The Antiquities of the British Churches, Book · Chapter 4 (2 of 3)

The Antiquities of the British Churches · Book · Chapter 4 (2 of 3)

p. 178And the Privileges which Constantine gave to the (t)(t)C. Theod. 16. tie. 2. l. 2, 3, 6.Clergy of exemption from publick Services, drew so many to take Orders, especially in Corporations, where the Services were very burthensome; That Constantine was forced to publish Edicts to restrain the Numbers of them; which were not intended, to hinder Persons of Estate and Quality from entring into Orders, as some have suggested, but onelyonly such whose Estates were liable to the publick Services, as those who were (u)(u)Better. Diatr. 1. c. 10.Decuriones origine, and not merely incolatu were; who bore all p. 179the Offices, and did the publick Duties, having Lands given them on purpose in the first Settlement of Colonies which were called Praedia Reipublicae, as (w)(w)Pancirol. de Magistr. Mancip. c. 1.Pancirol observes; And therefore Constantine had reason to forbid such entring into Orders to the Prejudice of the Government. And so the Title of the Constitution is, De ordinatione Clericorum in Curiarum & Civitatum praejudicium non facienda. Which was at that time a very just and reasonable Constitution. But afterwards Men of great Honour and Dignities came into the Council, as not onelyonly St. Ambrose, at Milan, who was the Consular Governour over Liguria, and Aemilia, and St. Paulinus, a Roman Senatour, behind none in Birth, saith (x)(x)Ambros. Ep. 36.St. Ambrose, having a great Estate in Aquitania, was made Priest at Barcelona, and Bishop of Nola, but many Examples of this kind were in one Age in the Gallican Church, as (y)(y)Vincent. Barralis, vit. Abbat. Lerim.Honoratus, Bishop of Arles, of a Senatorian and Consular Family; St. Hilary, of Arles, of a very Noble Family, and born to great Riches; Sidonius Apollinaris, whose Father and Grandfather were Praefecti Praetorio Galliarum, and himself married to the Daughter of the Emperour Avitus, made Praefectus Vrbi, & Patricius, one of the greaest Persons and Wits in Gaul, was made (a)(a)Vit. Sidomï Apoll.Bishop of Auvergn; St. (b)(b)Constant. vit. German.German, Bishop of Auxerre, was of Noble Parents, and Governour of a Province; Saint (c)(c)Venant. Ford l. 4. c. 5.Ruricius, Bishop of Limoges, descended from the Annician Family, as Venantius Fortunatus saith, which was of that Fame at Rome, that St. (d)(d)Hier. Ep. 8.Hierome saith, Very few of it missed the Consulship, and two Brothers of it were Consuls together, as Claudian saith, a thing never seen before or since. (e)(e)Lign. Vitae in Praefat.From this Family Arnoldus Wion proves that the Emperours of Germany are descended. And of this same Family another Ruricius succeeded his Grandfather in the same Bishoprick.

But, besides that general Law which gave Permission to others to give liberally to Churches, Constantine of his own Revenue allow'd a proportion of Corn to be given to the Clergy of the greater Cities; Of which (f)(f)Athanas. ad solit. p. 829.Athanasius speaks, when he saith, Constantius took it away from him, and his Clergy, and gave it to the Arians; But the Gift it self was continued all the time of p. 180Constantius; Then it was taken away by (g)(g)Theod. l. 4. c. 4.Julian, and in part restored by Jovian.

It is then no wonder that the Bishops at Ariminum refused the publick allowance, being maintained by the Revenues of their Churches; But it seems the British Churches were not then in so Rich a condition to maintain their Bishops so long abroad; For Constantine, drawing all the Wealth and Trade of the Empire Eastward, for the greater Advancement of his New City; And this Countrey having been so long harassed with Wars, and scarce recovered from the Effects of them; (For the Scots and Picts had been very troublesome to them, both in the times of Constans and Constantius; the (h)(h)Am. Marcel. l. 20. c. 1.former came himself over into Britain to suppress them; and the latter sent Lupicinus his General, who arrived at London about the time the Council of Ariminum was dissolved) and therefore in a time of such Confusion in the British Province, it is not strange that these Churches should not be in so plentifull a condition as those which were the Seat of Trade and Government. And (i)(i)Id. l. 27. c. 3.Ammianus Marcellinus observes, that the Provincial Bishops lived in a much meaner condition than those of the greater Cities, especially of Rome; And, although a Heathen, he very much commends them for their Temperance, Humility and Modesty.

