fleet 53, to show the ancient liberty and independency of the Britannic Churches, which I shall not here repeat, but only from the known story of King Lucius... the first Christian king... Religion being settled, that Churchgovernment grew up here, as in other countries, by bishops and then metropolitans, or superior bishops, there can be no just cause to doubt. 53 Orig. Britann. ch. 5. p. 356. (v. 3. p. 221.) It remains only that we consider the liberty or independence of the British Churches; of which we can have no greater proof than from the carriage of the British bishops towards Augustin the monk, when he came with full power from the Pope to require subjection from them. And this material point relating to the British Churches, I shall endeavour to clear from all the objections which have been made against it. In order thereto, we are to understand, that Augustin the monk, by virtue of the Pope's authority, did challenge a superiority over the bishops of the British Churches; which appears not only by Gregory's answer to his interrogations, but by the scheme of the ecclesiastical government here, which Gregory sent to him, after he had a fair prospect of the conversion of the Saxons, which was at the same time that he sent Melitius, Justus, Paulinus, and Rufinianus, with the archiepiscopal pall, to him. There he declares, that there were to be two archbishop's sees, one at London, (which, out of honour to Ethelbert or Augustin, was fixed at Canterbury, or rather by Ethelbert's own authority, and the other at York, which had been a metropolitan see in the British times, and both these archbishops were to have twelve suffragan bishops under them. The bishop of London was to be consecrated by his own synod, and to receive the pall from the Pope; but Augustin was to 'appoint the first bishop of York, who was to yield subjection to him for his time, but afterwards the sees were to be independent of each other. But by all this it should seem, that he had authority given him only over those bishops, who were consecrated by him and the archbishop of York; what, then, becomes of those bishops in Britain who were consecrated by neither, and such they knew there were? Concerning these Gregory gives a plain answer: "That they were all to be subject to the authority of Augustin, and to govern themselves, in life, and doctrine, and church-offices, according to his direction.' Augustin, being furnished with such full power, 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. Where this place was is very uncertain, and not at all material: Camden could find nothing like it; and the conjectures of others since have no great probability, either as to Austric, or Haustake, or Ossuntree; but, at this place, the British bishops gave Augustin a meeting; where the first thing proposed by him was, that they would embrace the unity of the Catholic Church, and then join with him 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 further advice, and give another meeting with a greater number. And then were present seven bishops of the Britons, and many learned men, chiefly of the monastery of Bangor, where Dinoth was then abbot; and the result of this meeting was, that they utterly refused submission to the Church of Rome, or to Augustin as archbishop over them.' And for the account of this we are beholden to Bede, whose authority is liable to no exception in this matter. 6 consider an exception or two, which are made by Schelstrate in his Dissertation concerning the Patriarchal Power of the Bishop of Rome, in answer to Bishop Stillingfleet's Antiquities of the British Church. [London, 1688. 4to.] 6 ceptions of Churches, 12. He says 54, The manuscript set out by Sir H. Spelman, The concontaining the answer of Dinothus to Austin, is spurious and trary exforged; for the style manifestly discovers it to be modern: Schelstrate, which is a weighty argument indeed from a person, who was the Brirelating to so competent a judge of the British style, in which that manu- tannic script was written, that he professes he did not understand considered. even the English tongue without the help of an interpreter: and how then should he be able to judge of a British writing by its style, without knowing a syllable of the language? But he adds, 'The matter of it also discovers it to be a forgery: for it is manifest there was no archbishop of Caerleon upon Uske at that time, as the writing pretends: but that the metropolitan jurisdiction had for above a hundred years before been transferred to Menevia:' as if it was not as manifest to all the world, that the archbishop of Menevia or St. David's might retain the title of Caerleon, though the see was removed, because Caerleon was the original seat; as well as the bishop of the Isle of Man now retains the title of Episcopus Sodorensis, because Sodera and all the Hebrides, or islands on the west of Scotland, were once part of his diocese, though now for many ages they have been separated from it: or, to give an instance nearer Rome, we are told by geographers 55 that Ostia and Porto still give title to two bishops, one whereof is always a senior cardinal, and the other dean of the college of cardinals, though both places are now in such ruins, that there is scarce an inhabitant in either. We shall see hereafter, in the fifth chapter of this Book, that many times three or four ancient 54 Dissert. ch. 6. (p. 102.) And first as to the manuscript set forth by Spelman, &c. 55 Ferrarius, Lexic. Geogr. voce Ostia. (t. 2. p. 22.) Ostia... colonia et urbis Latii, episcopalis, ad ostia Tiberis, e regione Portus urbis, prorsus a Saracenis eversa, ab urbe Roma 16 mill. pass. distans. Manet episcopatus, qui cardinali seniori, a quo pontifex maximus coro natur, tribuitur, &c. - Ibid. voce Italian bishoprics were united into one, as Holstenius 56 has observed of Tarquina, Cornetum, and Gravisca; in which case no absurdity is committed, whichever of the titles the bishop of the united diocese was called by. Why then must it be an objection against the validity of this testimony, that it calls the bishop of Menevia by the title of Caerleon, when that was the original title? But secondly, he from Bede that the quessays, It appears tion was not concerning the primacy of the Roman bishop, but about Austin's metropolitical jurisdiction over them.' But how then came the British bishops to be reckoned schismatics, if the Pope's authority was no ways concerned in the dispute? Would they be schismatics for rejecting Austin's metropolitical