 6. In the time of the Nicene Council, Constantine in his Epistle to all the Churches makes mention of the Pontic and Asian Dioceses, so that it is not probable, but plainly false, that, in the time of the Council of Nice, there was no mention made of Dioceses. For in the time of the Synod of Arles the name of Greater Diocese was known, as even our Author himself confesses, whilst he affirms that instead of Greater Dioceses, we ought to read Greater Diocese, Chap. 4.  
ERRORS. 7. The Authority of publishing Easter-day in all parts, which the Council of Arles in its first Canon allowed as the right of the Bishop of Rome, was taken away from him by the Nicene Council, which committed this Affair to the Bishop of Alexandria Chap. 2. p. 84.  
TRUTHS. 7. The Authority of publishing Easter-day in all Parts was not taken away from the Bishop of Rome by the Nicene Council: the burdensome charge of computing Easter-day was laid upon the Bishop of Alexandria by the Nicene Fathers: the Authority of proposing the certain day to the Churches was left to the Roman Bishop. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, in the Preface to his Paschal Cycle says, that the Patriarch of Alexandria ought to intimate Easter-day every year by his Letters to the Roman Church, from whence by Apostolic Authority, the Universal Church might know, without any further dispute, the determined day of Easter, throughout the whole World. Which Rule seeing they had observed for many Ages, etc. Chap. 4.  
ERRORS. 8. The Council of Nice in the fourth and fifth Canons hath established the Authority of Provincial Synods as Supreme, the Securing of which the Fathers have provided for in the sixth Canon, neither did they acknowledge any Authority to be above that of a Metropolitan, Chap. 3. p. 100 etc.  
TRUTHS. 8. The Council of Nice in the fourth and fifth Canons never so much as dreamt of the Supreme Authority of Provincial Synods, and hath acknowledged in the sixth Canon, that the Patriarchal Power of the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch was Superior to that of Metropolitans, Chap. 5.  
ERRORS. 9 The sixth Nicene Canon decrees, that the Bishop of Alexandria hath Power over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, because the Bishop of Rome had a like custom. But the likeness did consist in this, that as the Roman Patriarch hath no Metropolitan under him, so there was no other Metropolitan in all Egypt, but the Metropolitan of Alexandria, Chap. 3. p. 104.  
TRUTHS. 9 Before the time of the Council of Nice there were Metropolitans subject, not only to the Patriarch of Antioch, but likewise to the Patriarch of Alexandria. S. Athanasius, and S. Epiphanius declare Meletius to have been an Archbishop before the Nicene Council, so that the parallel between the Patriarches of Alexandria and Rome mentioned by the Nicene Council, did not lie in this that neither of them had Metropolitans under them, Chap. 5.  
ERRORS. 10. That the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Pishop was confined to the Suburbicarian, or Neighbouring Provinces, and that the Roman Bishops First began to Usurp the Provinces of Illyricum, by constituting the Bishop of Thessalonica as his Vicar, after the Second General Synod had given the Second place of Dignity to the Constantinopolitan See, lest the Bishop of Constantinople should encroach upon these Illyrican Provinces, Chap. 3. p. 114. etc.  
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 itself, or by its Legates, as appears, in that Legates were sent by Clement's the First to Corinth, at the end of the First Age; wherefore Honorius the Emperor did require that the privilege of the Roman See, which was long since established by the Fathers, and confirmed by the Canons should be preserved 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 testify that they acted against him but against Perrevius that was lawfully ordained, who appealed 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 remained 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 mentioned yet he declares that he approves of them, Chap. 5. p. 357. etc.  
TRUTHS. 12. The British Church acknowledged 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, confessed this very thing, whilst they either permitted their causes, which had been decided in the Provincial Synods, to be referred to the tribunal of the Apostolic See, or did by their own proper Appeal refer them thither. What Spelman citys out of the English Monument, concerning the Monks of Banchor is Supposititious. What Bede Relates does not show that the British Bishops acknowledged the Metropolitical Authority as Supreme, and if it did show this, it discovers that their Error was reproved 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 received her Institution either from him or from his Priests, as is proved by the Testimony of Innocent. p. 16  CHAP. III. 
Although the British Church had not received its Institution from the Roman, yet it is showed 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 Dioceses 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 Patriarches 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 entering 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 showed 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 claimed 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 rend 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 entitled 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 owned Subjection only to Bishops and Metropolitans as the Superior Clergy, is conformable in this to the Ancient Church. Therefore he endeavours not only to show 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 aught to be restrained, 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. 'Tis chief for the Proof of these things, the Author hath made use of his utmost Endeavours, Industry, and Ability; not treading in the Footsteps of the Ancients, but walking in new Paths which lead from the Truth, as I shall endeavour briefly to show 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 show, in the following Discourse, how far different they are from the true Discipline of the Church, from the Judgement 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 allege 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 alleges. He thought that the Patriarchal and Papal Authority was unknown to the British Church in the six first Ages, and that this was manifestly proved from the Answer of Dinoth the Abbot, and the Say of the Monks of Banchor. I shall show 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 show them, how far those Err from the Truth, who think that the Church failed 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 reduced the Catholic Church to a small number, and confined 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 Heresy: 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 profane. 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 alleged 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 situated 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 preached 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 Alps, and the distinction of our Author for avoiding the difficulty moved 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 received beyond the Alps; with whom Tertullian seems to concur in Opinion, who lived 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; likewise the Opinion of our Author concerning the Embassy that Lucius sent to Pope Eleutherius at Rome, viz. That this Embassy 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 showed, that our Author miss-interprets him. Irenaeus asserts, that all the Faithful aught 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 established at Rome, the Authority of Augustin is added, who tells us, that the Principality of the Apostolic See ever prevailed 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 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 passed 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 indulged his Rays, that is, the knowledge 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 supreme 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, threatening Death to all that should inform against the Soldiers of Christ. Which Precepts, although they were coldly entertained by the Inhabita●●● 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 shows 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 happened 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, referred it to the Senate, who denying their Suffrage for giving Christ place amongst their Gods, Tiberius, notwithstanding, continued his former Opinion, threatening Death to those who should persecute the Christians. For then the Gospel might have been every where freely Preached, as Gildas in the beginning of the forecited 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 urged 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 usurped 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 mentioned 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 usurped 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 ordained Deacons and Priests, which is historical, and proved by more than Gildas. The second, that the British Clergy own their Institution to Peter 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 duod●●m quidem annos esse versatum in Oriente; viginti autem & tres annos transeg●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 returned 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 rejoiced to see the Fervour of Faith in them, 
* Joannes V Quam ex praedicatione Principis Apostolorum, Deo vestros animos illuminante, accepistis, & efficacitèr tenetis.  which, saith he, you received by the preaching of the Prince of the Apostles, God enlightening 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 citys 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 passed 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 Tom 4. Serm. 9 writ, That our Fish rmen and Publicans brought the Evangelical Laws amongst them. To Theodoret he adjoins 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 the end of Heaven, and his Circuit unto the ends of it. 
Hieronymus in cap. 5. Amos.  To this Testimony of Jerom's, he adds another taken out of his Book De Scriptoribus, where he saith, That Paul after his Imprisonment preached the Gospel in the Western Parts, by which, saith the Author, the British Islands were especially understood, and that, saith he, appears by the Testimony of 
* Clemens Romanus, Epist ad Corinth.  Clemens Romanus, who saith, St. Paul preached Righteousness through the whole World, and in so doing went 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Bounds of the West, which Passage, he thinks, will necessarily take in Britain, in which, Venantius saith, that Paul preached; for so he testifies of Paul in the Life of St. Martin, Lib. 3. 
Transit & Oceannm, 
Venantius Fortunatus.  vel qua facit Insula Portum,  
Quasque Britannus habet Terras, quasque ultima Thule.   
4. But he that diligently observes these Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers, will easily perceive that it doth not certainly appear from them, that Britain first received the Faith from Paul The place of Eusebius which the Author mentions is to be set down entire, for when he makes his Discourse concerning the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples of Christ, he writes thus of them, 
Eusebius vid. Num. II.  And some of them were distributed into the Roman Empire, and into the Imperial City itself; others into the Persian, others into the Armenian, others into the Parthian Country. Others went to the Scythian Nation, some also to the utmost Bounds of the habitable World, and to the Indian Regions, moreover others crossed the Ocean to those which are called the British Islands. For we do not learn from these Words that Eusebius testifies that one, and not more, that a Disciple rather than an Apostle, or of the Apostles, that Paul rather than Peter, came to the British Islands; so that if by the word, others, Apostles are to be understood, saving Euscbius' Testimony, not only Paul, but Peter also, and that too before Paul, might have preached the Word of God in Britain, as we have heard Eusebius say before out of Metaphrastes. 
Theodoretus Tom. 4. Piscntores nostri & Publicani, Sutorque— leges evangelicas intulerant.  There is another place in Theodoret Tom. 4. Serm. 9 wherein he reckons the Britain's in the number of those Nations, amongst whom our Fishermen and Publicans, and a Stitcher introduced the Evangelical Law. But neither do we from hence learn that the Britain's were taught the truth of the Gospel by Paul rather than by Peter. It is not to be made out from the other Testimonies of Theodoret, that Paul came into Britain; neither can this be demonstrated from the Citations out of St. Jerome and Clemens Romanus. For St. Jerome, 
Hieronymus, in cap. 5. Amos vid. Num. III.  upon the fifth Chapter of Amos the Prophet, writes, That Paul being called by the Lord, was sent out over the face of the whole World, that he might preach the Gospel from Jerusalem salem to Illyricum, that he might build, not upon another's Foundation, where there had been preaching already, but that he should go to Spain, and from the Red-Sea, and even that he might take his Course from Ocean to Ocean, imitating his Lord the Sun of Righteousness, of whom it is said his going forth is from the end of Heaven, and his Circuit to the ends of it; and that Countries to whom he should preach might sooner fail him than his desire of preaching. From which Words we cannot gather that Paul the Apostle preached the Gospel from the Spanish to the British, which is but one and the same Western Ocean, but from the Ocean which is adjacent to the Red-Sea, to the Ocean which washeth the utmost Coasts of Spain. Paul tells us in the Second Chapter to the Galatians, 
Ad Galatas, Cap. 2.  that he went through Arabia preaching the Word, and that three years after he returned to Jerusalem, so that it may be believed that he came as far as the Coasts of Arabia, which border upon the Arabic Ocean. Therefore St. Jerome said, that Paul preached the Gospel from the Red-Sea or, rather from the Ocean adjoining to the Red-Sea, 
Theodoret in Epist. ad Philippenses, cap. 1.  to the Ocean adjacent to Spain. So that Theodoret, upon the First Chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians, might well write, that Paul went from Rome to Spain, and after he had delivered the Heavenly Gospel to the Spansh Nation, 
Gregorius Magnus, lib. 31. moralium cap. 22. vid. Num. IU.  that he returned again and then was beheaded. Neither doth Gregory the Great in his 31th. Book of Morals, Chap. 22. mention that Panl preached any where else in the West, than in Italy and Spain, when he speaks after this manner: Did not Paul show that he was an Eagle, when he now went to Judea, now to Corinth, now to Ephesus, now to Rome, now to Spain, that he might preach the Grace of Eternal Life to those who lay dead in Sin?  
5. Neither are we concerned that St. 
D. Hreronymus, Labro de Seriptoribus.  Jerome in his Book de Scriptoribus affirms, Paul after his being freed from Prison, to have preached the Gospel in the Western Parts, for although our Author rightly concludes, that Britain is situated in the West, yet he must be forced to confess, that there are many Regions in the West, 
Dpist. ad Romans, cap. 15. mon. 24.  and that Paul did not preach the Faith in them all. Paul indeed promised that he would go into Spain, but Baronius doubts whether he fulfilled his Promise, although St. Jerome, who makes mention of none of the other Western Regions, affirms it. The same Answer may be given concerning the Citation out of Clemens Romanus, 
C●em●ns Eprsi. ad Com●●●.  who in his Epistle to the Corinthians, according to the Edition of Patricius Junius, 
vid. num. V  hath these Words concerning Paul That, preaching the Word both in the East and West, his Faith had an Illustrious Fame; that instructing the whole World in Righteousness, and coming to the Borders of the West, and suffering Martyrdom under the Emperors, he so left this World. I read indeed here that Paul came to the Borders of the West, that he came into Britain I cannot understand. For Clemens Romanus doth not testify that Paul came to all the Western Coasts, for than he should have come to Flanders, Holland, Denmark, and the rest of the Northern Seacoasts; he attests that he came to some of the Western Borders, which was verified, if he only went through Spain, stopping at its utmost Borders towards the Sea. And what is brought out of Venentius, proves nothing, because it proves too much. 
Venantius. Quas Britannia habet, & ultima Thule.  This Author says, that Paul in his Preaching past through those Territories which Britain contains, and Thule the most remote. Now it is not at all likely, that the Apostle went to the furthest part of Britain, which heretofore was called Caledonia, and now Scotland, much less that he made a Voyage to Iceland, the most remote of the Northern Islands, 
Tacitus: Hane or am novissimi maris tunc primum R●mana classis circumvecta, insidam esse Britanniam aff●rmavit, ac simul incognitas ad id tempus insulas, quas Orcadas vocant; invenit, demuitque, dispecta est & Thyle, quam hactemis nix & hiems abdebat.  which Tacitus in the Life of Agricola is believed to have called Thyle, neither is there extant in Antiquity, any Testimony of this.  
6. These things being premised, I cannot sufficiently wonder with our Author, what should move Joh. Launoy a Parisian Divine, when he was pressed by his Adversaries with the forecited place of Clement, for the deriving of the Antiquity of the Gallic Church from the time of the Apostles, to reject Clement's Epipistle, when saving its Authority, he might have defended his Opinion of the Gospel's being first preached in France after the time of the Apostles. It is not my Intention to defend Launoy's Opinion, who would not have the Gospel to have been preached either in France or Britain in the time of the Apostles; but when our Author had said that he could certainly prove the contrary concerning Britain; it was allowable for me as I conceive, to expose to the View of the Reader the weakness of those Arguments by which he thought to have manifested the truth of this his Assertion. And it will be allowed me, if I am not mistaken, to propose a Testimony which the Learned have brought to prove that France received the Gospel long after the time of the Apostles. Which is that of Severus Sulpitius, 
Severus Sulpitius, Lib. 2. vid. num. VI  who after the beginning of the fifth Age, wrote, Lib. 2. Historiae Sacrae, that, the fifth Persecution was carried on under Aurelius the Son of Antoninus, and that then Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul, the Christian Religion having been more lately received beyond the Alps. Here are two things which Severus testifies. One, which hath relation to France, that before the time of Aurelius, the Son of Antoninus, there were no Martyrdoms seen in France. The other, which seems to have reference to England also, that the Christian Religion was more lately received beyond the Alps. This latter, because it thwarts his Opinion, our Author eludes by a Distinction, for he thinks fit to distinguish between the thing, which is asserted by Severus, viz. that Martyrdoms were then first seen: and the reason of the thing which follows, because the Catholic Religion was more lately preached beyond the Alps. He tells us that Severus was certain of the first, but doubtful concerning the second, but there is no body but sees that this is feigned by the Author, against the express Testimony of Severus, which confirms both these things to be of the same certainty. He says that Martyrdom was first seen in France in the time of Aurelius, and he says further, that the Christian Religion was more lately received beyond the Alps. Both these things he tells as Truths, of which he intimates himself to be equally certain; since therefore Britain is situated on the further side of the Alps, it follows according to the Authority of Severus Sulpitius, that the Christian Religion was more lately received there.  