But Arianism was not the onelyonly Heresie the British Churches were charged with; For (k)(k)Gild. Ep. 1. § 5.Gildas from hence makes every following Heresie to find a passage hither; among which the chief was Pelagianism. And (l)(l)Bed. l. 1. c. 10.Bede doth insinuate, That Pelagius, being a Britain, and, spreading his Doctrine far and near, did corrupt these Churches with it; which some (m)(m)Bal. de Scrip. l. 1. c. 38. Pits, de Script. p. 84. Jansen. de haer. Pelag. l. 1. p. 27.late Writers, having taken up, have affirmed, that both Pelagius and Coelestius, after their Repulse at Rome, came over into Britain, and dispersed their Doctrine here. (n)(n)Leland. de Script. in Pelagio.Leland sadly laments the Condition of the Church of God, that had no sooner recover'd it self from Arianism, but a new Heresie sprung up to disturb the Peace, and infect the minds of Christians; But as Egypt brought forth the Authour of the former Heresie, so did Britain the Authour of this, which took his name from hence; And is supposed to have been Morgan in British, p. 181which by his conversation at Rome he turned into Pelagius; And (o)(o)Aug. ep. 106. ad Paulin.St. Augustine saith, He was commonly called Pelagius Brito, to distinguish him, as he supposed, from another Pelagius of Tarentum. Leland observes, that some made him a Britain, as being born in that Bretagn which was called Aremorica, on the Continent. But I do not find that it had then lost its name of Aremorica. The first time we find the name of Britannia given to that Countrey, is in the (p)(p)Concil. Gal. Tom. 1. p. 126. A. D. 461.Subscription of Mansuetus to the Council of Tours, where he is named Episcopus Britannorum, after which time it was frequently called Britannia Cismarina, Minor, Celtica, &c. (q)(q)Dempster. Hist. Eccles. l. 15. n. 1012.Sir 50:15Dempster (not a Jesuit, but a Lawyer) takes it very ill of Browerus, the Jesuit, that he makes Pelagius a Scot: But not as Dempster understands him, For (r)(r)Brower. in Venant. Fortun. l. 3. p. 69.he explains himself, That he meant one that came out of Ireland, and therefore was Scoticae Originis. For which he quotes Saint Jerome. But Archbishop (s)(s)De Primord. p. 209.Vsher hath observed, That he speaks there, not of Pelagius, but of Coelestius, whom he makes the Cerberus to the Pluto, (according to his usual way of complementing his Adversaries.) But both, he thinks, came out of the British Islands. The late (t)(t)Garner. Dissert. 1. in Mar. Mercat. c. 5.Publisher of Marius Mercator, endeavours to shew, That our learned Primate was herein mistaken; And that Saint Jerome doth not speak of Coelestius, but of Pelagius himself; And that by Pluto he means Ruffinus dead in Sicily three years before St. Jerome's writing these Words; But notwithstanding he did still bark through Pelagius his Mouth, whom he compares to a great Scotch Mastiff, from which Countrey he is derived in the Neighbourhood of Britain. If these Words relate onelyonly to Ruffinus and Pelagius, it is certain that St. Jerome would have it believed, That Pelagius came out of Ireland. That which makes it most probable, that he means them is, That in the Preface to his (u)(u)Hier. in Ezek. l. 6. Praefat.Commentaries on Ezekiel, he mentions the death of Ruffinus, and then saith, he hoped now he should be quiet to go on with his Commentaries on the Scriptures; But not long after he complains, That there were others, which in his Room open'd their Mouths against him. In the beginning of his Commentaries on Jeremiah, which he undertook after he had finished those on p. 182Ezekiel, he mentions one who carped at his Commentaries on the Ephesians, and calls Grunnius, (i. e. Ruffinus) his Forerunner; And saith, he was, Scotorum pultibus praegravatus, made fat with Scotch Flummery. All this agrees very well with Pelagius whom (w)(w)Oros. Apol. c. 27.Grosius describes as a very corpulent Man; But there is one thing which makes the former Opinion not improbable, which is, That St. Jerome himself takes so much notice, that Pelagius at that time wrote little or nothing about these matters, but Coelestius was the Man who appeared, especially in the two main Points about Original Sin, and the Possibility of Perfection: (x)(x)Hier. ad Ctesiph. p. 256. To. 2.In his Epistle to Ctesiphon, he saith, That the Author of the Sect still held his Peace, and his Disciples wrote for him; Magistrorum silentia profert rabies Discipulorum. Methinks Rabies agrees well enough with Cerberus, and here it is meant of the Disciple Coelestius, and not of Pelagius; Which Expression answers very well to the other, Mutus Magister latrat per Albinum Canem. And he speaks as if he designed to draw him from his closeness and retirement; Which doth far better agree to the mute Person, than to the barking Cerberus. There is then no Improbability, that Coelestius and Pelagius, may be both meant; But if any other Countrey hath a mind to challenge Coelestius to themselves, I think, they may be allow'd to put in their Claim notwithstanding these Expressions. But it is very unworthy in the same (y)(y)Garner. ib. c. 4. p. 134.Author, to prove Pelagius to have been an Irish Scot, and at the same time to charge his Vices on the British Nation. He cannot deny, That Pelagius had a great natural sharpness of Wit, since St. Augustine and his other Adversaries allow it; But then he saith, it was fierce and contentious, after the fashion of his Countrey; and which he could not shake off by his long Conversation at Rome. He grants that his Exhortations to Piety were vehement and earnest, but written in an uncouth and imperious Style, more Gentis, according to the humour of his Nation. But why must the British Nation be reproached for the particular faults of Pelagius? It is a very ill way of confuting Pelagius, to attribute Mens Vices and Vertues to their Countries; And is contrary both to the discretion of a Philosopher, and p. 183to the Grace of a Christian; Pelagius might have had the same temper if he had been so happy as to have been born in a Neighbour Countrey; And I do not see how his Way of writing doth affect the British Churches; Where the Christians might be very wise and humble, notwithstanding this severe and unjust Character of the British Nation; Which (as all National Reproaches) is not so great a Reproach to any as to him that gives it. But the greatest Adversaries to Pelagius, did not give him so ill a Character; Saint (z)(z)Aug. de Peccat. Meritis & rem. l. 3. c. 1, & 3. de Gestis Palaest. c. 22. Epist. 106.Augustine saith, he had the esteem of a very Pious man, and of being a Christian of no mean rank. Was this Pro more Gentis too? And of his Learning and Eloquence St. Augustine gives sufficient Testimony, in his Epistle to Juliana, the Mother of Demetrias, to whom Pelagius wrote an Epistle highly magnified for the Wit and Elegance of it. But Garnerius will not allow that Pelagius was able to write it himself, without the assistance of his Disciples Coelestius and Annianus. But why should this be so hard a thing for a Man whom he confesses to have had a great deal of Natural Wit, and (a)(a)Aug. de Peccat. Orig. c. 8.21.St. Augustine saith, He lived long, yea, very long in Rome, and kept the best Company there? Could a Britain never attain to so much Purity of the Roman Language as to write an Epistle to the Envy of those meliore solo prognatorum, as he speaks, who were born in more happy soils? What mean such unbecoming reflexions, on the Countrey of Pelagius; when himself confesses he had so much Mother Wit? And one would think of the two, that is the better soil which produceth more Wit than Words.

