De Marca 37 does not pretend to deny it. The like has been observed by learned men concerning Ravenna, and other places in Italy, which frequently contested the point of superiority and subjection with the bishops of Rome; of which Dr. Cave 38 gives the reader a particular historical account for many ages successively, too long to be here inserted. Third. For the African provinces, which are pretended to be part of the Pope's patriarchal dominions; they had always

an exarch, or patriarch of their own, the primate of Carthage, who was absolute, and independent of any other, as Justinian declares in one 39 of his Novels. And it is plain the African Councils always thought so; for as they never sent to Rome for ordinations, so they prohibited all appeals thither upon any account whatsoever. Which is evident beyond all contradiction from the Council of Milevis 40, which orders every African clerk, that appeals from the sentence of his own bishop, or a synod of select judges, to appeal to none but African synods, or the primates of the provinces. And if any presumed to appeal beyond seas (meaning to Rome,) he should be excluded from all communion in the African Churches.' This decree was further confirmed by several acts of their general synods, made upon the famous case and appeal of Apiarius, an African presbyter, whom Zosimus, bishop of Rome, pretended to restore to communion, after he had been deposed by an African Council. Zosimus alleged for himself a pretended decree of the Council of Nice, giving him authority to receive appeals; but this the African fathers proved to be a forgery, by sending for authentic copies of the Nicene decrees from Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, where no such thing appeared. Upon this the African fathers write a very sharp letter to Pope Celestine, (for Zosimus, and Boniface, his successor, were both dead whilst this controversy was depending,) where, among other things, they desire him, that he would not, for the future, give ear to any that came from Afric, nor admit those to communion whom they had excommunicated, which he might easily perceive to be prohibited by the Council of Nice, according to whose decrees both the inferior clergy, and the bishops themselves, were committed to the judgment of their own metropolitans.' For the Nicene fathers very justly and wisely conceived that all controversies ought to be ended in the places where they arose. And it was very unreasonable in itself to think that God should enable a single

39 Novel. 131. c. 4. (t. 5. p. 583.) Simili quoque modo jus pontificis, quod episcopo Justiniana Carthaginis Africanæ civitatis dedimus, ex quo Deus hunc nobis restituit, servari jubemus.

40 C. 22. (t. 2. p. 1542 e.) Quod

si et ab eis appellandum [al. provocandum] putaverint, non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad primates provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, a nullo intra Africam in communione suscipiatur.

person to examine the justice of a cause, and deny his grace to a vast number of persons assembled in council. Therefore, upon the whole matter, they desire him henceforth to forbear sending any of his clerks into Afric to execute his sentence there, lest they should seem to introduce the smoky pride of the world into the Church of Christ:-with abundance more to the same purpose, which the reader may find at large inserted among the canons of the African Code 41. From which it is as plain as the sun at noon-day, that, in the time of St. Austin, the Pope could lay no just claim to patriarchal power over any of the African Churches.

Fourth. Baluzius has further demonstrated for the Gallican Churches, in his excellent preface to Antonius Augustinus's book, De Emendatione Gratiani, [Paris. 1672. 8vo.] that, for eight hundred years, the French Synods never allowed of any appeals from their own determinations to the Pope. They always ordained their own metropolitans, as is evident from the second Synod of Orleans 42, anno 533; and many times stoutly resisted the encroachments of the Popes, for which I refer the reader to the foresaid Baluzius and Dr. Cave 43, the particulars being too long to be inserted here.

Lastly. For the Britannic Churches, it is evident, that for six hundred years they never acknowledged any dependence upon Rome. When Austin the monk came into England, and pleaded with the British bishops, seven in number, for subjection to the bishop of Rome, and conformity to the Roman rites

41 C. 135. ad c. 138. (t. 2. pp. 1143 et seqq.)

42 C. 7. (t. 4. p. 1781 b.) In ordinandis metropolitanis episcopis antiquam institutionis formulam renovamus, quam per incuriam omnimodis videmus amissam. Itaque metropolitanus episcopus a comprovincialibus episcopis, clericis, vel populis electus, congregatis in unum omnibus comprovincialibus episcopis ordinetur, ut talis Deo propitio ad gradum hujus dignitatis accedat, per quem regula ecclesiæ in melius aucta plus floreat.