7. Severus was by Nation a Gaul, and wrote about the Year 420. to whom, if we will join an English Writer, we have Venerable Bede, who composing an Ecclesiastical History of England above 1000 years since, hath recorded that the Christian Religion was in Britain about the very same time that Severus tells us it was received beyond the Alps. You may read the History of Venerable Bede, and you shall find nothing in it of the Gospel's being preached by the Apostles in Britain. The first mention that he makes of the Christian Religion, hath relation to the time of Pope Eleutherius. 
Venerabilis Beda, Lib. 1. Hist. Gentis Anglorum. vid. num. VII.  In the Year of our Lord 156, saith he, Marcus Antonius Verus, the Fourteenth from Augustus, reigned together with his Brother Aurelius Commodus, in whose time, when the Holy Man Eleutherius was Pope, Lucius King of Britain sent an Epistle to him, beseeching him, that by his Authority he might be made a Christian, and soon after this, his Holy Request obtained effect, and the Britain's peaceably retained the Faith they had received inviolate and entire, till the time of Dioclesian the Emperor. Martyrdoms were first seen in Gaul under Aurelius the Son of Antoninus, 
Severus Sulpitius.  as Severus testifies. Bede, venerable for his Antiquity and Holiness, testifies that the Christian Religion was received in Britain under Aurelius; to which Testimony Tertullian seems to have shown the way, who lived near the time of Aurelius the Emperor; and in his Book contra Judaeos, hath declared, that the Places heretofore inaccessible to the Romans, 
Tertullianus ●●ntra judaeos. Brtrannorum, inquit, inaccessa Romanis l●●a, Christo ve●e sub●●ta.  were subject to Christ. The places of the Britain's inaccessible to the Romans, saith he, were subdued to Christ. As if he should have testified, that, the Britain's received the Faith of Christ, not long before the time he wrote; which very well agrees with their having embraced the Faith in the time of Eleutherius, seeing that Eleutherius, under whom Lucius was converted to the Faith, lived not long before the time that Tertullian wrote.  
8. Venerable Bede therefore rightly places the conversion of Britain under Lucius; which is confirmed by a Manuscript History of the Kings of England, 
Manuscriptus Codex Bsbl. Vat. Lucius m●sit litteras Ercutherio Pap●e pro Chr●stianitate suserpienda, & abtinuit.  kept in the Vatican Library, in these Words; Lucius sent a Letter to Pope Eleutherius, that he might be made a Christian, and he obtained his Request. The same thing is testified not only by all the Writers of that Nation, together with Marianus Scotus, but also by the Germane Writers, the French, the Italian: Among which Sigebertus Gemblacensis in Chronico, Hermannus Contractus in Chronici Compendio, Ado Viennensis in Martyrologio, may be consulted, 
Anastasius B●bhoth, in Pontisicati.  as also Anastasius Bibliothecarius in Pontificiali Romano, where he testifies concerning Pope 
* Hic accepit epistolam à Lucio Britanico Rege, u● Christianus efficeretur per ejus mandatum.  Eleutherius; That he received a Letter from Lucius King of Britain, that he might be made a Christian by his Command. This is taken out of the 
† Catal●gus Romanorum Pontificum tempore Just●iani imperatoris conscriptus.  ancient Catalogue of the Popes, that was writ in Justinian the Emperor's time, which is extant in the Library of the Queen of Sweden, where under Eleutherius the very same Words are found; so that there can be no doubt made of the Conversion of Lucius under Pope Eleutherius, concerning which all agree; although they do not so well agree about the 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 Britain's 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 Embassy; Eluanus and Edwinus were British Christians themselves, and therefore sent to Eleutherius, 
Pag. 68  having been probably the Persons employed 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 observed 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 Church's 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' sending an Embassy 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 prevailed. 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 chief 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 Ambassadors to Eleutherius, that they might be informed of him in Matters of Faith; and let us acknowledge with Ireneus, that the Britain's no less than the Faithful in other parts of the World, aught 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 ordained those Legates, who being sent into Britain, baptised Lucius, settled 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 received her Institution either from him or from his Priests, as is proved 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 delivered, 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 ordained Priests, and affirms that all these Countries ought to acknowledge the Apostolic See as the Head of their Institutions.  
6. How Paul having preached at Rome, and it may be in other of the Western parts proves nothing against this, is showed 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 Paul's coming into Italy; the same may be said of other Western Churches, supposing that Paul Preached in them.  
7. Two things are objected by our Author, the first in relation to matter 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 alleged 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 showed that we ought rather to believe Innocent, than 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 reckoned 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 Peter's Successor.  
9 The second Objection is answered, and the reason drawn from matter of Fact is made good; also the connexion between the Institution of a Church and its Subjection is showed, 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 showed, that what is objected by the Author concerning 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 ordained 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 Pope's Patriarchal Power over the Western Churches, I shall here examine 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 showed to have been vanquished before he began to fight. For that Canon was made to renew the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchal authority over the Metropolitans in the West; which doth not at all promote our Author's 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 proved that the three Patriarchal Rights above mentioned belong to the Roman Bishop over all the West. For when I had confirmed the Right from the use of those Countries, in which the Roman Bishop had exercised it, I showed from the Right itself, that the exercise or use thereof did belong to him, even in those other Regions of the West, where by reason of some certain privileges granted them, he often abstained 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 follows, 
Author. p. 12●  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 laughingstock, 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 published my Book entitled, 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 mentioned, against those Catholics, who allowed 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 Rome's 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 Patriarches 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 observed. He affirms in the former that there were Patriarches 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 expressed 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 Patriarches, 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 finished this Discourse, but had likewise printed the first sheet of it, a Book lately published 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 employed my Pen, not using the former, but another way of Proof, and demonstrated the Roman Patriarchate to extend itself 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 itself, which belongs to the Bishop of Rome over all the West: and that I proved 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 maintained 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 E●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 professed that the Western Churches were by the Holy Fathers commended to the Government of the Pope. I have alleged 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 leisure 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, adorned the Church with their Sanctity and Learning  
4. Augustine's 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 s●mt ●nnes, nec n●●ut in eyes oft commemoratus Ortentis Episcopus? Quid ergo faciemus, cum the Gre●● sint, nes Latini? puto tihi cam partem Orbis sufficeth dehere, in qua prim●m Ap●●olo●um s●orum v●●uit D●minus gl●ri●sissimo Mar●●rio c●●nari chi E●●●●●a pr●●sidente●● B. Lu●ce●●ium si ●●dire vol●●●es, same ture po●●●ui●●am ●●ventutern tuam Pelagianis laqueis ex●●●●es.  do you therefore think that they are to be contemned, because they are all of the Wesiern Church, and no Eastern Bishop is mentioned 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 pleased to have the chief of his Apostles crowned with a most glorious Martyrdom; if you would have heard St. Innocent the Precedent of this Church, even than 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 expressed in more clear words. For although our Author would have it, 
Author, p. 131.  That Augustine only thereby shows 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 Rome's Encroachments, than the Churches of Africa did in St. Augustine's time. Yet there is no body but may see, that this subterfuge was invented merely 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 owned 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 reckoned 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 Precedent of it, when he, not by virtue of his Order and Dignity, but by his Authority, condemned the Pelagian Heresy, aught 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 mi●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 determined, would to God the Error were extinguished. Thus Augustine shows that to be false and erroneous, which a late Author [de Disciplina Ecclesiae] hath rashly uttered, 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 who doth not know, or not consider, that what was delivered by Peter the Prince of the Apostles to the Roman Church, and is kept till this very Day, aught 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 aught to acknowledge the Roman Church as their special Head. For this he expressly declares in those last Words: Lest 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 preached two years at Rome, and that this appears from the Acts of the Apostles which were writ by Luke, Paul's 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 satisfy you, let us interpret Innocent's Mind by his own Words, and show that Peter only preached in the West, in that sense, wherein the most Holy Pope asserts him to have preached. 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. spoke concerning the Churches that were instituted by him: From Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum, 
Rom. 15.  I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strove to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's 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 preached to, wherein the Gospel was preached before; which being so, and evidently so, from his own Words, the Roman Church is not to be reckoned 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 show, 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 preached 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 ordained 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, whilst 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 joins 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 ordained. 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 lived 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 lived 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 received it as authentic, and have placed it amongst the Decretal Epistles, religiously venerated by the whole Western Church. It appears then by the Testimony of Innocent, which hath been approved by the Judgement 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 ordained Priests; so that 'tis 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 mentioned by Innocent: the Reason is, because Innocent did not mention by name, those Islands of the Mediterranean Sea, which lie 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 ancient Writers, aught to be comprehended. For from them it appears, as is before proved, 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 answered 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 spoke 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 ask, 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 acknowledge that there ought to be a special Authority, when Churches are to be instituted by preaching, and Priests and Bishops to be ordained? So the Apostles having received 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 obtained 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 governed the Eastern Patriarchate. He sent Mark the Evangelist his Disciple to Alexandria, whose See there erected constituted a Patriarchate, which in St. Athanasius' 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 prevailed 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 appertained to the See of Alexandria, because Frumentius being sent thither by St. Athanasius, preached the Gospel, instructed the People in the Faith, and ordained 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 obtained 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 own 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.  lest they might seem to omit a chief point of their Institutions.  
10. The Author obviates this argument, [p. 68] by asserting from ancient 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 Germane 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 Preached the Gospel in Germany, and there suffered 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 remembered 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 itself 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 Author's argument for England's 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 Preached 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 owed 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 own their Original institution to him, that is, that the first Bishop of such Region, by whom others were afterwards ordained, 
Ruffinus.  was instituted by this Patriarch. So, as we have seen above, Aethiopia was added to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, in the time 〈◊〉 ●●stantine the Great, because, as Ruffinus 〈…〉] Frumentius was ordained 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 remained Subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria, to whom they own the Original of their Episcopacy: and so Nicolaus the first answered the Bulgarians when it was put to him, [num. 73.] this order is to be observed 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 Privilege of being an Archbishop, and so at length may constitute Bishops himself, who may choose a Successor to the Archbishopric, 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 proved 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 aught 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 ordained by the Roman Prelates but reserved to himself only the Ordination of their first Archbishop, and required, that his Successors, as an acknowledgement 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 reckoned, 
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 virtue 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 toilsome 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 observed 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 received confirmation of their Episcopal Dignity, by virtue of the Pall sent from the Patriarch of old Rome, are declared to be subject to his Power, and that according to the judgement of the Nicene Fathers, who, in their Sixth Canon, have acknowledged the Patriarchal Power of the Roman Bishop: for so the Eighth Synod hath interpreted that Power, as believing it to be owned 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 received its Institution from the Roman, yet it is showed, 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 Patriarches, had not its Original only from the Ordination of their Bishops, but also from ancient Custom; the beginning of which not being known, is believed to have been from the time of the Apostles: from which Principle De Marca shows, 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 published since his Death by Lucas Holstenius.  
3. Out of these, the Testimonies of Innocent the First to Anysius, Celestine 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 lest 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 condemned by Bonifacius.  
5. Against which it is showed 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 ordained.  
6. The Cause of Perigenes is another thing, and there might a Controversy 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 obtained a Law from Theodosius the Emperor to justify this his Usurpation.  
7. The Law of Theodosius was made, not against the Patriarchal Right of the Bishop of Rome, but against the Usurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople, and supposes the ancient Roman Patriarchal Right over Illyricum; which also Bonifacius hath not omitted to urge against the Usurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople.  
8. Bonifacius desired nothing against the Usurpation 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 confirmed by the Rescript of Theodosius, wherein he revokes his above mentioned Edict.  
9 It may be proved 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. Upon 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 showed 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 showed in the following Chapter.    
1. I Have showed in the last Chapter that the English Church appertains to the Roman Patriarchate by Right of Institution. In this Chapter I am to show that it is subject to it, although it had not received 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 believed 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 ordained Bishops there, from whence it comes to pass that Innocent hath not reckoned the Provinces of Illyricum amongst those which were instituted by Peter or his Successors: notwithstanding, the Illyrican Diocese 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 Dioceses, 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 Apostolic, ad quam relatio tanquam ad caput Ecclesiarum missa currebat, aliquam fieri injuriam, cujus adhuc in ambiguum sententia duceretur.  when he answered their Letters, which were brought to him by Vitalis the Archdeacon. I have taken notice that there hath been some Injury offered 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 Dioceses 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 ancient 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 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 Imperat●r●m. Vid. ●um. XIV.  when he wrote to Michael the Emperor concerning the Illyrican Diocese: Which was in the time of our Ancestors enlarged by the Sacred Dispositions of the Holy Popes, Damasus, Siriciu●, Innocentius, Bonifacius, Coelestinus, Sixtus, Leo, Hilarius, Simplicius, Faelix, Hormisda. Whose Institutions, signed 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 itself 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 spoiled by the Injury of Time. Wherefore they were to be fetched 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 mentioned; 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 mentioned (viz. Anastasius) of blessed Memory, have showed 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 Judgement, and desire the same thing. Which is also confirmed 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, 