jurisdiction, had he unwarrantably usurped that power of his own head, and without a legal commission from some superior obtruded himself upon them? It is plain, therefore, the one was included in the other, and the rejecting Austin was rejecting the power that sent him. But they also contested the Pope's supremacy in another respect, refusing to comply with the Romish rites and usages in the observation of Easter, the administration of baptism, St. Peter's tonsure, and some other customs: which was an argument, that as they had no dependence upon the Church of Rome heretofore, nor much communication with her, but rather with the eastern Churches; so now they intended not to submit to her dictates, but to follow their own ancient customs as a free Church, and independent of her. Can any one suppose that, had the British bishops looked upon the Pope as invested with a legal supremacy over them, they would have scrupled complying with directions in such matters, as the observation of Easter and the like, when such things were but the smallest part of patriarchal jurisdiction? Even our author himself 57, when he comes to consider the matter a little further, is not so hardy as to stand by his own assertion, but comes to call them names at last, with Baronius and others of his own party, telling us that after the Saxons had broken in upon them, they deserted the doctrines 56 Annot. in Geogr. Car. a S. Paulo, p. 8. ad vocem Tarquinii. (ap. Oper. C. a S. P. p. 48.) Tarquinii, vulgo Tarquera. Tarquina, &c. Episcopatus hic Cornetum translatus, ut et Graviscanus. 57 Dissert. ch. 6. (p. 106.) and rights of the Catholic Church, and receded as schismatics from the centre of ecclesiastical communion: and that it ought to be concluded, that God was willing to shew the falsehood of the schismatical Church of Britain, by the miracle which he wrought upon Austin's intercession.' This is home to our point, and gives up the cause in question, which is,-Whether the British Church owned the Pope's supremacy at the coming of Austin hither? Which our author, after some small bickerings with his learned adversary, is forced to deny, and join issue with him, and then betakes himself to their last and common refuge, ill names and miracles, which being no arguments in this case, I shall not stand to give them any answer; but only inquire into one thing more,-How it appears that the Britons had deserted any ancient doctrine relating to the Pope's patriarchal power, upon the coming of the Saxons? To evidence this, our author must give us very plain proofs, that before that time the British Church always owned the bishop of Rome's patriarchal jurisdiction over them. And this indeed is the pretended design of his whole Dissertation; but his proofs amount to no more than a few slight conjectures, by which he would be thought to have demonstrated these four things. First, that St. Peter was the founder of the British Church 58; which any one that reads Bishop Usher De Primordiis 59 will as readily attribute to St. Paul, or twenty others so little reason is there for grounding the Pope's patriarchal power upon the first conversion of the British Church. Secondly, he argues from ancient tradition, that patriarchal power is an apostolical institution, and that thereby to the British Church was made subject to the Roman, whoever was the first converter of it: but this tradition is involved in greater obscurity, and proceeds upon more precarious proofs than the former. Thirdly, he says, the British bishops, in the Council of Arles, owned the Pope's 61 patriarchal power over them, and all the Western world. And lastly, that this power, in this full extent and latitude, is both acknowledged and confirmed by the sixth canon of the Council of Nice 62. How far 58 Ibid. ch. 1, 2. (pp. 1, 16, seqq.) 59 Sive, de Antiquit. Eccles. Britann. c. 1. (Works, v. 5. pp. 19, seqq.) S. Paulum, doctorem Gentium, &c. 60 Schelstrate, as before, ch. 3. (pp. 36, seqq.) 61 Ibid. ch. 4. (pp. 57, seqq.) the Council of Nice allowed or confirmed this power, has been already shewed in discoursing of the suburbicary churches: so that the only thing remaining is to examine what weight there is in his argument from the Council of Arles. This Council was summoned by Constantine, and not by the Pope, against the Donatists, anno 314. Here were present three British bishops, Eborius from York, Restitutus from London, and Adelphius from Lincoln,- Colonia Lindi, as I shall show hereafter 62 it probably ought to be read. Now, in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Sylvester, there is a passage, but by all acknowledged to be a very corrupt one, which speaks something of his holding the greater dioceses 63; which our author interprets to mean, 'his having a patriarchal power over all the great dioceses of the Western empire, Macedonia, Dacia, Illyricum, Italy, Africa, Spain, France, and Britain.' But one question may be here asked, which will spoil all this flourish of a comment;-Did the African fathers, many of whom were present at this Council, so understand the words greater dioceses? If they did, how came it to pass, that within an age after they so stiffly opposed three Popes successively, and vindicated their own liberties in this very point, (as we have seen before 64 they did,) denying them absolutely all power of receiving appeals from any of the African Churches? Had St. Austin and all the rest of them forgot what their forefathers had so lately subscribed at Arles, that Africa was one of the Pope's larger dioceses? Or, had they been harassed out of their senses, like the poor Britons, by some Saxon invasion, and were now run into schism, as the other are reproachfully and falsely said to have done? Nothing of all this can be pretended in the present case; and therefore that is demonstration to me, that neither the African fathers, nor the Britons, nor any others then present in council, took the words greater dioceses in the sense which this author puts upon them; so that whatever meaning they must have, it is plain this cannot be their meaning and then all the argument, which our author 62 See ch. 6. 8. 9. of this Book. 63 C. Arelat. 1. Ep. Synod. (t. 1. p. 1426 a.) Placuit etiam antequam a te, qui majores dioceses tenes, per te potissimum omnibus insinuari.-Schelstrate and Perron correct it thus: Placuit etiam hæc juxta antiquam consuetudinem a te, qui majores dioceses tenes, et per te potissimum omnibus insinuari. 64 See 8. 11. p. 241. For the Britannic Churches, &c. |