mined the controversy about presidency betwixt the two churches of Arles and Vienna, decreeing, That that bishop should be the primate, who could prove his city to be the metropolis of the province. It sometimes happened that an ambitious spirit would petition the emperor to grant him the honour and power of a metropolitan in the church, when yet the province to which he belonged had but one metropolis in the state; which was so contrary to the foresaid rule of the church, that the great council of Chalcedon made it deposition for any bishop to attempt it. But on the other hand, if the emperor thought fit to divide a province into two, and erect a new metropolis in the second part; then the church many times allowed the bishop of the new metropolis to become a metropolitan in the church also. By this means Tyana, in Cappadocia, came to be a metropolitical see, as well as Cæsarea, because the province was divided into two by imperial edict. And the like happened upon the division of many other provinces, Galatia, Pamphylia, &c. As may be seen in the notitia of the church, which follows in the end of this book. The canons of the church were made to favour this practice in the erection of new bishoprics also. For the council of Chalcedon' has another canon, which says, That if the imperial power made any innovation in the precincts or parishes. belonging to any city, then the state of the church-precincts might be altered in conformity to the alterations that were made in the political and civil state. Which canon is repeated and confirmed in the council of Trullo. So that if any place was advanced to the privilege of a city, and governed by a civil magistracy of its own, which was not so before, it might then also be freed from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of its former bishop, and be governed by one of its own. Thus when Maiuma in Palestine, a dependant on Gaza, was advanced by Constantine to the privilege of a city, and governed by a magistracy of its own; that was presently followed with the erection of a new bishop's see, which continued ever after, notwithstanding that Julian, in spite to Christianity, disfranchised the city, and annexed it to Gaza again. Sozomen is our author for this, and he adds further, that in his time the bishop of Gaza, upon a vacancy of Maiuma, laying claim to it as only an appendage of his own city; and pleading, that one city ought not to have two bishops; the cause came to a hearing before a provincial synod, which determined in favour of the Maiumitans, and ordained

Concil. Chalced. c. 12.

Concil. Chalced. c. 17. Ei Tis ik ẞaσiλins ¿¿ovσías ἐκαινίσθη πόλις, τοῖς πολιτικοῖς καὶ δημοσίοις τύποις καὶ τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν παροικιῶν ἡ τάξις ἀκολουθείτω.

8 Concil. Trul. c. 38, which instead of Tapoikiv, reads, πραγμάτων.

Sozom. lib. 5. c. 3.

Sect. & Yet the cherch not tied precisely ta observe this model,

in varying from it.

them another bishop. For they thought it not proper, that they who for their piety had obtained the privilege of being made a city, and were only deprived of their right by the envy of a pagan prince, should lose their other rights, which concerned the priesthood and the church. So it always continued an episcopal see, and has its place among the rest in the notitia of the church. The like may be observed of Emmaus, which at first was but a village belonging to the diocese and city of Jerusalem. But being afterward rebuilt by the Romans, and called Nicopolis, from their great victories over the Jews, it became a city and a bishop's see, under which character the reader may also find it in the notitia of the church. These are evident proofs, that in settling the limits of dioceses and other districts, and modelling the external polity of the church, a great regard was had to the rules of the state, and many things ordered in conformity to the measure observed in the Roman empire. Yet these being matters only of conveniency and outward order, the church did not tie herself absolutely but used her liberty to follow that model, but only so far as she judged it expedient and conducive to the ends of her own spiritual government and discipline. And therefore she did not imitate the state model in all things: she never had one universal bishop, in imitation of a universal emperor; nor an Eastern and a Western pontificate, in imitation of an Eastern and Western empire; nor four grand spiritual administrators, answering to the four great ministers of state, the præfecti-prætorio, in the civil government; not to mention any other forms or ministers of state affairs, multitudes of which may be seen in the notitia of the empire. Nay, in those things wherein she followed the civil form, her li berty seems to have been preserved both by the laws of church and state; and nothing of this nature was forced upon her, but as she thought fit to order it in her own wisdom and discretion. This may be collected from one of Justinian's Novels, where having divided the two Armenias into four provinces, he adds," That as to what concerned the state of the church, his intent was to leave every thing in its ancient form, and make no alterations in the rights of the old metropolitans, or their power of ordaining their suffragans, &c. And this appears further from the answer of Pope Innocent, bishop of Rome, or one under his name, given to Alexander of Antioch, who had put the question," Whether

10 Justin. Novel. 31. Quæ vero ad sacerdotia spectant, ea volumus in pristina manere forma, ut neque circa jus metropoliticum, neque circa ordinationes quicquam innovetur. Vid. 28. c. 2.