Co●le●●inus primus, Epistola 13. mere Holsten. Vid. num. XVI.  is this Care new, which the Apostolic See takes of you; this Experiment we make use of has been often ordered 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, 'tis clear, has been approved 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 referred; let none be ordained 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 referred 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 received from our Ancestors, and we ourselves have confirmed, 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 referred to him. Let there be a Council called when it is needful, and as often as he, having regard to emergent necessities, shall order it; that the Apostolic See being informed by his Relation, as in good reason it ought to be, may confirm its Acts. And these things, if I am not deceived, do plainly show, 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, resolved 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 mentioned, 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 that See to the Patriarchal Dignity; which gave great occasion of Jealousy and Suspicion to the Bishops of Rome, that being the Imperial City as well as Rome; and Socrates observes, That from that time Nectarius the Bishop of Constantinople, had the Government of Constantinople and Thrace, as falling to his share. This made the Bishops of Rome think it high time to look about them, and to enlarge their Jurisdiction, since the Bishop of New-Rome had gained so large an Accession by that Council; And to prevent his farther Encroachments Westwards, his Diocese of Thrace bordering upon Macedonia, the subtlest Device they could think of, to secure that Province, and to enlarge their own Authority, was, to persuade the Bishop of Thessalonica to act as by Commission from the Bishop of Rome: So that he should enjoy the same Privileges which he had before. And being backed by so great an Interest, he would be better able to contest with so powerful a Neighbour as the Bishop of Constantinople. And if any objected, That this was to break the Rules settled by the Council of Nice: They had that Answer ready; That the Bishop of Constantinople began: and their Concernment was, to secure the Rites of other Churches from being invaded by him; By which means they endeavoured to draw those Churches bordering on the Thracian Diocese, first to own a Submission to the Bishop of Rome as their Patriarch; Which yet was so far from giving them ease, which some it may be expected by it, that it only involved them in continual Troubles, as appears by that very Collection of Holstenius. For the Bishops of Constantinople were not negligent in promoting their own Authority in the Provinces of Illyricum, nor in withstanding the Innovations of the Bishop of Rome. To which purpose they obtained an Imperial Edict to this day extant in both Codes, which strictly forbids any Innovation in the Provinces of Illyricum, and declares, That if any doubtful Case happened, according to the ancient Custom and Canons, it was to be left to the Provincial Synod, but not without the advice of the Bishop of Constantinople. The occasion whereof was this, Perigenes being rejected at Patrae, the Bishop of Rome takes upon him to put him into Corinth, without the Consent of the Provincial Synod: This the Bishops of Thessaly, among whom the chief were, Pausianus, Cyriacus and Calliopus, look upon as a notorious Invasion of their Rites; and therefore in a Provincial Synod they appoint another Person to succeed there. Which Proceeding of theirs is heinously taken at Rome, as appears by Boniface 's Epistles about it, both to Rufus of Thessalonica, whom he had made his Legate, and to the Bishops of Thessaly, and the other Provinces. But they make Application to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who procures this Law in favour of the ancient Provincial Synods, and for restraint of the Pope 's Encroachments, but withal, so as to reserve the last resort to the Bishop of Constantinople. At this Boniface shows himself extremely nettled, as appears by his next Epistle to Rufus, and incourages him, to stand it out to the utmost; And gives him Authority to excommunicate those Bishops, and to depose Maximus, whom they consecrated according to the ancient Canons. But all the Art of his Management of this Cause, lay in throwing the Odium of it upon the Ambition of the Bishop of Constantinople: And this the Contention between the Bishops of the two Imperial Cities proved the Destruction of the Ancient Polity of the Church, as it was settled by the Council of Nice.  
5. Thus far our Author, affirming some things contrary to the Decretal Epistles, which he citys, and falsely explaining other things, without any Testimony from Antiquity. But that we may not seem to have said these things without good ground, they are to be proved; and I begin with those things which he allegeth contrary to the Decretal Epistles; where, I pray, does he find that the Bishops of Thessaly, among whom the chief were Pausianus, Cyriacus, and Calliopus did oppose the Election of Perigenes Metropolitan of Corinth? Where does he read that they looked upon the Inthronization of Perigenes, as a notorious invasion, and put Maximus in his Place lawfully, according to the Canons? The Author hints to us that he had these things out of Bonifacius' Epistle to Rufus: Let us see what the Epistle itself, which is the Eighth amongst those set out by Holstenius, says. Bonifacius in this Epistle to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, hath these Words: 
Bonifacius Epist. inter Holsten. 5. ad Rufum. Vid. num. XIX.  We require your Charity, convening our Fellow-bishops above named, by whom Perrevius our Fellow-bishop complains he hath Injury done him, diligently to try the Cause, of which he hath given us an account in the Libel he hath sent us, informing us that the Prelates his Brethren are very vexatious, so far as to think he should be expelled his Bishopric. Then that they may be given to understand, that whatever they have done contrary to the ancient Custom, is in the first place to be made void, having diligently examined the whole Matter, let your Charity send us a speedy account of it, to the end that the Judgement which your Brotherhood shall give, may be confirmed by our Sentence. I would have you take notice what we have written in the Epistle to our Brethren of Thessaly, that Pausianus, Cyriacus, and Calliopus are utterly to be deprived of our Communion, so that they may know the only remedy they can have must be your favourable Intercession. As for Maximus, who, as your Charity hath informed us, is not rightly ordained; we judge it meet that he be wholly deprived of the Dignity of Priesthood. This is taken out of the Epistle to Bonifacius, which our Author hath mentioned, neither is there any other extant, in which Boniface makes mention of Cyriacus, Calliopus, and Maximus. But Boniface doth no where here intimate that Maximus was chosen in the place of Perigenes by Pausianus, Cyriacus and Calliopus Bishops of the Province of Thessaly, according to the ancient Canons; which our Author might have been easily satisfied of, if he had been well acquainted with the ancient Canons. For what had the three forenamed Bishops of the Province of Thessaly to do with Perigenes the Metropolitan of the Province of Achaia? Can the Authority of constituting another Bishop in the room of Perigenes, whereof the Author deprives the Roman Bishop and his Substitute in Illyricum, belong to the three Bishops of Thessaly, according to the Canons? Is it not decreed in the Canons that no Authority belongs to the Bishops of one Province over the Metropolitan of another? which if the Canons ordain, as it is certain they do, how can our Author impute the Transgression of the Canons in the Cause of Perigenes, to Boniface, who never so much as dreamed of the Cause of Perigenes, when he mentioned the three Bishops of Thessaly? But it was a foul Mistake in our Author, to read Perigenes instead of Perrevius. For Boniface in the Place above mentioned, doth not speak of Perigenes the Metropolitan of Achaia, whom the Bishops of Thessaly had no Power, either to Ordain or Consecrate; but of Perrevius, 
Lucas Hoistenius in notis.  whom Lucas Holstenius in his Notes upon this Epistle hath concluded from the Subscriptions of the Council of Ephesus, to have been Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and I will prove from the very Acts themselves, that he was of the Province of Thessaly. For since Perrevius is supposed to have been lawfully elected, and duly ordained, and afterwards for some fictitious Crimes, to have been deposed by his Fellow-bishops of the Province of Thessaly, I cannot but think he belonged to the Province of those Bishops who gave Judgement concerning him, from which their Sentence Perrevius notwithstanding appealed to the Apostolic See. Boniface committed the Care of perusing the Heads of this Appeal to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, his Vicar in Illyricum; which being duly examined by him and sent to Rome, Boniface thought fit that Perrevius should be restored to his See, and that the three Bishops above named who deposed Perrevius, should be excommunicated: and so he made use of that Authority, which belonged to him over Illyricum, and confuted by the exercise of his Power, all these fictions of our Author before they were framed.  
6. Now let us clear the cause of Perigenes, in which our Author mixes falsehood with truth, and explicates many things untruly without any testimony of the Ancients. It is indeed true that in the year 352. Nectarious in the second General Synod [Canon 3.] obtained, that the Church of Constantinople, which heretofore was a Suffragan, should have Priority of honour after the Roman Church, because Constantine having translated the Imperial Throne to that City, it became the See of new Rome. It is also true, that, from this Canon unlawfully made, the Bishops of Constantinople took occasion by degrees to extend the bounds of their Jurisdiction, and that having taken in the three exarchates of Thrace, Pontus and Asia; they began to take upon them the hearing the causes of the Eastern part of Illyricum, which then was divided from the Western part. Let it also be granted true, that the Bishop of Thessalonica had the Authority of the Apostolic See over Illyricum first delegated to him by Pope Damasus, that he might the better withstand the Usurpations of the Bishop of Constantinople: yet it cannot be denied, but that it was upon the occasion of the Bishop of Constantinople's drawing the cause of Perigenes before his Tribunal, that there arose a Controversy between the Bishops of Rome and those of Constantinople; 
Lex Theodosii Junioris. Vid. num. XX.  upon which Theodosius junior, Successor to Arcadius being circumvented by the Bishop of Constantinople in the year 421, made a Law which is found [in the Theodosian Code lib. 16. leg. 45. tit. de Episcopis, and in the Justinian Code, lib. 1. tit. 2. de Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis leg. 6.] to run thus: 
Lex Theodosii Junioris. Vid. num. XX.  We command, that all innovation being laid aside, the ancient custom, and the Ecclesiastical Canons which have been in former ages instituted and held in force till this very time, be observed throughout all the Provinces of Illyricum: and if there arise any doubtful cause, that be reserved to the Sacerdotal Synod, and Sacred judicatory, not without the knowledge of the most Reverend, the Prelate of the Sacred Law, who holds his See in the City of Constantinople, which enjoys the Prerogative of old Rome: Dat. pride. Idus Julii; Eustathio & Agricola Coss.  
7. Hitherto we have recounted those things which are true, now let us proceed to show what falsehoods the Author has intermixed with them. And in the first place it is false that the forementioned Law was made against the invasion of the Roman Bishop: for it was not made against the invasion of the Bishop of Rome, but to further the unlawful Usurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople. They had not here regard to the Authority of Provincial Synods for the determining certain and undoubtful causes, but to doubtful cases, such as was that of Perigenes, which could not be determined by the Synod without the judgement of the Patriarch. Now there was no Controversy about a Patriarchal Power over Illyricum in the time of Perigenes; the only question that was moved, was to which of the Patriarches it belonged. Illyricum, even to the time of Valentinian the Second, had belonged to the West: but the Empire being divided between Arcadius, and Honorius, after the Death of Valentinian, the Western part of Illyricum was distinguished from that of the East, and the Eastern part fell to Arcadius the Emperor of the East; from whence the Bishop of Constantinople took occasion to persuade Theodosius, the Son of Arcadius, who was of an easy nature, that he would make the Churches of the Eastern Illyricum Subject to the Constantinopolitan See, which Theodosius so effected by making a new Law, as plainly to show, that there was no question concerning a Patriarchal Power over Illyricum, but only a difficulty started, viz. whether this power should, for the future, appertain to the Roman Bishop or to the Constantinopolitan, Theodosius his words are to be observed: 
Theodosius Imperator.  Then if there arise any doubtful case, that must be reserved to the Sacerdotal Synod and Sacred Judicatory, not without the knowledge of the most Reverend the Prelate of the Sacred Law, who holds his See in the City of Constantinople, which enjoys the Prerogative of Old Rome. You hear, that therefore the judgement in doubtful cases was reserved to the Bishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, as it was then called, because it enjoyed the Prerogative of Old Rome. Therefore before the Prerogative was Translated to the Constantinopolitan See, 
Bonifacius Epist. ad Ru tum inter Holsten. num. 8.  Old Rome enjoyed the Prerogative of Superiority over Illyricum. And this is the Authority which the Roman Bishops contended, that the Roman See could not be deprived of; according to what Bonifacius the first told Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica: that new attempts, which can be of no force, ought not to lessen the Authority of the Roman See. And speaking against those who appealed to the Bishop of Constantinople for the determination of the causes of the Illyrican Diocese: Restrain, saith he, the Violators of the Canons, 
Vid. num. XXI  and the Enemies of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, through the assistance of God, who always frustrates such men's wishes, exercise also that Authority which is grantd you over the rest of the contumacious. For you see we have left no stone unturned. Which last words are therefore added by Boniface, because he did not only exercise his Apostolical Authority, but made use of the assistance of Honorius the Western Emperor for the obtaining of Theodosius, that the Law might be revoked.  
8. There is extant in Lucas Holstenius a transcript of the Epistle which Honorius sent to Theodosius the Emperor, wherein he writes thus concerning this matter: Without doubt the Church of that City from whence we received 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 privileges, which having been established long since by our forefathers were preserved 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 [usurped Rights,] which are said to have been gained by the private designs of divers Bishops, you would command that the ancient order be kept: that so the Roman Church may not lose under Christian Princes what she preserved under other Emperors. Hence it is clear that when Boniface the Pope desired that the Patriarchal right over Illyricum might be restored to him, he asked nothing which was against the Canons or the ancient Order: which was not only acknowledged 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 gained, 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 obtained by the Bishops being laid aside, they would cause the ancient Order to be especially observed; lest 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 gained over Illyricum, he commands, that to be observed which the old Apostolic Discipline, and ancient Canons declare. This Rescript was concerning the Patriarchal power; which Theodosius at length acknowledged to belong to the Bishop of Rome from the old Apostolic Discipline confirmed by the determinations of the ancient Canons. So that it appears to be plainly false, that Innocent the First and other Bishops endeavoured 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 been 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 belonged 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 gained force without any reason. Before the times of the Nicene Council the universal Church was not governed 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 observed 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 Universal 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 Egypt. 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 reckoned the British Bishops amongst those that appertained 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 itself, 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 Judgement, 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 confirmed this Truth than by their approbation of the forementioned Epistle of Agatho, and inserting it into their Synodical Acts. The Western Bishops sent this Epistle to those of the East, and which is chief to be here considered, the British Bishops made it their own by subscribing to it. And all the Eastern Bishops gave their Approbation to it, by inserting it into their Acts. So that all who contradict this Epistle, may be said to oppose the Judgement both of the Eastern and Western Bishops; and that the English, whilst they deny its Authority, recede from the Judgement of their Ancestors, and affect to be wiser than their Forefathers. Neither is the Authority of Agatho's Epistle of the less force, because it was written after Augustin's coming into England; for there is no Innovation in that Epistle, but the ancient Custom of the Church is kept up, according to which, Justinian the Emperor declared before Agatho's time, that the Roman Patriarch had presided over the whole West, and so consequently over Britain, as appears from his 109th. Novel, in which he mentions five Patriarchates, and the Roman as the only Western Patriarchate, the rest as Eastern: 
Justinianus Imperator. Totius O●bis terrarum Patriarchae seilicet Hesperiae, & Romae, & hujus Regiae civitatis, & Alexandria & Theopole●● & Hierosolymorum, & omnes, qui sub eis constituti sum, Sanctissimi Epis●●pi Aposcolicam praedicant fidem, atque traditionem.  The Patriarches, saith he, of the whole World, viz. of Hesperia and Rome, and of this Imperial City, and of Alexandria, and Theopolis, and Jerusalem, and all the most Holy Bishops that are constituted under these, preach the Apostolic Faith and Tradition. The whole World is here by Justinian divided into five Patriarchates, four of which were said to preside over the various Eastern Dioceses, only the Roman over Hesperia, that is, the Western Dioceses, and their most Holy Bishops; so that the British Bishops which are contained here, as being in one of the Western Dioceses, did belong to the Hesperian or Western Patriarchate, as the first Synod of Arles, long before Justinian, hath consecrated to Posterity, which we shall see in the next Chapter.   