43 Cave, Ancient Church-Government, ch. 5. pp. 219,220.(s. 5. p. 429.) I shall only remark, that when Hincmar, archbishop of Remes, deposed

BINGHAM, VOL. III.

Rothald, bishop of Suessons, for great misdemeanours, Rothald appealed to Rome; and Pope Nicolaus espoused his cause, wrote sharply to Hincmar, and cited him to appear, and answer what he had done, at Rome. But Hincmar would not stir, but published a large Apologetic to the Pope, wherein he justifies his act; and though he gives good words and great deference to the See Apostolic, yet stoutly contends, that he ought to be content with a general care and inspection, and not interrupt the ordinary rights of metropolitans; and that it was infinitely reasonable, that the criminal should be referred to the judgment of his own province.

R

6

in the observation of Easter, and some other things, he was answered positively 44, that they owed no obedience to the pope of Rome, but were under the government of the bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who was their overseer under God.' And for the business of the Paschal controversy, they were so far from paying any deference to the Roman custom, that they continued their ancient practice of observing Easter on a different Sunday from Rome for some ages after, notwithstanding all the arguments that the Pope or his party could urge against them; for which reasons they were treated as schismatics by the agents and emissaries of Rome: which is an evident demonstration that they did not then acknowledge any thing of the Pope's patriarchal power over them. All this is clear from Bede 45, who repeats it in several places; and William of Malmesbury 46, and Stephen Heddius 47, and Eadmerus 48, and other writers of the Life of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, a great zealot for the Romish cause against the British customs, tell us the very same story. For they say Wilfrid refused to receive ordination from the Scottish or British bishops, or from

44 Vid. Spelman. C. Britann. an. 601. (t. I. p. 108.) Notum sit et absque dubitatione vobis, quod nos omnes sumus, et quilibet nostrum, obedientes et subditi Ecclesiæ Dei, et Papæ Romæ, et unicuique vero et pio Christiano, ad amandum unumquemque eorum verbo et facto fore filios Dei: et aliam obedientiam, quam istam, non scio debitam ei, quem vos nominatis esse patrem patrum, vindicari et postulari; et istam obedientiam nos sumus parati dare et solvere ei et cuique Christiano continuo. Præterea nos sumus sub gubernatione episcopi Caërlegionis super Osca, qui est ad supervidendum sub Deo super nobis, et faciendum nos servare viam spiritualem.

45 Hist. 1. 2. c. 2. (p. 79.)-C. 19. (p. 100.)-L. 3. c. 25. (p. 131.) L. 5. c. 16. (p. 201.)—C. 22. (p. 216.)

46 De Gest. Pontif. Anglor. 1. 3. (ap. Scriptor. post Bedam, Lond. 1596. p. 148. 50.) Sed perstitit ille [Wilfridus] negare, ne ab episcopis Scottis vel ab iis, quos Scotti ordi

naverant, consecrationem susciperet, quorum communionem sedes aspernaretur Apostolica.

47 Vit. Wilfrid. c. 12. [I do not find the passage referred to according to the Venice edition, 1734. See p. 506. Presbyter egregius, &c. ED.]

48 Vit. Wilfrid. [Extat Londini inter MSS. Cottoniana, says Gabr. Gerberon, in the preface to his new edition of Eadmer's History and some other works, (ad calc. Oper. Anselm. t. 2. p. 4. q. v.) See in D'Acher. et Mabill. Act. Sanctor. Ord. Benedict. sæc. 3. part. 1. (p. 201. s. 13.) Mota est autem ea tempestate quæstio de observatione Paschæ, &c.-See particularly Colman's reply, (ibid. p. 202. s. 15.) Hoc per successionem prudentum et æque sanctissimorum virorum ad nos usque perlatum, hoc nostrorum doctrina majorum in nobis stabili firmitate fundatum, hoc a nobis antehac inviolabili observatione servatum, et firmamus nulla ratione non esse servandum. ED.]

any ordained by them, because the apostolical see had rejected their communion. So that, as Bishop Stillingfleet 49 has observed, out of these authors, it is plain, the British and Scottish Churches stood excommunicate, at that time, by the Church of Rome, because they would not submit to her rites and customs about Easter, and her pretended power over them.' A great deal more has been alleged by our learned antiquaries, Mr. Brerewood 50, Mr. Watson 51, Dr. Cave 52, and Bp. Stilling