Innocent. Ep. 18. ad Alex. Antioch. Quod sciscitaris, utrum divisis imperiali judicio provinciis, ut duæ metropoles fiant, sic duo metropolitani episcopi debeant nomi

upon the division of a province, and the erection of two civil metropoles in it by a royal decree, there ought also to be two metropolitan bishops in the church? To this he answers, That there was no reason the church should undergo alterations upon every necessary change that was made in the civil state, or have her honours and dignitaries multiplied or divided according to what the emperor thought fit to do in his own affairs. This shows, that the church was at liberty in this matter, to follow the model and divisions of the civil state or not, as she judged most expedient for herself: and when any alterations of this nature were made, they were generally done by the direction or consent of a provincial or general council, or the tacit consent and approbation of the church.

Sect. 9.

ecclesia suburbica

of the Roman

church.

12

Whilst we are upon this head re

An account of the lating to the ancient division of the ria in the district church, it comes properly to be inquired, what the primitive writers mean by the term ecclesiæ suburbicaria, suburbicary churches, in the district of the Roman church. Ruffinus, in his translation and abstract of the Nicene canons, gives us the sixth of them in these words, "The ancient custom of Alexandria and Rome shall still be observed, that the one shall have the care or government of the Egyptian, and the other that of the suburbicary churches." A great many questions have been raised by learned men in the last age concerning this, which I shall not clog this discourse with, but only resolve two questions, which are most material for a reader to know. 1. What was the extent of this district? 2. Whether it was the limits of his metropolitical or patriarchal power? To know what was the extent of this district, we cannot take a surer way, than to consider what is meant by the suburbicary regions in other places. For this is a term that often occurs in the Theodosian Code," where Gothofred," and our learned Dr. Cave," and many others take it to signify the district of the præfectus urbis, or jurisdiction of the provost of Rome, which was a circuit of about a hundred miles next to Rome; as is evident from the ancient law, which says, his government extended not only to Rome, but to a hundred miles round it," where the limits of his jurisdiction ceased. Which is noted also by Cassiodore," and Dio, who instead of centesimus lapis, uses the phrase of seven hundred and fifty stadia, or furlongs, which nari: non visum est ad mobilitatem necessitatum mundanarum Dei ecclesiam commutari, honoresque aut divisiones perpeti, quas pro suis causis faciendas duxerit imperator.

Ruffin. Hist. lib. 1. c. 6. Ut apud Alexandriam, et in urbe Roma, vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Ægypti, vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat. Cod. Th. lib. 11. Tit. 1. de Annona. Leg. 9. Vid. plura apud Gothofred. in locum.

"Gothofred. in loc.