CHAP. IU. Concerning the Greater Dioceses attributed to Pope Sylvester by the Council of Arles.  


1. The Fathers of the Council of Arles in the year 314. did not only refer the first Canon concerning the observation of Easter, but also all the rest to Sylvester, whom they have affirmed to hold the Greater Dioceses, not the Greater Diocese, as our Author would have it.  
2. A Diocese of old signified a Tract of several Provinces under the administration of one; as is shown from the Notitia Imperii which was written before the time of Honorius and Arcadius, so that when the Fathers of the Council of Arles wrote that Sylvester held the Greater Dioceses, they signified thereby that he presided over the Dioceses of the West, to avoid the admission of which, the Author Substitutes the the word Diocese in the place of Dioceses.  
3. Our Author shows the reasons which moved him to do this, and this among the rest, because the Empire was not only not divided into Dioceses by Constantine at the time of the Council of Arles; but also because the name of Diocese doth not seem to have been known at the time of the Council of Nice. In the latter of which his great mistake is proved from the Epistle which Constantine sent to all the Churches in the time of the Nicene Council, since in that Epistle there is mention made of the Pontic and Asian Dioceses.  
4. Although it might so fall out, that in the time of the Council of Arles the Empire was not as yet divided into thirteen Dioceses under four Praefecti Praetorio by Constantine; yet it doth not follow from thence, that the name of Dioceses was not known before. Onuphrius Panuinus affirms that the Provinces were known by the name of lesser Dioceses from the time of Adrian the Emperor; so that there is no reason why those might not have been called Greater Dioceses, which Sextus Rufus, and the Fathers of the Council of Arles, contradistinguished from the lesser Dioceses.  
5. Although our Authors seem in words to deny that the Fathers of the first Council of Arles had any knowledge of the Greater Dioceses, yet he in effect proves the thing whilst he affirms that the words Greater Diocese should be inserted in the place of Greater Dioceses.  
6. The Fathers of Italy, France, Africa, Spain and Britain, being assembled at Arles, in the first Canon, refer the Decree for the observing of one and the same day for Easter throughout the whole World, or according as others read it, throughout every City, to Sylvester, that he might Send Letters to them all; by which Decree they acknowledge him to be their Superior.  
7. Our Author is of opinion that the Authority of declaring when Easter day should be observed, was taken from Sylvester by the Nicene Synod, and given to the Patriarch of Alexandria. But the grossness of his Errors is discovered from the Testimony of Leo the Great and Innocent the Third.  
8. Although it be granted that the first Canon of the Council of Arles saith that Sylvester ought to have given notice throughout the whole World, on what day Easter should be observed; yet it is made good from the Testimony of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, that the Pope's Power was not at all diminished in the Council of Nice; since from that Testimony it appears that the computation of the Paschal Solemnity was committed to the Bishop of Alexandria, but the publication of it was left to the Bishop of Rome.  
9 It is therefore false to say that the Nicene Synod did at all detract from the Pontifical Authority, which Victor long before exercised upon the occasion of the celebration of Easter; as appears from that part of the Synod of Palestine which is left us, and by the Testimony of Polycrates the Ephesian.  
10. Victor either endeavoured to Excommunicate, or did indeed Excommunicate those of Asia who refused to obey his command concerning the observation of Easter-day: from whence his Pontifical Authority is evinced; which that it extends itself over the whole World, as likewise his Patriarchal doth over the whole West, our Author, even against his will, is forced to acknowledge from the first Canon of the Synod of Arles.    
AMongst the various Monuments of Antitiquity, which make proof of the Patriarchal Authority of the Roman Bishop over all the West, that is not of small moment, which the Fathers of the first Council of Arles have consecrated to the memory of Posterity. For when they were Assembled together from France, Spain, Britainy, Africa, and Italy, at the very beginning of the flourishing state of the Church; they made twenty two Canons: in the first of which they treat concerning the observation of the Feast of Easter upon one and the same day in all parts of the World; and adds, that Pope Sylvester ought according to Custom to direct his Letters to all concerning that matter; from which Canon it is inferred, 
Canon. 1. Concil. Arelat.  that the Fathers of the Council of Arles did refer the Decree concerning the observation of Easter day to Sylvester; as likewise it appears from their Synodical Epistle that they referred the rest of their Canons to the same Bishop in which Epistle they writ in express words: 
Epistola Synodicà Patrum Arclatensium.  Placuit etiam, antequam à te, qui majores Dioeceses tenes, per te potissimum omnibus insinuari. The Learned have often noted that these words, which are cited are not entire but that there are some wanting; they have therefore bestowed their pains and industry in restoring of them, as I have showed in the second part of [Antiquitas Illustrata, Dissert. 1. cap. 7. art. 4.] where I have produced the following emendation of Cardinal Peron and of Francis Archbishop of Roven: 
Peronius, & Franc. Rothomagensis.  Placuit etiam haec juxta consuetudinem antiquam à te, qui majores Dioeceses tenes, & per te potissimum omnibus insinuari: It hath seemed good unto us, that, according to the ancient Custom these things should be intimated to all from you, and chief by you who hold the Greater Diocese. There are two things which these most Learned men correct in the forementioned Citation, one of which hath relation to the Adverb antequam, before, the other to the words per te, by thee: and they have showed us that there was question made only concerning those words which were either depraved or omitted in the foresaid Authority, and not about those which seemed to be truly delivered. But we find that our Author hath a different sense of the thing, whilst he thinks fit also to correct those words which are truly written: for, page 83. he asserts that it was true which the Fathers of the Council of Arles said, that the Pope had a larger Diocese; where he altars these words, Qui majores Dioeceses tenes, who possess Greater Dioceses, and instead of majores Dioeceses, Greater Dioceses, puts the word Dioecesis, Diccese, in the Singular number, contrary to the Testimony of the Synodical Epistle.  
2. Indeed the altering of this one Word might seem to be of small moment, had it not changed the whole sense of the Words, and overthrown the Power of the Roman Patriarch over many Dioceses of the Roman Empire, which was acknowledged here by the Fathers of the Council of Arles. For the Confirmation of this Truth, we are to call to mind, that that was wont to be called a Diocese in old time, in the Roman Empire, which contained several Provinces, according to which account, the ancient Notitia Imperii, was written before the time of Arcadius and Honorius, relates that there were five Dioceses under the Praefectus Praetorii of the East, viz. those of the East, 
Antiqua Imperii notitia ante Arcadii & Honorii tempus conscripta.  of Egypt, of Asia, of Pontus, and of Thrace; two viz. of Macedonia and Dacia, under the Praefectus Praetorii of Illyricum; three, viz. Italy, Illyricum and Africa, under the Praefectus Praetorii of Italy; lastly, three under the Praefectus Praetorii of Gaul, viz. Spain, the Seven Provinces, and Britain. From whence it plainly appears, that the Roman Empire was divided into thirteen Dioceses under four Praefectus Praetorii, five of which Dioceses appertained to the East, the remainder to the West: But whether the Fathers of the Council of Arles had well perused this Notitia Imperii, or whether they had an account of the Dioceses elsewhere, they wrote from a Western Council to Sylvester Patriarch of the West, in these Words, 
Patres Arclatenses Epist. Synod ca  Qui majores Dioeceses tenes, who holdest the greater Dioceses, to signify, that he did not preside over one Diocese, but many Dioceses; to wit, all those which were comprised within the bounds of the West. And since the Matter is so, who does not see that this might have displeased our Author, and given him occasion to change the Text. For since his Opinion concerning the restriction of the Bounds of the Roman Patriarchate is overthrown by this one Testimony of the Council of Arles; it is likely he was desirous to read only Dioecesim, Diocese, instead of Dioceses, Dioceses, that so he might infringe the force of this Argument. For so, he who as presiding over many Dioceses, did extend his Patriarchal Authority even to Britain, obtaining by this means only a Power over the Diocese of Italy, would be restrained within the bounds thereof.  
3. And that this is that which our Author hath endeavoured to obtrude upon his Party, by changing the Text of the Council, 
Pag. 130.  he sufficiently discovers when he again mentions the Synodical Epistle of the Fathers of the Council of Arles. But as to the Expression of Majores Dioeceses, it is, saith he, very questionable whether in the time of the Council of Arles, the distribution of the Empire by Constantine into Dioceses were then made, and it seems probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice, Dioceses not being mentioned there, but only Provinces; and if so, this Place must be corrupt in that Expression, as it is most certain it is in others; and it is hard to lay so great weight on a place that makes no entire sense. But allowing the Expression genuine, it implies no more than that the Bishop of Rome had then more extensive Dioceses than other Western Bishops, which is not denied. Our Author here clearly explains his Mind, who, that he might some way or other prove the Text to be corrupt, brings some reasons for his way of reading of it, which must be here weighed. And first he hints to us, that the Empire was distributed into Dioceses under Constantine the Great, before the time of Arcadius and Honorius; yet that this seems to have been done after the time of the Nicene Council, so that the Fathers of the Council of Arles could not make mention of the Greater Dioceses: It is very questionable, saith he, whether in the time of the Council of Arles, the distribution of the Empire by Constantine into Dioceses were made; and it seems more probable not to have been done in the time of the Council of Nice, Dioceses not being mentioned there, but only Provinces. But our Author is greatly mistaken, adding one Error to another; and whilst he speaks in this manner, plainly shows that he hath not well perused the Acts which were published in the time of the Nicene Council. For in the Epistle of Constantine, concerning the Observation of Easter on one and the same Day throughout the whole World, which he wrote at the very time of the Nicene Council; there is mention made not only of divers Provinces under the Name of one Region, but likewise the Dioceses of Pontus and Asia are expressly named, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Constantinus Magnus Epist. ad omnes. Ecclesias.  The Asian, saith he, and Pontic Diocese. What is more clear? What is more express than this? How could Constantine have writ more plainly in this case? It is certain therefore that there were Dioceses in the Empire at the time of the Nicene Council, which betrays our Author's Ignorance, and discovers his great Error about this Matter.  
4. Secondly, He saith that it is doubtful, when Constantine distributed the Empire into Dioceses, which relates nothing to the Question in hand; since there were Dioceses in the Empire before its being distributed under four Praefecti Praetorio; so that the Fathers of the Council of Arles might have used the Word Dioceses in their time, as no body yet has made any doubt but they did. They attribute Dioceses to Sylvester, therefore there were then Dioceses in the Empire, under the Name of which, the Fathers expressed the Amplitude of Patriarchal Jurisdiction. Onuphrius Panuinus giving an Account of the Division of the Provinces as it stood in the time of Hadrian the Emperor, amongst other Titles, presixes one to the Provinces of Italy, by which he asserts, 
Onuphr●● de Imper●● Roman●.  that there were seventeen Provinces or Dioceses in Italy, and in the Islands which belong to it. Now although it doth not appear to me, by what means he knew that the Provinces were then called Dioceses; yet I can make no doubt, but that he found this as also all the other particulars which he there relates in ancient Monuments: let us therefore lay it down for a certain Truth, that the Name of Diocese was attributed even to the Provinces from the time of Hadrian himself; and then no body can deny, but that the Provinces were lesser Dioceses, in respect to the greater; of which Sextus Rufus hath made mention in his Breviary, 
Sextus Rufus in Breviario. Constantinus M. Epist. ad omnes Ecclesias.  where we read, that in the Diocese of Macedonia there were seven Provinces constituted; and of which Constantine the Great hath made mention in his Epistle to the Churches, calling to mind the Pontic and Asian Diocese, at the time of the Nicene Council. Therefore that the Fathers of the Council of Arles might give us to understand that they meant such sort of Dioceses, they opposed the greater Dioceses to the lesser, 
Patres Arelatenses in Epist. Synod.  and told us that the greater Dioceses were held by St. Sylvester. Sylvester therefore held Dioceses at the time of the Celebration of the Council of Arles, and so he did not preside over a few Provinces only, which constituted the lesser Dioceses, but over many Tracts of the World, which made the greater Dioceses, and in these he obtained a Patriarchal Authority.  
5. Thirdly. Our Author says, that since the Nicene Council doth not mention Dioceses but Provinces, it follows, that this place must be corrupt:— but allowing the Expression genuine, it implies no more than that the Bishop of Rome had then more extensive Dioceses than other Western Bishops, which is not denied. But before I answer to this last particular, I shall with the Author's good leave, make some few Observations concerning the acception of the Word Dioceses at the time of the Council of Nice. He says that the Name of Dioecesis was unknown to the Nicene Fathers; and so, as we have heard before, that the Fathers of the Council of Arles could not have made mention of more Dioceses; therefore that the place is corrupt, and that instead of Majores Dioeceses, greater Dioceses, we ought to read Majorem Dioecesim, greater Diocese. But in what ancient Book, I pray, doth he find this manner of reading? Out of what old Author hath he discovered this? If he hath learned this from no Manuscript, no Author, it must necessarily follow he has feigned it, and was the first that ever dreamed of such a thing. Again, if we are to substitute the Words greater Diocese, and our Author believes the place is to be thus read, than the Word Dioecesis was not unknown to the Council of Arles, as he, contradicting himself, says it was. He supposes indeed, that, admitting this Authority not to have been corrupted, it follows, that the Roman Bishop hath a Diocese of a greater extension than those of other Bishops; whereas it really follows from hence, that he hath not one Diocese only, but many; for so the Fathers writ to St. Sylvester, Qui majores Dioeceses tenes, who holdest the greater Dioceses. If therefore the place be sincere, as it is testified to be, as to these Words, by those Manuscripts, out of which first Pittheus, afterwards Sirmondus published the Epistle in France before our time; from thence it is deduced, that Sylvester held many of the greater Dioceses, and that the late Author de Disciplina Ecclesiae is greatly mistaken, when, commenting on the Words of the Council of Arles, upon his own Authority, without any Testimony from Antiquity, he says, 
Author de Diser●●ina E●clesiae Dissert. 1. §. 11. Pag. 41.  The word Dioeceses is not to be taken strictly here for the Dioceses of the Empire, but rather for those several Provinces which the Roman Bishop governed; so that the sense is, you, who preside over the greater Churches of the West, shall, by your Letters, signify to others, on what day Easter is to be observed. Thus saith that Author, being plainly ignorant of what he writes. For where will he find those greater Churches of the West within his Suburbicarian Bounds? Indeed he will find the Roman Church; but this is but one, and not more Churches. Moreover, the Council doth not say, greater Churches, but greater Dioceses; which if you inquire after, the Fathers themselves plainly point them out to you; since being assembled together out of the Dioceses of Italy, France, Africa, Britain and Spain, they refer their Decrees to Pope Sylvester, and affirm not only in their Synodical Epistle, but also in their first Canon, that he ought to promulgate them.  
6. 
Canon. I. Concilii Arelatensis 1. Vidmum. XXV.  I shall cite the Canon, which Sirmondus hath set forth in these Words. Concerning the Observation of Easter and the Lord's Day, that it may be observed the same Day and Time throughout the whole World, and that you may direct Letters to all, according to the Custom. So Sirmondus delivers it, to whose reading of the Words all the ancient Manuscripts do not agree; for that which is kept in the Library of the Queen of Sweden, 
Codex MS. Bibl. R●ginae ●ucciae.  being six hundred years old, instead of per omnem Orbem observetur, that it may be observed throughout the whole World; runs thus, Per omnem Vrbem à nobis observaretur, that it may be observed by us throughout every City. The Manuscript in the Vatican Library, which is nine hundred years old, and of the greatest Authority, hath it thus: 
Codex MS. Bibl. Pa●a●●●.  Per Vrbem omnem à nobis observetur, that it may be observed by us in every City. From which Books it may be gathered, that the Fathers of the Council of Arles sent their Decrees to Sylvester, that he might publish them throughout Africa, Spain, Britain, France and Italy, according to the ancient Custom; which shows a special Authority of Sylvester over the forementioned Dioceses of the West; acknowledged by the Fathers in their Epistle to him; since they would have their Decrees chief divulged to all, by him, who held the greater Dioceses. Here indeed our Author moves some difficulties against Baronius, 
Baronius. A. D. 314. n. 68  who concluded from this referring of the A●●s of the Council to Pope Sylvesler, that the Pope hath a Power of confirming the Decrees of Councils. Baronius, saith the Author, had good luck to find out the necessity of the Pope's Confirmation here, whereas they plainly tell him, they had already decreed them by common consent, and sent them to him to divulge them; i. e. as Petrus de Marca saith, 
Pet. de Marca de Concord. l. 7. c. 14. n. 2.  as the Emperors sent their Edicts to their Praefecti Praetorio. Was that done to confirm them? Thus says our Author, admitting de Marca's Interpretation, which seems not well to agree to this place. Yet supposing it to be true, did not the Emperors acknowledge some special Authority to have been committed to the Praefecti Praetorio over the forementioned Dioceses when they entrusted them with the Promulgation of the Laws through these Dioceses of the Empire? Since no body can gainsay this, how can our Author deny that the Roman Patriarch had a special Authority over the Dioceses of the West under his Charge, through which the Fathers of the Council of Arles offer him the Decrees to be published? Can this be done without acknowledging any greater Authority in him? If Sylvester had no Jurisdiction over the Dioceses of the West, then why did not the Council commit the Publication of the Decrees to the several Metropolitans? Why did it not send Letters concerning them to all the Provinces? Why did it make this Sylvester's Business? Do not the Fathers declare in the first Canon, that they did this, because it was according to ancient Custom?  
7. Our Author cannot deny this; but he objects, Page 84. that the Authority of declaring on what day Easter should be observed, was taken away from the Bishop of Rome in the Nicene Council. The Council of Arles, saith he, decreed Can. 1. as to Easter-day, that it should be observed on the same Day and Time throughout the World; and that the Bishop of Rome should give notice of the Day according to Custom. But this latter part was repealed, as Binnius confesses, by the Council of Nice, which referred this Matter to the Bishop of Alexandria. But I wonder how our Author could cite Binnius for the repealing of this Canon, who doth not at all write that it was repealed. For Binnius only says, that the Office of computing Easter-day, was committed to the Bishop of Alexandria by the Council of Nice, and that he should tell the day to the Bishop of Rome: But he does not say that the Bishop of Alexandria had any thing to do in the publishing this day, 
Leo Magnus Epist. 64. ad Marcianum. Vid. num. XXVI.  by sending his Letters through the Western Dioceses. Let us hear what Leo the First saith in his 64th. Epistle to Marcianus the Emperor, concerning this Matter: For the Feast of Easter, in which the Sacrament of Man's Salvation is chief contained, although it be always to be celebrated in the first Mo●●, yet the Course of the Moon is so changeable, that for the 〈◊〉 part the Election of that most sacred Day is doubtful. Hence, what should not, most commonly comes to pass, that all Churches, which ought to be as one, do not observe it at the same time. The Holy Fathers therefore have made it their endeavour to take away the occasion of this Error, by committing the whole care of this Matter to the Bishop of Alexandria; because the Skill in this Computation seemed to be received amongst the Egyptians from ancient Tradition, by which Skill the Apostolic See was to be informed on what day the aforesaid Solemnity fell out yearly, that the Knowledge thereof might be generally conveyed to the Churches more remote. The last Words of Leo are to be taken notice of; for from these it plainly appears, that the Knowledge of the Day, communicated to the Apostolic See by the Patriarch of Alexandria, was yet to be published by the Apostolic See in the Churches which were more remote from Alexandria, as the Western Churches were. Leo the First, in his 9th. Epistle to Ravennius Bishop of Arles, writes that this did belong to his own Charge, by Divine Institution, and by the Tradition of the Fathers; 
Innocentius I. Epist. 2. Vid. num. XXVII.  and we have an eminent Testimony of this Truth in the second Epistle of Innocent the First to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, wherein he writes thus. I have writ this Epistle to you beforehand, concerning the Computation of Easter-day for another, (I mean the next) Year: For whereas almost the sixteenth Moon (for it is something less) is reckoned before the eleventh day of the Kalends of April, and also the twenty third comes sometime before the fourth day of the same Kalends, I judged that Easter was to be celebrated the second day of the said Kalends, because we know no Easter-day before this, ever to have happened on the twenty third Moon. I have explained and set forth the Tenor of my Opinion. Now it will be your Wisdom, my dear Brother and Consort, to treat of this very thing in the most Religious Synod, together with the unanimous our Fellow-priests, so that if there be nothing to be altered in our Disposition, you may write fully and plainly to us, to the intent that we may now prescribe the determinate Day of Easter by our Letters beforehand (as the Custom is) to be kept by all at the proper time. You see that the Computation only belonged to the Bishop of Alexandria, and that this was to be confirmed by the Judgement of the Bishop of Rome; and if his Opinion was approved, the Publication of it in the Western Dioceses appertained to the Bishops of Rome, and therefore is used by him also to be prescribed through Africa. The Words, ex more, according to Custom, are to be taken notice of; implying that the same Custom which had been in the time of the Council of Arles was continued in the time of Innocent the First without any Interruption: So that what our Author hath writ, that the Council of Nice brought in another Custom concerning this Matter, is false.  
8. It is true indeed, that our Author, together with Sirmondus, doth not read the Words of the Canon of the Council of Arles after this manner: 
Canon 1. Arelatensis.  Per omnem Vrbem à nobis observetur, that it may be observed through every City by us; but, Per omnem Orbem, throughout the whole World, as it is in most Manuscripts, and especially in that of the Vatican, which is eight hundred years old, with which the Synodical Epistle agrees, Censemus ergo, 
Epistola Synodica Patrum Arelaton●●●.  Pascha Domini per Orbem totum una die observari, We therefore think fit that Easter be observed on the same day throughout the whole World. But what will our Author deduce from this way of reading the Words, in favour of his Opinion? Perhaps that in the time of the Council of Arles, it belonged of right to Sylvester, to publish Easter-day throughout the whole World, and that at the time of the Council of Nice, this Prerogative of Papal Jurisdiction was taken from him. But the Nicene Fathers were so far from correcting any thing in reference to this Publication, that the same Authority which the first Canon of the Council of Arles shows the Roman Bishop to have used about the Publication, the same he continued still to use according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, as St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria testifies in the Preface to his Paschal Cycle, which Bucherius [in Appendice ad Doctrinam temporum] first published from the Manuscripts. It is decreed, saith Cyril, 
Cyrillus Alexandrinus praefat. ad Cyclum. Vid. num. XXVIII.  by the consent of the Synod, of the Holy Fathers throughout the whole World, that, because there was such a Church found to be at Alexandria, which was eminent for their Skill in finding out on what Day of the Kalends or Ideses, and in what Moon Easter ought to be celebrated; this Church should every Year by their Letters intimate this to the Roman Church, from whence by Apostolic Authority, the universal Church might know, without any further dispute, the determined day of Easter, throughout the whole World. Which rule being they had observed for many Ages, and no one believed any writing concerning it, etc. so saith Cyril, who having been Patriarch of Alexandria from the Year 412. could by no means be ignorant of what the Nicene Council had eighty seven Years before determined, and enjoined to his Predecessors, in the said Patriarchate, concerning the observation of Easter. He testifies therefore that the computation of Easter was by the Nicene Council committed to the care of the Bishop of Alexandria, and that he did yearly intimate the day to the Roman Church; but that the Catholic Church throughout the whole World was to know the day not by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria, but of the Apostolic See.  
9 It is false therefore, that the Nicene Council did any ways detract from the Roman Bishops Authority of publishing the Feast of Easter to be celebrated by all upon one and the same day. The Council of Nice, even after the computation was committed to the care of the Bishop of Alexandria, left this Prerogative entire to the Apostolic See; and that the Roman Bishops did for many ages make use of it, is affirmed by Cyril, and taught by the Synod of Arles: and Victor, Pope and Martyr, about the end of the second Age, shows this in several Epistles: in which he owns that the care of celebrating the Feast of Easter on the same day in all places belonged to him. 'Tis to be lamented indeed that those Letters are lost, but I cannot but think it a special Providence of God, that an abstract of some of them has been preserved for us, by a Priest of the Church of England, who lived long since, viz. Venerable Bede, 
Fragmentum Synodi Palestinae apud Bedam. Vid. num. XXIX.  who [Tomo 2. libro de Paschatis celebratione] gives us a certain fragment of the Synod of Palestine, in which are these words: Then Victor Pope and Bishop of the City of Rome, directed his Authority to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea and Palestine, that in that place wherein our Lord the Saviour of the World conversed when he was in the flesh, there might be an useful order made for the Churches, how Easter should be rightly celebrated by all Catholics. The foresaid Bishop therefore having received this Authority, assembled all the Bishops not only of his own Province, but also from divers other Regions; Where, when that multitude of Prelates were convened, Theophilus the Bishop produced the Authority that was delegated to him by Victor the Pope, and showed them what was given him in charge to do. So that here we have an evidence from one of the Epistles of Victor, wherein he enjoined Theophilus Metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine, to call a Council, in which the Question concerning Easter should be discussed, and that Polycrates Bishop of Ephesis obeyed the Authority of Victor, appears by his writing back to him in this manner: 
Polycrates Ephesinus Epist. ad victorem.  I could likewise make mention of the Bishops, who are with me, whom you required me to assemble together, as I have also done. This Testimony of Polycrattes is extant in Eusebius Caesariensis, who [lib. 5. cap. 24.] saith that Victor, after Councils had been celebrated in several parts of the World, set forth a Decree for the observation of Easter upon the same day every where, and that he would have Excommunicated the Asiatics who refused to obey this Decree.  
10. Things being thus carried, saith Eusebius, 
Eusebius lib. 5. histor. cap. Vid. num. XXX.  Victor Bishop of Rome forthwith endeavours to cut off from the Catholic Communion all the Churches of Asia, and the neighbouring Provinces, as dissenters from the right Faith; and, by the Letters which he sent, interdicts all the Brethren which were there, and pronounces them to be wholly aliens from the unity of the Church. The Letters, which Eusebius hath here mentioned, are lost to the great detriment of Ecclesiastical Learning. For if they were extant, it is probable it might be Collected from the very words of Victor, how by virtue of his Supreme Pontifical Authority he Excommunicated Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, and other Asian Bishops, or at least terrified them with the Sentence of Excommunication. But whethersoever of these is ascribed to Victor, it is certain, that he exercised the Authority of his See, concerning which no Catholic Bishop did then contend with him. For Irenaeus and other Western Bishops did only exhort him, that he would abstain from denouncing the Sentence of Excommunication, or at least revoke it after it was denounced, as I have showed elsewhere from Eusebius. And let it suffice to have said thus much concerning the first Canon of the Council of Arles; which is read two several ways in the Manuscripts: in some thus, that the Fathers of the Council of Arles, refer the Decree to Sylvester, for the celebration of the Feast of Easter upon one and the same day, per omnem Vrbem, through every City; in others, per omnem Orbem, through the whole World. Our Author may make choice of which of these Readins he shall think fit; for he cannot reasonably deny but that the Patriarchal or Papal Authority is proved from hence: nay if he be wise, he will admit of the Patriarchal Authority over the whole West, and of the Papal Authority over the whole World. For it is evident from Testimonies of the Primitive Fathers, which none that is prudent will despise, that the Roman Bishop did prescribe the day whereon Easter was to be observed to the Primates and Metropolitans in the West, and by these to the Suffragan Bishops, as Leo Magnus testifies; and he exercised the supreme Authority of the Apostolic See over the Eastern Churches, whilst he defined, that the day for the Celebration of Easter, which the Bishop of Alexandria used every year to compute, 
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Vid. num. XXXI.  should be observed by all the Oriental Bishops, whence Cyril saith, by Apostolic Authority he knew the determinate day of Easter throughout the whole World, without any further dispute.   

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.  


1. Our Author is of Opinion, that the fourth and fifth of the Nicene Canons favour his Cause, and interprets them to establish a Supreme Authority in Provincial Synods.  
2. The Nicene Canons do not decree what the Author would have them. The Egyptians acknowledged an Authority Superior to that of Metropolitans before the time of the Nicene Council, when they brought the Cause of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, before the Tribunal of Dionysius Bishop of Rome. And Eusebius rightly affirms, that the Cause of Paulus Samosatenus was brought before the Bishop of Rome by Aurelianus the Emperor.  
3. And that the Eusebians acknowledged a Superior Authority in Julius the First, before they grew Schismatical, is apparent from the Embassy they sent to Julius the First, and from the Testimonies of Pope Julius himself; whence 'tis manifest, that, according to the ancient Custom, which was confirmed by the Nicene Canons, a Cause, that had been defined in Provincial Synods, might be referred to the Judgement of the Bishop of Rome.  
4. The Author says, that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, which attributes a Power to the Bishop of Alexandria over Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, because the like Right belonged to the Bishop of Rome, is to be so understood, as if the likeness consisted in this, that both of them indeed did preside over several Provinces, but that neither of them had Metropolitans under him.  
5. Our Author therefore thinks, that before the time of the Nicene Council, the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria were only Metropolitans, though over several Provinces, as is shown from his Words.  
6. It is shown how false it is that there was no Bishop in the Church Superior to a Metropolitan at the time of the Council of Nice, from the Example of the Bishop of Antioch, who had under him the Metropolitan of Caesarea, as is manifestly proved from Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea, and from the Case of John Bishop of Jerusalem, of which S. Jerom makes mention.  
7. The Sixth Canon of the Council of Nice likewise makes mention of the Bishop of Antioch; so that it is certain, that a Patriarchal Authority, as that is Superior to the Metropolitical, was acknowledged by the Nicene Fathers.  
8. That the Bishop of Alexandria exercised an Authority over all Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, is clear from the Testimonies of St. Athanasius and Epiphanius, concerning Dionysius, Alexandrinus, and Peter, who was Bishop of the same City.  
9 St. Epiphanius saith, that Miletius having the Pre-eminence above other Bishops of Egypt, yet was inferior to Peter Bishop of Alexandria; by which words he acknowledges Meletius to have been a Metropolitan, as he in another place expressly terms him, as he is also termed, in St. Athanasius' Breviary of Bishops, by John Bishop of Memphus.  
10. Since therefore Meletius was an Archbishop, and even before the time of the Council of Nice ordained. Bishops in one of the Provinces of Egypt, over which he presided; it appears to be false, that the Parity between the Bishop of Rome and Alexandria consisted in this, that neither of them had Metropolitans under him.    
1. OUR Author, having in his second Chapter misinterpreted the Council of Arles, endeavours afterwards in his third Chapter to wrest that Sense from the Nicene Canons, which the Fathers of that Council were wholly Strangers to. He therefore takes upon him to interpret three of the Canons, which he believed most favourable to his Cause, the first of which is the fourth in the Order of the Council, which shows that there was a Metropolitan in every Province, and determins, that the confirmation of those things that are done in each Province, 
Concilium Nicenum Can. A. Confirmatio autem corum, quae in unaquàque Provinciâ geruntur, tribuatur Metropolitano.  must be reserved to the Metropolitan: So that, as our Author saith, Page 95. the Rights of Metropolitans, as to the Supreme Ecclesiastical Government of the several Provinces, are hereby secured. The second Canon is the fifth in the Order of the Council, in which it is provided, that no Person, either of the Clergy or Laity, excommunicated by one Bishop, should be received into Communion by another. But if any one complained that he was unjustly excommunicated, his Cause was to be heard in the Provincial Synod, which was to be held twice a year, before Lent, and about the time of Autumn: which, saith our Author, 
Pag. 99  Page 99 was confirmed by many other Canons. And at these all such Causes were to be heard and determined, and Persons excommunicated were to be held so by all, unless the Provincial Synod repealed the Sentence. And although the Case of Bishops be not here mentioned, yet the African Fathers, with great reason, said, it ought to be understood, since Causes are to be heard within the Province, and no Jurisdiction is mentioned by the Council of Nice beyond that of a Metropolitan.  
2. Thus this Author wresting the Nicene Canons to a Sense, not that which he learned from the Fathers of that Council, or received from the Masters of Venerable Antiquity; but which the Itch of Novelty hath invented, and he thought most proper for upholding of the English Schism. That the Metropolitans governed their Provinces with supreme Authority, and that there was no Power Superior to that of a Metropolitan, in the Church, before the Council of Nice, savours of Novelty, which the Egyptians under Dionysius Alexandrinus were ignorant of, when they accused him of Heresy before the Bishop of Rome: Some Ecclesiastical Brethren, saith St. Athanasius, 
Athanasius de Sententia Dionysii. Vid. num. XXXII.  concerning the Opinion which Dionysius held against the Africans, being Orthodox indeed themselves, yet not having enquired of him what was the meaning of his Writings, came to Rome, and there accused him before Dionysius the Roman Prelate, that bore the same Name with him. Would therefore the Egyptian Bishops, whom Athanasius calls Orthodox Brethren, have brought the Cause of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria to Rome before Pope Dionysius, if they had judged that the Authority of a Provincial Synod had been Supreme? Would not Dionysius Alexandrinus himself have answered to his Adversaries, that his Cause ought to have been heard before the Bishops of the Province; if he had believed that every Province was to be governed by its own Synod as the Supreme Authority? Dionysius Alexandrinus was so far from thinking this, that having heard he was accused, he made it his Request to the Roman Prelate, that they might give him a Copy of his Accusation, which having received, he published a Treatise, Entitled, Elenchus & Apologia, as St. Athanasius testifies in the Place before cited. Why should I call to mind what was done in the Cause of Paulus Samosatenus, Bishop of Antioch, in the time of Aurelianus the Emperoror? Eusebius [Lib. 7. Cap. 30.] tells us, that he, after Sentence passed in a former Synod at Antioch, was in a second deposed; and that Domnus, who was chosen in his stead, would have taken upon him the Government of the Church of Antioch: But saith Eusebius, 
Eusebius Caesariensis lib. 7. cap. 30. Vid. num. XXXIV.  when Paul would by no means departed out of the body of the Church, Aurelianus the Emperor, being appealed to, rightly determined the matter, commanding the Church to be delivered to those, to whom the Italian Prelates of the Christian Religion, and the Roman Bishops should write. Aurelianus the Emperor would never have sent the cause of Domnus and Paulus Samosatenus to have been tried by the Bishop of Rome, after it had been adjudged in the Synod of Antioch; if he had not learned of the Catholic Bishops how Controversies ought to be determined in the Church: neither would Eusebius himself, who was present at the Council of Nice, and subscribed to its Canons, have commended this act of Aurelianus as most right, if he had believed the judgement of the Synod of Antioch to have been Supreme.  
3. But if it appears by what hath been said, that before the Council of Nice the Oriental Synods that were celebrated, not by the Metropolitans of one Province only but of many, had not Supreme Authority in the Church; what shall we say concerning the Authority of simple Provincial Synods? The Eusebians themselves in their Conventicle at Philippopolis did not defend the Authority of these as Supreme. For when the Great Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria being condemned by Eusebius of Nicomedia in the Tyrian Council, fled to Julius Bishop of Rome, the Eusebians submitted their cause to the judgement of the same Pope: but, observing that they were like to be condemned they began to impugn the Authority of the Pope, whom they could not gain to their party: and were the first that ever contended, not that the Sentence of one single Province was of so great Authority, that from it no Appeal could be made to a higher Judicatory, as the Author of the Book [de antiqua Ecclesiae disciplina, dissertation. 2.] hath lately feigned: but that the Eastern Church was distinct from the Western, as in Name, so also in Jurisdiction; and that the Bishop of Rome was not to judge in that matter concerning which an Eastern Synod had given sentence: For which cause Julius the first accuses them of rashness and innovation, making answer in his Epistle to the Eusebians, 
Julius Primus Epist. ad Orientales Antiochiae congregatos. Vid. num. XXXV.  that the Western Bishops, who were with him, being struck with astonishment could hardly be induced to believe, that such things could proceed from them: and says, that the Apostolical Canons were to be followed, and that the Decrees of the Nicene Bishops, which permitted that the acts of a former Synod might be revised in a latter, aught to be attended: For, saith he, if there was of old such a custom, and the memory of it be renewed, and committed to writing in the great Synod, and yet you will not suffer it to prevail amongst you, you do indeed a thing that is very unseemly; for it is very unjust, that a custom, which hath once obtained in the Church, and been confirmed by a Synod, should be abrogated by some few persons. This was the judgement of Julius the first, a most moderate Prelate, and of all the Bishops of Italy, who assembled at Rome in Athanasius' cause: which three hundred Western Bishops in the Council of Sardica judged to be so true that they excommunicated the Eusebians and determined against them, [Canon. 3.] that the memory of Peter the Apostle was to be honoured, and declared [Canon. 4. & 7.] that Appeals might be made from the Eastern Councils to the Bishop of Rome. What hath been alleged is sufficient, if I mistake not, to confute the Forgeries of the Conventicle of Philippopolis; although not only the English Writer approves them, but also a late French Author maintains them to be so true, that he is not ashamed [in Dissert. 2. c. 1. Sect. 2. to endeavour to fasten them upon St. Ambrose. For having cited a certain place out of Ambrose, he says, that this Father supposes, that the affairs of the East ought to be administered by the Eastern Bishops, and that it did not belong to the Western Bishops to judge the Eastern; which Constantius says in his Epistle to the Council of Ariminum, as also the Eusebians in the Council of Philippopolis. Thus this Author, not scrupling to affix the new whimsies of an Arian Emperor, and the dreams of the Conventicle of Philippopolis, upon St. Ambrose. But I must not insist upon these things, since they do not deserve an Answer.  
4. Let us therefore proceed to our Author's Commentaries upon the Third Canon, which is the Sixth in order among the Nicene Canons; for the things which he relates here are new, and scarce ever heard of. The Canon, 
Canon 6. Nicaenus. Vid. num. XXXVI.  of which we treat, runs thus according to the Version of Dionysius Exiguus: Let the ancient Custom be kept through Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction over all these, because the Bishop of Rome hath a like custom. Likewise in Antioch, and other Provinces, let the privileges of their Churches be preserved. But this is generally clear, that, if any one be made Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod hath defined that he ought not to be a Bishop, etc. There is one thing in this Canon, which our Author, because it destroys his design, interprets after a strange manner. He follows the opinion of those, that acknowledge no Authority superior to that of a Metropolitan: now because the Nicene Canon ascribes an Authority to the Patriarch of Alexandria over all Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, and hath expressly declared that the like custom had obtained at Rome and Antioch, that their Bishops presided over many Provinces: our Author following the Error of Beverage, hath asserted that there was no Metropolitan in Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis in the time of the Nicene Council; and so he would make the Bishop of Alexandria to be a Patriarch as to the extent of his Authority, and a Metropolitan only as to the administration of it.  
5. If the Reader will not believe me, let him consult the Authors own words, which are these: In this Canon there are three things principally designed. (1.) To confirm the ancient Privileges of some of the greater Sees; as Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. (2.) To secure the Privileges of other Churches against the Encroachments upon them. (3.) To provide for the quiet establishment of Metropolitan Churches, which last is so plain that it will need no farther discourse; But the other two are of great consequence to our design. Thus the Author; first of all confessing that the Nicene Fathers did confirm the ancient privileges of some of the principal Sees, in which they had gained to themselves a more ample Power than that of a Metropolitan only; by which means the Bishop of Alexandria had Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis under his jurisdiction, over which he exercised the Patriarchal Authority of Consecrating Bishops, calling Synods, and judging in the greater Ecclesiastical causes. Now lest any one should from hence infer that the Bishop of Alexandria had obtained a greater Power then that of a Metropolitan; he asserts, that he had then no Metropolitans under him in those Provinces; and that the rite of Patriarchal administration was co-incident with the Metropolitical at the time of the Council of Nice, and so different from that which was afterwards introduced. Therefore he confesses that there was something that was singular in the case of the Bishop of Alexandria: For saith he, all the Provinces of Egypt were under his immediate care, which was Patriarchal as to Extent, but Metropolitical in the Administration. And so was the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome at that time; which is the true reason of bringing the custom of Rome to justify that of Alexandria. For as it is well observed by Christianus Lupus, the Bishop of Rome had then no Metropolitans under him within the Provinces subject to his jurisdiction; and so all Appeals lay immediately from the several Bishops to him. And therein lay the exact parallel between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria.  
6. Therefore our Author asserts, that the Patriarch of Alexandria had no Metropolitans under him; and that in this lay its likeness to the Roman Patriarchate. But before we come to inquire, whether it be true that the Patriarches of Rome and Alexandria had no Metropolitans under them, let us first see briefly whether no Metropolitans were subject to the Patriarch of Antioch before the Nicene Council. For our Author confesses that the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice does reach him also. The Church of Antioch was the principal Church of all the East, and had under it fifteen Provinces, which the Notitia Imperii reckons to be comprised under the Eastern Diocese: and since the East was first enlightened with the Christian Faith, and the name of Christians, as St. Luke testifies, was first heard at Antioch, it is very probable, that that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy first took place there, which is described in the 35th of those Canons which are attributed to the Apostles, to wit, that there were Bishops constituted in the Cities, and that a chief Bishop was placed in the Metropolis of every Province, to the end that the Bishops of every Nation might know who was their Chief. So that Tarsus being the Metropolis of the chief part of Cylicia, the Bishop of this City might as Metropolitan subscribe in the first place, to those Letters, which the second Synod of Antioch set forth against Paulus Samosatenus. So was also Caesarea the Metropolis of the chief part of Palestine; in which, it so manifestly appears that there was a Metropolitan Bishop long before the time of the Council of Nice, that there can be no doubt made of the thing. For when Pope Victor had writ to Theophilus' Bishop of Caesarea, to call a Council for the determining of Easter day, 
Fragmentum Synodi Caesariensis apud Bedum.  the Bishop having received this Order (as the Acts of this Council recorded in Venerable Bede inform us) summoned all the Bishops not only from his own Province, but also from divers other Regions. What is more clear than this? There is a distinct Province assigned to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea as Metropolitan, out of which he summoned the Bishops to Council: therefore he had his own proper Province, over the Bishop whereof he presided. This is farther evidenced from the fact of John Bishop of Jerusalem, who had referred the Debate concerning the Error of Origen to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and is for this cause, reprehended by St. Jerom in these Words: You, who seek for Ecclesiastical rules, and make use of the Canons of the Nicene Council— tell me, 
D. Hieronimus Epist. ad Pamachium. Vid. num. XXXVII.  what hath Palestine to do with the Bishop of Alexandria? If I mistake not, this is what that Council hath determined, viz. that Caesarea should be the Metropolis of Palestine, and Antioch the Metropolis of the whole East: therefore you should either have brought your cause before the Bishop of Caesarea— or if you were to go far for a determination, you should rather have directed your Letters to Antioch— you chose to be troublesome to one who had his head full of business already, rather than to pay to your Metropolitan that honour which was due to him. Thus saith S. Jerom [in his 61. Epistle to Pammachius] plainly asserting that, according to the Nicene Canons, the Bishop of Jerusalem was to submit to the Bishop of Caesarea as his Metropolitan, and to the Bishop of Antioch as his Patriarch: whence it manifestly appears, that the Patriarch of Antioch had, at the time of the Council of Nice, the Metropolitan of Caesarea under his Jurisdiction, even in Palestine itself.  
7. This being so, what answer can our Author make? what can he invent, what can he dream of, to elude this verity? Will he say, that he did not speak concerning the Patriarch of Antioch, but only concerning the Alexandrian and Roman Patriarches; that the Nicene Canon only declares there was a likeness between these two? In Prudence he will never answer thus for he hath interpreted the Nicene Canon so as to make it comprise the rights of the three principal Sees, and therefore those of Antioch amongst the rest. Since therefore it is manifest from what hath been said, that the See of Antioch had under it more Metropolitan Bishops than one, is not that apparently false which our Author imitating Beverage hath feigned, viz. that the Council of Nice, in its Sixth Canon, hath acknowledged no Authority superior to that of a Metropolitan? Is it not manifestly proved that he imposes an Error upon the English Nation, when to defend the Metropolitan Power as Supreme, he asserts that all other Jurisdiction superior to this was unknown to the Nicene Council? I judge that what hath been said aught to besufficient to make the English open their Eyes, and forsake and 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 confessed 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 observed according to which the Bishop of Alexandria exercised a jurisdiction over Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis. This is expressly commemorated (of Dionysius, who governed 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 Preached in their Churches. Upon the discovery of which, Dionysius, to whose charge those Churches belonged, 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 excelled the other Bishops of Egypt, yet was second to Peter in dignity, as being his Suffragan, 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 Egypt, and Thebais, Mareotis, Lybia, Ammoniaca, and Pentapolis. From these ancient Testimonies, the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria over all the Provinces throughout Egypt, 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 Egypt.  
9 This our Author denies, as to the times before the Nicene Council; but upon what ground I know not. For Meletius held a Bishopric 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 crowned 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 obtained the second Place to Peter? by what Right could he have excelled 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 ordained Bishops in Egypt, and, in the Breviary of the Bishops consecrated by Meletius, names John Bishop of Memphis in the last place: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: In Memphis, 
B●●●●●um E●●●coporum à Meletio or●●nat●um.  John commanded by the Emperor to be together with the Archbishop. Meletius therefore was an Archbishop, 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 Archbishop of Thebais in Egypt, 
D. Epiphanius.  and again, until Meletius Archbishop in Egypt, and subject to Alexander, had informed 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 called 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 showed that there were not only many Provinces, but likewise several Metropolitan Bishoprics under the Patriarches 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 observed, viz. that the Bishop of Alexandria should have Authority over Egypt, 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 confirmed from the Example of the Roman Patriarch, who consequently must have a Jurisdiction over Metropolitans. Neither hath any one reason to allege 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 show 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 Egypt under their Jurisdiction; yet can have the confidence to affirm, that the Patriarchal Authority of the Bishop of Rome was confined to the narrow space of a hundred Miles, or but few more from the City? If the Bishop of Alexandria obtained a Patriarchal Jurisdiction over a larger Diocese of the Empire, because the Roman Bishops had the like Custom; then we must of necessity allow the Roman Bishop to have obtained a Jurisdiction over at least a like Diocese of the Empire. But the first Council of Arles, ten years before that of Nice, expressly declared, that Sylvester Bishop of Rome held not only one, but many greater Dioceses; nor is it any where read, that these Dioceses were taken away from Sylvester in so short a space of time; it must then be held for certain, that he retained 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 reckoned.   