is not much short of the legal computation. Others reckon the regiones suburbicaria to be the same ten provinces of the Italic diocese which were under the vicarius urbicus, who with the other vicarius of Italy divided the Italic diocese between them so that the Roman vicarius had seven provinces in Italy, (mentioned before in the notitia,) and the three islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, under his jurisdiction; which they reckon the suburbicary provinces of Rome. So our learned Mr. Brerewood,19 and Sirmond," and Du Pin, and some others, who extend the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome to all those ten provinces under the inspection of the vicarius urbis. Either of these opinions may be admitted, as having at least their arguments of probability to defend them: whereas they who confine the suburbicary churches to a single diocese, or extend them so far as to include all the provinces of the Western empire, run into contrary extremes, for which there is no ground either in the Nicene canon itself, or any other part of the history of the church in that age. For it is evident the canon speaks of the power of the three great bishops, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, as extending further than a single diocese: but that the authority of the bishop of Rome in those days extended over the whole Western empire, is not once so much as hinted in the Nicene canon, but is contrary to all the common senses of suburbicary churches, and refuted by the known distinction between Italic and Roman churches or provinces, and the constant opposition that was made by the African churches, and those of Britain, Milan, and others, to the least pretences of patriarchal power over them. From which it is rational to conclude, that the notion of suburbicary churches ought not to be extended beyond the limits either of the præfectus urbis, which was a hundred miles about Rome; and, as Dr. Cave and some others think, was also the limits of the pope's metropolitical power; or at most not beyond the limits of those ten provinces, which were immediately subjected to the civil disposition and jurisdiction of the vicarius urbis: viz. 1. Campania. 2. Tuscia and Umbria. 3. Picenum Suburbicarium. 4. Valeria. 5. Samnium. 6. Apulia and Calabria. 7. Lucania and Brutii. 8. Sicilia. 9. Sardinia. Corsica. Which Dr. Cave" supposes to have been the exact and proper limits of the pope's patriarchal power, as he thinks the other were the bounds of his metropolitical jurisdiction.

15 Cave, Anc. Church Gov. c. 3. p. 115.

10.

16 Digest. lib. 1. Tit. 12. Leg. 1. Si quid intra centesimum milliarium admissum sit, ad præfectum urbi pertinet, &c.

17 Cassiodor. Form. lib. 6. p. 207.

18 Dio, lib. 52. p. 548.

19 Brerewood of Patriarch. Gov. qu. 1. p. 99.

20 Sirmond. Censur. Conjectur. lib. 1. c. 4.

21 Cave, Anc. Church Gov. c. 5. p. 256.

Sect. 10.

bly the true ancient

of Rome's both me

tropolitical and pa

tion.

But it matters not much, I think; whether we call this district of these

This most probalimits of the bishop ten provinces the bishop of Rome's triarchal jurisdic metropolitical or patriarchal dioceses or provinces. For after all the disputes that have been raised about this matter, these seem to have been in a great measure the true ancient limits both of his metropolitical and patriarchal power. Many, I know, will take this for a paradox: but I have showed it to be true in the case of the bishop of Alexandria, the bounds of whose jurisdiction were the same, viz. the six provinces of the Egyptian diocese, both when he was a metropolitan and patriarch: and why then might not the case be the same with the bishop of Rome, whose privileges are prescribed as a model for the bishop of Alexandria by the council of Nice, whose words are these: Let ancient customs prevail; in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, let the bishop of Alexandria have authority over all, because the same is customary with the bishop of Rome: in like manner at Antioch, and in other provinces, let the privileges be secured to the churches. Some think the bishop of Rome was only a metropolitan when this canon was made, as Launoy, Bishop Beveridge, Bishop Stillingfleet, Dr. Cave; according to whose sentiments it must follow, that the suburbicary churches were the district or subject of his metropolitical power. Mr. Brerewood 24 and Spalatensis, after St. Jerom, think he was properly a patriarch; and I have showed elsewhere, that there are some reasons to countenance their opinion: but then the limits of his patriarchal power were still the same, (according as it was at Alexandria,) and the ten provinces of the Roman diocese were the legal bounds of his jurisdiction. And so Du Pin" amongst the Romanists makes no scruple ingenuously to confess; exempting Germany, Spain, France, Britain, Africa, Illyricum, and seven of the Italic provinces, from any subjection to the jurisdiction of the Roman patriarch in those first and primitive ages.

Sect. 11. Some evident proofs of this.

This is contrary to the general stream and current of the Romish writers, one of which is so angry with Du Pin upon this account, that he treats him with all the scorn and bitterness imaginable for making such a bold concession, and endeavours to answer 27 both what he and Bishop Stillingfleet had advanced against the pope's pretence to patriarchal power

22 Book II. chap. 17. sect. 11.

23 Conc. Nic. c. 6. 24 Brerewood of Patriarchal Power, qu. 1. 25 Book II. chap. 17. sect. 8.

26 Du Pin de Disciplin. Eccles. Dissert. 1. n. 14. p. 92. 27 Schelstrate's Dissertation of Metropolitical and Patri

archal Power against Stillingfleet, Lond. 1688.