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 conjectured 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 endeavours to prove from Bede, and Spelman from an ancient English Manuscript.  
2. The Manuscript set forth by Spelman, and approved of by our Author, is suppositious and lately invented. The English Church, from the time of its first planting, hath acknowledged an Authority Superior to that of a Metropolitan in the Roman Bishop; as is showed from the first Council of Arles, wherein three British Bishops were present.  
3. The same thing is proved 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, discovered this, when after his Heresy was condemned 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, acknowledged this more clearly; whilst, being condemned for his Heresy 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 'twas 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 contemned  
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 proved 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 Pope's 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 risen 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 Pope's Primacy, this Opposition can be no Proof against it, since Augustine showed, 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 join 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 offered, did imply Submission to the Church of Rome, and by consequence to his Authority over them. But the utmost that could be obtained from them, was only that they would take farther Advice, and give another Meeting with a greater Number. And then were present seven Bishops of the Britain's, and many learned Men, chief 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 Archbishop 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 judged 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 Latin, 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 Judgement 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 shown. 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 Dioceses? How could they have written that the Apostles daily sat 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 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 honoured 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 examined 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 seemed 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 referred 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 Pope's Primacy, which is taken from the very Enemies of the Roman Faith, born in Britain. Pelagius a Britain being first accused of Heresy, 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 referred 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 grat●a Christi. Cap. 2.1. De Libro fidei quem Roman● 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 W●rds, concerning the Treatise of his Faith, which he sent to Rome, together with Letters to the same Innocent. Would ●elagius have suffered that his Cause should have been removed 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 declined the Sentence of the Apostolic See, and rejected the Judgement of the Roman Church in this Point?  
5. It was so far from this, that Celestius the Disciple of Pelagius, and a Scotchman, being accused of the same Heresy in another part of the World, by Paulinus Deacon to St. Ambrose, and condemned in the Synod of Carthage in Africa, thought fit to appeal to the Bishop of Rome for his Trial. 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. Can he judge him to be appealed to, whom he thought to have no Authority to Judge? Paulinus declared himself of another Opinion, in the Libel he offered 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 confirmed by the Subscriptions of the Holy Fathers, as we are told [in Commonitorio,] above mentioned: with which St. Prosper agrees, asserting, that the Decrees which were made against ●elagius and Celestius were brought out of Africa to Pope Zosimus; 
S. Prosper in Chronico.  which being approved of, the Pelagian Heresy was condemned 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 belonged 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 condemned the Pelagian Heresy, being transmitted through every Church under Heaven, came at last to Britain there is no doubt to be made, but that Heresy was condemned by the Subscriptions of the British Fathers. Whence Venerable Bede observes, that the Pelagian Heresy came late into Britain, and was first brought thither by Agricola, the Son of a Pelagian Bishop, about the time of Pope Celestine: for it appears from Bede, that Britain was free from that Heresy during the whole time that Innocent and Zosimus were Popes; which cannot be thought to proceed from any other Ground than this, viz. that they had received the Decrees of Innocent and Zosimus.  
6. But when Agricola spread the Pelagian Heresy in Britain, the Apostolic See making use of its Authority, sent Bishops into Britain; whom Britain received, and by their help, was not only converted from Heresy in those parts where they were Christians, but likewise from Infidelity in the Parts where the Christian Faith was extinguished. Indeed Venerable Bede relates [Lib. 1. Hist. Gentis Anglorum, Cap. 17.] that the Britain's implored the Aid of the French Bishops against the Pelagian Heresy, and that Lupus Bishop of Troy's, and Germanus Bishop of Auxerre came into Britain from France, whence our Author, Pag. 89. deduces, that the Authority of the Roman Church was not acknowledged by the Britain's. But whilst he citys Bede, let him also consult that Writer, from whom Bede might have borrowed his History, viz. St. Prosper, who [ad Consulatum Florentini & Dionysii] gives us an account of the Matter of Fact in these Words: 
S. Prosper in Chronico. Vid. num. XLIV.  Agricola the Son of Severianus a Pelagian Bishop, being himself also a Pelagian, corrupted the British Churches by the Insinuation of his Doctrine; but Pope Celestine being solieited by Palladius the Deacon, sends Germanus Bishop of Auxerre, as his Legate, and having expelled the Heretics, he instructs the Britain's in the Catholic Faith. Thus St. Prosper, who for his Age might have seen and spoken with Palladius Deacon to Pope Celestine, who was also at Rome under Leo the Great, Successor to Celestine, and Notary to the said Leo, and so might have read in the Registry of the Roman Church the authentic Instrument wherein Germanus was constituted Delegate of the Apostolic See for Britain; so that there can be no question made of the Authority of this Father's Testimony. Nor imports it, that Bede says, Germanus came together with Lupus into this Island at the Instance of the Britain's; and that they were chosen by the Council of Verolam to dispute with the Pelagians: For, as Baronius the Parent of Annals rightly observes, this doth not at all hinder, but that Pope Celestine made Germanus Bishop of Auxerre his Delegate, at the Instance of Palladius the Roman Deacons and that Germanus relying upon the Apostolical Authority came to compose the differences of the British Church, and went out of his own proper Diocese into the Dioceses of others, which as the Monuments of those times inform us, was a frequent practice.  
7. 
S. Prosper Vid. num. XLV. Venerab. B●da lib. 1. cap. 133. Vid. num. XLVI. Matthaeus Westmonasteriensis. Vid. num. XLVII.  For Prosper relates, that two years after the mission of Germanus Antisiodorensis, Bassus and Antiochus being Consuls, Palladius was ordained by Pope Celestine, and sent the first Bishop to the Scots who believed in Christ. Venerable Bede tells us the very same thing lib. 1. cap. 13. asserting at the Eighth year of Theodosius junior: that Palladius was the first Bishop that was sent by Celestine Bishop of the Roman Church to the Scots believing in Christ. After Palladius Matthaeus Westmonasteriensis mentions St. Patrick as sent by the same Pope, in these words: Pope Celestine, after he had heard of the death of Palladius, Theodosius and Valentinian being Emperors, sent Patrick to display the Banner of the Holy Cross to the Gentiles, who when he came to Britain preached the word of God there, and was kindly received by the Inhabitants of that Island: Then going into Scotland he preached God's word, which could not be restrained. Indeed he adds, that he was advanced to the degree of a Bishop by Matthew Archbishop; and this also might be done by the command of Celestine, in the same manner as we shall see anon, Augustine was ordained by the Bishop of Arles, upon the Order of Pope Gregory; Moreover Marianus Scotus, asserts that St. Patrick was ordained Archbishop of Scotland by Celestine, and that all Ireland was converted by him, for which we have not only the testimony of Sigebert, and other foreign Writers, but likewise of many English Authors, as the Bishop of Armagh hath observed p. 838 etc.] where he citys their testimonies; and amongst the rest that of Joceline the Monk, who hath placed St. Patrick's life at the latter end of the Twelfth Age which Henschenius puts at the 17th day of March; and doth not only mention that St. Patrick was created Bishop by Pope Celestine, but likewise that he came again to Rome in the time of Pope Hilary to give an account of his mission, who, 
Jocelinus in v●●● S. Patricii. Vid. num. XLVIII.  saith he, giving him power to act in his stead, and constituting him his Legate, by the Sanction of his Authority confirmed all that he had done, constituted, or settled in Ireland. From all which it is clearly proved that the Apostolic See did make use of its Authority in governing the British Churches by its Legates; and that Britain did acknowledge this Authority till the Invasion of the Saxons, which was after the time of Celestine.  
8. After that, upon the coming of the Saxons into Britain, the Churches had been demolished, the Altars broken down, and the Priests dispersed, Gregory the first sent Augustine the Monk to restore the Catholic Religion gone to decay in the chief Provinces, under the Tyranny of the Heathen Princes, for a long series of years; and Britain received and honoured him as their Apostle. Venerable Bede [lib. 7. cap. 28.] testifies that Augustine was ordained Archbishop of the English Nation by Etherius Archbishop of Arles according to the commands he had received from the Holy Father Gregory. 
Venerab. Bede lib. 1. Hist. c. 28. Auctor vitae Gregory Magni. vide num. XLIX.  Augustine was therefore ordained by the command of Gregory the Great, because Gregory being the chief Bishop in the whole World, presided over those Churches which were long since converted to the true faith, as Spelman relates [Tomo 1. Conciliorum Angliae, ad anum Christi 597. ex vita Gregorii lib. 2. cap. 2. per Bedam conscripta.] Also at the beginning of the Sixth Age Augustine the first Bishop of Canterbury, when he made it his business to restore the Discipline of the English Church, consulted Gregory, who by virtue of his Apostolical Authority gave Rules, according to which the Discipline of the English Church was Established. By virtue of this Authority, Gregory commanded Augustine to create two Metropolitans, the one at London, and the other at York; together with twenty four Bishops, and ordered that they should be subject to Augustine, so long as he continued as his Legate. All which is a plain evidence that the Bishops exercised a supreme Apostolic Authority over England, and that not only the ancient Britain's, but also the Saxons, as soon a● they were Converted to the Faith, acknowledged this with due veneration.  
9 And so much of some ancient Monuments, from whence we have deduced, that the British Nation did acknowledge the Pope's 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 citys 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, 
spelman's Tom. 1. Conciliorum dugliae.  or by what Author, I cannot learn, either from the Manuscript itself, 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 Britan's, and Dinoth the Abbot answered 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 transferred to Menevia. As to the acts of the Synod which the Author citys 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. Bed●● lib. 2. Hist cap. 2. Vid. num. L.  you do not only act contrary to our custom, but likewise to that of the Universal 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 administering Baptism in which we are regenerated to God, according to the Rite of the Holy Roman, and of the Apostolic Church; and in the joining 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 Augustine's 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, persuasions 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 troublesome contention by saying thus: Let us beseech God, who makes men to live in unanimity in their Father's house, that he would vouchsafe to discover to us by a sign from Heaven, which Tradition is to be followed, 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 believed 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 enlightening 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 proclaimed a Preacher of Divine light. Whereupon the Britain's confessed they had plainly found that way of Righteousness to be true which Augustine taught. Thus far Venerable Bede who not where mentioned any Controversy about the Pope's Supremacy, but concerning Traditions, viz. the observation of Easter, and some certain Rites in the administration of Baptism, as is above remarked.  
10. But though these things are true, and confirmed to be so by the Testimony of Venerable Bede; yet let us suppose, that amongst other things the Bishop of Rome's Primacy was also controverted; who sees not that the acts reorded in Venerable Bede fully confute our Author's Plea? The acts testify, that the Britain's contended about Traditions, which they preferred 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 acknowledge the Primacy of Peter's Successor; as Gregory the Great also testifies, 
Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist. 32. Vid. num. LII.  [lib. 4. Epist. 32.] writing to Mauritius: For 'tis 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 Britain's opposed his Primacy against the judgement of the whole Catholic World. Supposing therefore that the Britain's, amongst other Traditions, rejected also that of the Primacy of the Roman Bishop; what could be gathered 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 Church, and receded as Schismatics from the centre of Ecclesiastical Communion? What else can we conclude but that God was willing to show the falsehood 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 testify, that Augustine did by so manifest a Miracle demonstrate the truth of those things which he proposed to the Britain's, that they were forced to confess it was the true way of Justice which Augustine Preached? 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 Britain's and the Monks of Banchor? Will they not at length be convinced, that they oppose nothing but their own Errors, which are the vain Forgeries of Men, against that Truth which hath been confirmed 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 forced, 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 acknowledged 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 addressed 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 grey 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, though somewhat altered. How long will you, who are ancient in Body, be Children in Minds, and mere Infants for want of knowledge of Religion; whilst you think the Catholic Church unstable, which is yet most constant, and your own, which is rend from the Body of the Catholic Church, will be stable? You have changed the true Estimate of things; attributing that to a part, which is only the Property of the whole, and imagining with yourselves 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 Judgement 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 itself 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, aught to be extended to all parts of the World, and that the first Mark to distinguish it by was Unity, which consists in the Communion it holds with St. Peter's See, which is but one, and this he believed, so manifest, that he thought Permenianus himself could not deny it. 
Negare non potes, inquit loco supracitato, Stir 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 ●m●●bus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent: ut jam schismaticus & peccater esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram coll●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) Siri●●us, inquit, hodie, qui noster est Sociu●, 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 sat, from whence he was called Cephas; in which one See Unity was to be preserved by all, lest 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 sat, 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 Centre of its Unity; 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 concealed himself. If therefore the Pope's Authority was so manifest in former Ages, that the Schismatical Africans themselves could neither be ignorant of it, nor deny it; how comes it to pass that you in England now do not at all acknowledge 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. Sacramentis contra Lutherum.  But it cannot be denied, said Henry the Eighth at that time, but every Church of the Faithful owns and reuerences 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 Pope's 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 entered 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 unsettled, which have for a long time continued in a settled 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 Heresy, and from Heresy 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 recall you from Heresy and Schism, which are the Sources 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, received 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 Splendour, 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 Heresy and Schism, and cherish you in her Bosom. All the other above mentioned Churches throughout the World, are subject to this Roman See, and all these joined 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. Ambrose 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, E●●st●ad Damasum.  Whosoever eats the Lamb out of this House, saith Jerome, is Profane; 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 ●enet unitatem.  Nor is this the Sense of Jerome only, but of the rest of the Fathers: for as Julianus, Precedent of the Synod at Basil rightly observed: 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 reperiat LECTOR.  

NUM. I.  
GIldas sapiens in Epistola de excidio Britanniae: Interea glaciali frigore rigenti Insulae, & veluti longiori Terrarum recessu soli visibili non proximae, verus ille non de firmamento solum temporali, sed de summa etiam Caelorum arce tempora cuncta excedente Universo Orbi praefulgitum sui corruscum ostendens (tempore ut scimus, Summi Tiber● Caesaris, quo absque ullo impedimento ejus propagabatur Religio, comminata, Senatu nolente, à Principe morte dilatoribus militum ejusdem) radios suos primum indulget, id est sua praecepta Christus: quae licet ab incolis tipidè suscepta sunt, apud quosdam tamen integrè, & alios minus usque ad persecutionem Diocletiani Tyranni novennem, in qua subversae per totum Mundum sunt Ecclesiae. Vide in Versione Anglica hujus Libri, supra. Pag. 2   

NUM. II.  
Euseb. Demonst. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. p. 113. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 7   

NUM. III.  
Hieronymus in cap. 5. Amos Prophetae: Quod Paulus vocatus à Domino effusus sit super faciem universae Terrae, ut praedicaret Evangelium Hierosolymis usque ad Illyricum, & aedificaret non super alterius fundamentum, ubi jam fuerat praedicatum, sed usque ad Hispanias tenderet, & à Mari Rubro, imò ab Oceano usque ad Oceanum curreret, imitans Dominum suum Solem Justitiae, de quo legimus: à summo caelo egressio ejus, & occursus ejus usque ad summum ejus, ut ante eum Terra deficeret, quam studium praedicandi. Pag. 7   

NUM. IV.  
Gregorius Magnus, lib. 31. moralium cap. 22. Pavius, cum nunc Judeam, nunc Corinthum, nunc Ephesum, nunc Romam, nunc Hispanias peteret, ut in peccati morte jacentibus aeternae vitae gratiam nuntiaret, quid se aliud quam esse Aquilam demonstrabat? Pag. 8   

NUM. V.  
Clemens Epist. ad Corinth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 9   

NUM. VI  
Severus Sulpitius, lib. 2. Sub Aurelio Antonini filio persecutio quinta agitata, ac tum primùm intra Gallias Martyria visa, serius trans Alpes Dei Religione suscepta.   

NUM. VII.  
Venerabilis Beda, Hist. gentis Anglorum lib. 1. Anno, inquit, ab Incarnatione Domini centesimo, quinquagesimo sexto, Mercus Antonius Verus, quartus decimus ab Augusto, Regnum cum Aurelio Commodo fratre suscepit, quorum temporibus cum Eleutherius Vir sanctus Pontificatui Romanae Ecclesiae praeesset, misit ad eum Lucius Britanniarum Rex Epistolam, obsecrans, ut per ejus mandatum Christianus efficeretur, & mox effectum piae postulationis consecutus est, susceptamque fidem Britanni usque in tempora Dioclesiani Principis inviolatam, integramque quieta in paee servabant. Pag. 12   

NUM. VIII.  
Innocentius I. in Epist. ad Decentium Eugubinum Episcopum: Quis enim nesciat, aut non advertat id, quod à Principe Apostolorum Petro Romanae Ecclesiae traditum est, ac nunc usque custoditur, ab omnibus debere servari, nec superduci aut introduci aliquid, quod aut auctoritatem non habeat, aut aliunde accipere videatur exemplum? praesertim cum sit manifestum, in omnem Italiam, Gallias, Hispanias, Africam, atque Siciliam, Insulasque interjacentes nullum instituisse Ecclesias, nisi eos, quos venerabilis Apostolus Petrus, aut ejus Successores constituerint Sacerdotes. Aut legant, si in iis Provinciis alius Apostolorum invenitur, aut legitur docuisse, qui si non legunt, quia nusquam inveniunt, oportet eos hoc sequi, quod Ecclesia Romana custodit, à qua eos principium accepisse non dubium est, nè, dum peregrinis assertionibus student, caput institutionum videantur omittere. Pag. 24   

NUM. IX.  
Nicolaus I. num. 73. Epist. ad Bulgar. Hunc esse ordinem observandum, ut à Sedis Apostolicae Praesule sit nunc vobis Episcopus consecrandus, qui, si Christi plebs ipso praestante crescit, Archiepiscopatus privilegia per nos accipiat, & ita demum Episcopos sibi constituat, qui ei decedenti Successorem eligant: & propter longitudinem itineris non jam huc consecrandus, qui electus est veniat: sed hunc Episcopi, qui ab obeunte Archiepiscopo consecrati sunt, simul congregati constituant: Sanè interim in throno non sedentem, & praeter corpus Christi non consecrantem, priusquam pallium à Sede Romana percipiat, sicuti Galliarum omnes, & Germaniae, & aliarum Regionum Archiepiscopi agere comprobantur. Pag. 33   

NUM. X.  
Honorius I. Epist. ad Edwinum: Duo pallia utrorumque Metropolitanorum, id est, Honorio, & Paulino direximus, ut dum quis eorum de hoc saeculo ad Auctorem suum fuerit accersitus, in loco ipsius alterum Episcopum ex hac nostra auctoritate debeat subrogare: quod quidem tam pro Vestrae Caritatis affectu, quam pro tantarum Provinciarum spatio, quae inter nos, & vos esse noscuntur, sumus invitati concedere, ut in omnibus Devotioni Vestrae nostrum concursum, & juxtra vestra desideria praeberemus. Pag. 34   

NUM. XI.  
Venerabilis Beda, cap. 18. Ne sit necesse ad Romanam usque Civitatem per tam prolixa terrarum, & maris spatia pro ordinando Archiepiscopo semper fatigari.— ibid.   

NUM. XII.  
Canone 17. Synodi generalis 8. Ita ut earum Praesules universorum Metropolitanorum, qui ab ipsis promoventur, & siuè per manus impositionem, siuè per pallii dationem, Episcopalis dignitatis firmitatem accipiunt, habeant potestatem, videlicet ad convocandum eos, urgente necessitate, ad Synodalem conventum, vel etiam ad coercendum illos, & corrigendum, cum fama eos super quibusdam delictis forsitan accusaverit. Pag. 35   

NUM. XIII.  
Apud Anastatium Biblioth. Legati Adriani II. Sedes Apostolica, inquiunt, juxta quod Decretalibus Sanctissimorum Romanorum Praesulum doceri poteritis, utramque Epirum, novam videlicet veteremque, totamque Thessaliam, atque Dardaniam, in qua, & Dardaniae Civitas hodiè demonstratur, cujus nunc patria ab his Bulgaris Bulgaria nuncupatur, antiquitus Canonicè ordinavit, & obtinuit. Pag. 39   

NUM. XIV.  
Nicolaus primus Epist. 2. ad Michaelem Imperatorem. Quae Antecessorum nostrorum temporibus, scilicet Damasi, Siricii, Innocentii, Bonifacii, Caelestini, Sixti, Leonis, Hilarii, Simplicii, Felicis atque Hormisdae Sanctorum Pontificum sacris dispositionibus augebatur. Quorum denique institutiones ab eis illis in partibus destinatas per nostros missos, ut rei veritatem cognoscere queatis, vestrae Augustali potentiae dirigere curavimus. Pag. 40   

NUM. XV.  
Innocentius primus Epistola inter Holstenianas 4. Anteriores tanti ac tales viri Predecessores mei Episcopi, id est, S. memoriae Damasus, Siricius, atque supra memoratus vir (Anastasius nimirum) ita detulerunt, ut omnia, quae in illis partibus gererentur, Sanctitati tuae, quae plena justitiae, traderent cognoscenda, meam quoque parvitatem hoc tenere judicium, eamdemque habere voluntatem, te decet recognoscere. Pag. 41   

NUM. XVI.  
Caelestinus primus, Epistola 13. inter Holsten. Nec nova haec, inquit, Sedis Apostolicae cura de vobis est, statutum nostris saepius experimentum hoc, quod nos agimus: Thessalonicensi Eeclesiae semper esse commissum, ut vobis vigilanter intendat. & infra: Sunt culpae aliquantae non leves, quae illis innatae Provinciis ad nos, cum simus longius, non possunt pervenire, aut jam semotis omnibus, non ita, ut sunt acta interposito temporis spatio perferuntur: quas omnes nos intercessione fratris ac Coepiscopi nostri Rufi, cujus experientiam comprobatam esse in causis omnibus, & vitae actibus liquet, volumus resecari. Cui vicem nostram per vestram Provinciam noveritis esse commissam, ita ut ad eum, Fratres carissimi, quidquid de causis agitur, referatur, sine ejus consilio nullus ordinetur, nullus usurpet eodem inconscio commissam illi Provinciam, colligere nisi cum ejus voluntate Episcopos non praesumat: per eum etiam ad nos, si quid est, referatur. ibid.   