29 Ruffin. Hist. lib. 1. c. 6. See before, sect. 9.

29 Athanas. Ep. ad Solitar. t. 1. p. 831.

30 Theod. lib. 2. c. 15.

over the whole Western empire: but with what success, the reader may easily judge from these few instances, which are evident proofs of the sense that has been given of the extent and limits of the pope's patriarchal jurisdiction. 1. Ruffinus, who was an Italian, and presbyter of Aquileia, and therefore could not be ignorant of the bounds of the pope's patriarchal power, in interpreting the sixth canon of the council of Nice, confines his jurisdiction to the suburbicary provinces:" and other ancient versions, published by Sirmondus and Justellus, agree with his interpretation. 2. The other seven provinces of Italy, which properly constituted the Italic diocese, as distinct from the Roman provinces, with Milan their metropolis at the head of them, were not anciently subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. For Milan is frequently styled the metropolis of Italy by Athanasius and Theodoret," taking Italy in its strict and peculiar notion, as distinct from the provinces subject to Rome. The bishop of Milan was never ordained by the bishop of Rome, (which yet he must have been, had he been subject to his patriarchal power,) but by the bishop of Aquileia, as the bishop of Aquileia and other places were ordained by Milan, which is evident from the epistle of Pope Pelagius," and De Marca 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 gives the reader a particular historical account for many ages successively, too long to be here inserted. 3. 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 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," 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 de

31 Pelag. Ep. 17. Conc. t. 5. p. 805.

32 Marca de Concord. Sacerdot. lib. 6. c. 4. n. 7, 8. 33 Cave, Anc. Church Gov. c. 5.

34 Justin. Novel. 131. c. 4.

35 Conc. Milevit. c. 22. Quod si et ab eis appellandum putaverint, non provocent nisi ad Africana consilia, vel ad primates provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, a nullo intra Africam in communione suscipiatur.

cree 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 Africa, 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 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 Africa, 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. 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. 4. Baluzius has further demonstrated for the Gallican churches, (in his excellent preface to Antonius Augustinus's book De Emendatione Gratiani,) 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," 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, the particulars being too long to be

36

Cod. Can. Afric. a cap. 135. ad cap. 138.
Conc. Aurel. 2. c. 7.

28 Cave, Anc. Church Gov. c. 5. p. 220.

Spelman, Concil. Britan. an. 601. t. 1. p. 108.

4 Bede, Hist. lib. 2. c. 2 et 19. lib. 3. c. 25. lib. 5. c. 16 et 22.

"Malmsbur. de Gestis Pontific. Anglor. lib. 3.

Steph. Heddius, Vit. Wilfrid. c. 12.

inserted here. 5. 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 in the observation of Easter, and some other things; he was answered positively," 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," who repeats it in several places. And William of Malmsbury," and Stephen Heddius," and Eadmerus," 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 any ordained by them, because the apostolical see had rejected their communion. So that, as Bishop Stillingfleet 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," Mr. Watson," Dr. Cave," and Bishop Stillingfleet," to show the ancient liberty and independency of the Britannic churches, which I shall not here repeat, but only 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.

manifestly discovers it to be modern. Which is a weighty argument indeed from a person who was so competent a judge of the British style, in which that manuscript was written, that he professes he did not understand 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 Usk 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 Sodora 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,50 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 Italian bishoprics were united into one, as Holstenius" 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 says, It appears from Bede, that the question 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

50 Ferrar. Lexicon, Geogr. voce Ostia, et Portus Augusti.

51 Holsten. Annot. in Geograph. Carol. a S. Paulo, p. 8.

| 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, 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 and rites 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 show 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: 1. That St. Peter was the founder of the British church," which any one that reads Bishop Usher de Primordiis," 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. 2. He argues from ancient tradition, that patriarchal power is an apostolical institution, and that thereby 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 52 Schelstrat. Dissert. c. 6. p. 106. sa Ibid. c. 1 et 2. 54 Usser. de Antiquit. Eccles. Brit. c. 1. 55 Schelstrat. Dissert. c. 3.

55