NUM. XVII.  
Sixtus III. Epist. ad Perigenem inter Holsten. Sed id, inquit, quod ejus Decessoribus nostri Decessores detulerant, habita consideratione disciplinae Ecclesiae constitutum. Pag. 42   

NUM. XVIII.  
Synodus Romanus sub Bonifacio. Constare venerandos sedis Romanae Pontifices, quamvis in toto mundo Sedes Apostolica Ecclesiarum sibi jure vindicet Principatum, & solam Ecclesiasticis causis undique appellare necesse sit, specialiter tamen gubernationi suae Illy rici Ecclesias vindicasse. Pag. 42   

NUM. XIX.  
Bonifacius Epist. inter Holsten. 5. ad Rufum: Perrevii Coepiscopi nostri negotium, cujus nobis libellus ab codem destinatus fecit indicium, cui consacerdotes sui molesti nimis esse dicuntur, ita ut eum Ecclesia sua crederent esse pellendum, diligenter audire tuam volumus charitatem conventis supradictis Coepiscopis nostris, quorum se vim sustinere deplorat. Tunc demum, ut intelligant, si quid à se factum est, contra consuetudinem prius esse cassandum, omnibus vestigatis ad nos tua Charitas referre maturet, quatenus probatum à tua Fraternitate judicium sententia nostra valeat roborari. Sanè in Epistola Thessalis fratribus destinata id à nobis scriptum volumus recognoscas, Pausianum, Cyriacum, atque Calliopum à nostra Communione penitus summovendos, ita ut remedium solum interventionis tuae gratiam se habere cognoscant. Maximum autem, quem malè tua Charitas retulit ordinatum, in totum Sacerdotii censemus honore privandum. Pag. 46   

NUM. XX.  
Lex Theodosii Junioris: Omni innovatione cessante vetustatem, & Canones pristinos Ecclesiasticos, qui nunc usque tenuerunt, per omnes Illyrici Provincias servari praecipimus: tum si quid dubietatis emerserit, id oporteat non absque scientia Viri Reverentissimi Sacrosanctae legis Antistitis Urbis Constantinopolitanae, quae Romae veteris praerogativa laetatur, Conventui Sacerdotali, sanctoque judicio reservari. Dat. prid. Idus Julii; Eustatio & Agricola Coss. Pag. 49   

NUM. XXI.  
Bonifacius Epist. ad Rufum, inter Holsten. 8. Violatores Canonum, inquit, atque Ecclesiastici Juris inimicos, Deo auctore compescet, qui talium mentium semper vota frustratur. In caeteros etiam contumaces jus concessae potestatis exerce. Nullum etenim locum vides à nobis otiosum relictum. Pag. 50   

NUM. XXII.  
Honorii Epist. ad Theodosium: Procul dubio illius Urbis Ecciesia Speciali nobis cultu veneranda est, ex qua & Romanum Principatum accepimus; & principium Sacerdotium. Siquidem nihil aliud à pietate nostra postulaverit missa Legatio, nisi quod Catholicae fidei, Disciplinae & aequitati concordet: petit enim, ut haec privilegia, quae dudum à patribus constituta usque ad tempora nostra servata sunt, inconcussa perdurent. & infra: Under Majestas tua recensitis nostrae pietatis affatibus Christianitatis memor, quam pectoribus nostris misericordia caelestis infundit, universis remotis, quae diversorum Episcoporum subreptionibus per Illyricum impetrari dicuntur, antiquum ordinem praecipiat custodiri. Ne sub Principibus Christianis Romana perdat Ecclesia, quod aliis Imperatoribus non amisit. Pag. 51   

NUM. XXIII.  
Theodosii Rescriptum: Omni supplicantium Episcoporum per Illyricum subreptione remota statuimus observari, quod prisca Apostolica Disciplina & Canones veteres eloquuntur. Super quâ re secundum formam oraculi Perennitatis tuae ad Viros illustres Praefectos Praetorii Illyrici nostri scripta porreximus, ut cessantibus Episcoporum subreptionibus antiquum ordinem specialiter faciant custodiri: ne venerabilis Ecclesia Sanctissima Urbis privilegia à veteribus constituta amittat, quae perenne nobis sui nominis consecravit Imperium. Pag. 52   

NUM. XXIV.  
Leo primus Epist. 54. ad Anastasium Thessalonicen. Apostolica discretione provisum esse, inquit Leo Epist. 54. ut in singulis Provinciis singuli constituerentur, qui inter Provinciae Episcopos primam sententiam haberent, rursus quidam in majoribus Urbibus constituti fuerunt, qui sollicitudinem susciperent majorem, per quos ad unam Petri Sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret, & nihil usquam à suo Capite dissideret. Pag. 54   

NUM. XXV.  
Canon 1. Concilii Arelatensis 1. De observationibus Paschae & Dominicae, ut uno die & tempore per omnem Orbem observetur, & juxta consuetudinem litteras ad omnes Tu dirigas. Pag. 66   

NUM. XXVI.  
Leo Magnus Epist. 64. ad Marcianum. Paschale etenim festum, quo Sacramentum salutis humanae maximè continetur, quamvis in primo semper mense celebrandum sit, ita tamen est lunaris cursus conditione mutabile, ut plerumque Sacratissimi diei ambigua currat electio. Et ex hoc fiat plerumque, quod non licet, ut non simul omnis Ecclesia, quod non nisi unum esse oporteat, observet. Studucreque Sancti Patres, occasionem hujus erroris auferre, omnem hanc curam Alexandrino Episcopo delegantes, quoniam apud Aegyptios hujus supputationis antiquitùs tradita esse videbatur peritia, per quam qui annis singulis dies praedictae solemnitatis evenerit, Sedi Apostolicae indicaretur, ut hujus scripti ad longinquiores Ecclesias judicium generaliter percurreret. Pag. 68   

NUM. XXVII.  
Innocentius 1. Epist. 11. Has ergo litteras de ratione Paschali alterius (dico futuri) anni praescripsi. Nam cum ante diem undecimum Kalendarum Aprilium penè Luna 16. colligatur (nam quidpiam minus est) itemque cum in ante diem quartum Kalendarum earumdem veniat 23. existimavi 11. Kalendarum memoratarum die festa Paschalia celebranda, quoniam in vigesima tertia Luna nullum Pascha unquam, ante hoc Pasca factum esse cognoscimus. Sententiae meae exposui atque edixi tenorem. Jam prudentiae tuae erit, consors mihi Frater, cum unanimis & Consacerdotibus nostris hanc ipsam rem in Synodo religiosissima tractare, ut si nihil dispositioni nostrae resultat, nobis plenissimè apertèque scribens, quo deliberatam Paschalem diem jam literis ante (ut moris est) servandam, suo tempore praescribamus. Pag. 69   

NUM. XXVIII.  
Cyrillus Alexandrinus, praefat. ad Cyclum. Sanctorum, inqu●● Cyrillus, totius Orbis Synodi consensione decretum est, ut, quoniam apud Alexandriam talis esset reperta Ecclesia, quae in hujus scientia clareret, quota Kalendarum vel Iduum, quota Luna Pascha debeat celebrari, per singulos annos Romanae Ecclesiae litteris intimaret, undè Apostolica authoritate universalis Ecclesia per totum Orbem diffinitum Paschae diem sine ulla disceptatione cognosceret. Quod cum per multa secula pariter custodissent, nullamque indè scripturarum quispiam crederet, etc. Pag. 71   

NUM. XXIX.  
Fragmentum Synodi Palestinae apud Bedam. Tunc Papa Victor, Romanaeque Urbis Episcopus direxit auctoritatem ad Theophilum Cesareensis Palestinaeque Antistitem, ut quomodo Pascha recto jure à cunctis Catholicis celebraretur, Ecclesiis utilis fieret ordinatio, ubi Dominus Salvator Mundi fuerat in carne versatus. Percepta itaque auctoritate praedictus Episcopus non solum de sua Provincia, sed etiam de diversis Regionibus omnes Episcopos evocavit, ubi cum illa multitudo Sacerdotum convenit, tunc Theophilus Episcopus protulit auctoritatem ad se missam Victoris Papae, & quid sibi operis fuisset injunctum, ostendit. Pag. 72   

NUM. XXX.  
Eusebius lib. 5. Histor. cap. Victor quidem Romanae Urbis Episcopus illico omnes Asiae vicinarumque Provinciarum Ecclesias tamquam contraria rectae fidei sentientes à Communione abscindere conatur, datisque litteris universos, qui illic erant, fratres proscribit, & ab unitate Ecclesiae prorsus alienos esse pronuntiat. Pag. 73   

NUM. XXXI.  
Cyrillus Alexandrinus: Apostolica auctoritate universalis Ecclesia per totum Orbem diffinitum Pasche diem sine ulla disceptationc cognoscebat. Pag. 75   

NUM. XXXII.  
Athanasius de sententia Dionysii: Quidam ex Ecclesiâ fratres rectè quidem sentientes, sed tamen cum ipsum non interrogassent, ut ediscerent, quo pacto scripsisset, Romam ascenderunt, ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nominis Romanum Praesulem accusaverunt. Pag. 79   

NUM. XXXIV.  
Eusebius Caesariensis lib. 7. cap. 30. Sed inquit Eusebius cum Paulus ex domo Ecclesiae nullatenus excedere vellet, interpellatus Imperator Aurelianus rectissimè hoc negotium dijudicavit, iis domum tradi praecipiens, quibus Italici Christianae Religionis Antistites, & Romanus Episcopus scriberent. Pag. 80   

NUM. XXXV.  
Julius primus Epist ad Orientales Antiochiae congregatos: Qui secum erant, admiratione plenos vix induci potuisse ut crederent, ea ab ipsis profecta fuisse: dicit Canones Apostolicos sequendos esse, & Episcoporum Nicaenorum Decreta, quibus prioris Synodi acta in alia Synodo examinari permittebantur, attendi debuisse: nam, inquit, Si istiusmodi consuetudo olim fuit, ejusque memoria renovata est, & scripto prodita in magna Synodo, eamque apud vos valere non sinitis, rem profecto indecoram facitis. Morem enim, qui semel in Ecclesia obtinuit, & à Synodo confirmatus est, iniquum est à paucis abrogari. Pag. 81   

NUM XXXVI.  
Canon 6. Nicaenus: Antiqua consuetudo servetur per Aegyptum, Lybiam, & Pentapolim, ita ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, quia & Urbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos est. Similiter autem & apud Antiochiam, caeterasque Provincias suis privilegia serventur Ecclesiis. Illud autem generaliter clarum est, quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus, hunc magna Synodus definivit Episcopurn esse non oportere, etc. Pag. 82   

NUM. XXXVII.  
D. Hieronimus Epist. 61. ad Pammachium. Tu, qui regulas quaeris Ecclesiasticas, & Nicaeni Concilii Canonibus uteris— responde mihi, ad Alexandrinum Episcopum Palestina quid pertinet? ni fallor, hoc ibi decernitur, ut Palestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit, & totius Orientis Antiochia: aut igitur ad Caesareensem Episcopum referre debueras— aut si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potius dirigendae litterae— Maluisti occupatis auribus molestiam facere, quam debitum Metropolitano tuo honorem reddere. Pag. 85   

NUM. XXXVIII.  
D. Athanasius de sententia Dionysii. In Pentapoli superioris Lybiae quidam Episcoporum sententias Sabellii amplectebantur, tantumque eorum commenta invaluerant, ut vix ulterius filius Dei in Ecclesiüs praedicaretur. Re cognita Dionysius, ad cujus curam eae Ecclesiae pertinebant, Legatos misit, qui Authores harum rerum ab illis pravis opinionibus retraherent. Pag. 87   

NUM. XXXIX.  
D. Epiphanius Haeresi. 68 Meletius, inquit, cum Martyribus ac praecipuè Petro Archiepiscopo Alexandrino tum in vinculis habebatur: atque ille quidem caeteris Aegypti Episcopis antecellens secundum à Petro dignitatis locum obtinebat, utpotè illius adjutor, sed eidem tamen subjectus, & ad ipsum de causis Ecclesiasticis referens. Hic enim mos est Alexandrinorum Archiepiscoporum, ut per totum Aegyptum, ac Thebaidem, Mareotidem, Lybiam, Ammoniacam, Mareotidem, & Pentapolim Ecclesiastica negotia administrent. ibid.   

NUM. XL.  
Canon 3. Sardicensis. S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus, ut scribatur ab his, qui causam examinarunt, Julio Romano Episcopo: & si judicaverit, renovandum esse judicium, renovetur, & det Judices: si autem probaverit talem causam esse, ut non refricentur ea, quae acta sunt, quae decreverit, confirmata erunt. Pag. 95   

NUM. XLI  
Epistola Synodica Sardicensis: Optimum & valdè congruentissimum videri, si ad caput, id est, ad Petri Apostoli sedem de singulis quibusque Provinciis Domini referat Sacerdotes. Pag. 95   

NUM. XLII.  
Concilium Aquileiense Epist. ad Gratianum Imperatorem: Totius Orbis Romani caput Romanam Ecclesiam esse. Undè in omnes venerandae Commonitionis jura dimanant. Pag. 96   

NUM. XLIII.  
Osorius Apologia pro libertate arbitrii. B. Innocentium Papam Romanum fratres & Epistolae mitterentur, Universi, quod ille decerneret, secuturi. ibid.   

NUM. XLIV.  
S. Prosper in Chronico: Agricola Pelagianus Severiani Episcopi Pelagiani filius Ecclesias Britanniae dogmatis sui insinuatione corrupit, sed ad actionem Palladii Diaconi Papa Caelestinus Germanum Antisiodorensem Episcopum vice sua mittit, & deturbatis Haereticis Britannos ad Catholicam fidem dirigit. Pag. 99   

NUM. XLV.  
S. Prosper: Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur à Papa Caelestino Palladius, & primus Episcopus mittitur. Pag. 100   

NUM. XLVI.  
Venerab. Beda lib. 1. cap. 13. Palladius ad Scotus in Christum credentes à Pontifice 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 Britoneses confitentur quidem, intellexisse se, veram esse viam Justitiae, quam praedicaret Augustinus, etc. 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 Egypt, and to whom they were Subject. p. 87. The Egyptians 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 showing, of what Bishops the Patriarchal Synod of the Bishop of Rome consists. p. 54  
Agricola first brought the Pelagian Heresy into Britain. p. 98  
The Bishop of Alexandria had the care over all Egypt committed to him. 82. The Nicene Council entrusted 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 supplied. p. 59  
The Testimony of Augustine the Bishop concerning the Roman Patriarches Authority over all the West. 22. Augustine the Monk was Gregory the Great's Legate. 101. he institutes Metropolitans by Authority received 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 Britain's first Conversion to the Faith was in the third Age. 11. Bede and Tertulian testify the same. 12. Britain was longer preserved from the Pelagian Heresy 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 acknowledge 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 professed in the Council of Sardica that the Memory of Peter was to be honoured. 95. They acknowledged that they appertained 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 Celestine 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  
Celestine was of opinion that appeal was to be made from the judgement 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, etc. See Arles, etc.  
What Customs were introduced by the Apostles, and how they may be known to have been so. p. 53  
The Church was chief 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 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 published 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 received 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 showing where the Gospel was Preached 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 judgement 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 Heretics. 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 Pope's 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 privileges of the Apostolic See. p. 51   

I.  
What james King of England believed concerning the Institution of Patriarches, and concerning the Roman Patriarchate in particular. p. 20  
The testimony of Jerome, 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 Caesarea. 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, etc.  
The testimony of Ireneus, concerning the more powerful Principality of the Roman Church. p. 14  
juiius the first reprehends the Eusebians for declining the judgement of the Apostolic See. p. 81  
justinian the Emperor acknowledges the Roman Bishops Patriarchate over the West. p. 55   

L.  
Launoy opposes the authority of Clement's 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 Ambassadors 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 Egypt. 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 Caesarea 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 Patriarches. p. 33   

P.  
The Pall when first received and by whom. p. 33  
There were Patriarches 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 preached the Gospel. 8. he was not the firft Planter of the Roman Church. 25. whether he Preached in Britain. p. 6  
It was most just that the cause of Paulus Samosatenus should be removed 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 been heard in the Eastern Synod. 96. how his Heresy was condemned by Zosimus and the censure, that Zosimus passed against it was approved by every Church under Heaven. p. 98.  
Who determined in the cause of Perigenes, and when. p. 48 etc.  
The cause of Perrevius different from that of Perigenes. p. 47  
Peter head of the Apostles. 109, 110. his memory to be honoured. 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, etc.   

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 prevailed in it. 1●. 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 showed 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. Paul's 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 judged 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.   

Postscript.  
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, 'twas 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 Sense of the Latin Treatise, which he hath carefully endeavoured to do; Leaving it now to the Reader to Judge of the Works of these two Authors, and Entreating 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 margin, Anastasium p. 54, in marg. Dieceses, p. 60. Praefecti Pretorio, p. 61. Chap. V p. 89. Britain, instead of Great Britain, 112. etc.   

BY HIS MAJESTY's Letters Patents under His Great Seal of England dated the tenth day of November in the 3d. Year of his Majesty's Reign, there is Granted to Matthew Turner of Holborn Bookseller and his Assigns only, full and sole Power, Licence, Privilege and Authority to Print and Reprint either in Latin, or English, and also to Utter and Sell at any Place within His Majesty's 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 College.  
XI. The Christians Daily Exercise by T.U.  
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 Portraiture of the Church.  
XXI. The Catholic Scripturist.  
XXII. Historical Collections of the Reigns of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, Queen Marry, 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.