Our Monkish Historians make Pelagius not onelyonly a Monk at Bangor, but the Abbat there; So the Authour of the Polychronicon, and John of Tinmouth; Leland takes it from them; To whom Bale adds, That he was made Bishop in the East; But without any Authority. (b)(b)Leland de Scrip.Leland saith, That he went over into Aremorica, to visit his Countreymen who were newly settled there, being carried over by Maximus. Gildas seems to imply, That Maximus was originally a Britain, when he calls him Germen plantationis suae; But Bede takes no notice at all of his Countrey. The Saxon Annals, Fabius Ethelwerd, p. 184Huntingdon, and others say, he was born in Britain; But (c)(c)Zosim. l. 4.Zosimus affirms, That he was a Spaniard, and took it ill that he was no more prefer'd, when his Countreyman Theodosius was made Emperour; However this were, it is certain that he was declared Emperour in Britain, and that he went out of Britain with the Forces here; And that Gratian's Legions revolted to him; upon which he fled, and was killed; And that Maximus, being unsatisfied with Gratian's share of the Empire, went into Italy against Valentinian, and was after four years destroyed at Aquileia; But in all the Proceedings of Maximus, I see no ground for the settling the Colonies of Britains in Aremorica. For he landed at the Mouth of the Rhine, saith Zosimus, and was well received by the Roman Legions there abouts. What occasion then was there for his coming against the Aremorici: Or, if he had driven them out, had he nothing to doe with his Souldiers, but to people Countries with them? But we find the Aremorici in quiet possession of their Countrey after this time. So that we see no reason at all for Pelagius to go to his Countreymen in Aremorica: From thence Leland carries him to all the Places of Learning in Gaul; As there were many at that time; And while he was thus passing up and down, he met with Julianus of Campania, whose Wit and Learning recommended him to Pelagius. But this cannot hold, For Pelagius lived a long time in Rome before his Heresie was discovered; After the Discovery of it, many years passed before Julian appeared in it; And in the last Work of (d)(d)Julian. l. 3. n. 171.St. Augustine, just before his death, He calls Julian a young man; Although he had been a Bishop in Campania, at a Place called Aeculanum, thence his Title was Episcopus Eclanensis. The Town stood, faith (e)(e)Holsten. in Cluver. Ital. p. 1203.Holstenius, near Mirabella; But since its Destruction, the See was removed to Frigento, and the Bishop called Episcopus Frequentinus. If Pelagius, passing through Gaul, made so long a Stay in Rome, as St. Augustine saith, before he was suspected of Heresie, there is no probability at all in the Monkish Tradition of his being Abbat of Bangor. And there is not much more of Bangor's being so famous a Monastery at that time, or of Pelagius his p. 185being a Monk therein: For the British Monasteries were no elder than St. Patrick's time, as I may have occasion to shew afterwards. And even at Rome it self the Monastick state had not been long known there, being brought out of the East by Athanasius and Eusebius of Vercelles. And in Pelagius his time, those were called Monks at Rome, who had no Office in the Church, but yet retired from the common Emploiments of the World for Sacred Studies and Devotion; and where any Number of these lived together, that was called a Monastery; Such was the Monasterium Pinneti, mention'd by (f)(f)Ruffin. Op. p. 9.Ruffinus, not far from Rome; Probably a House of Melania; whither they were wont to retire in times of greater Devotion. Garnerius confesses that Pelagius was no otherwise a Monk, than as those were then called so who led stricter Lives than others within their own Houses; of which Number he reckons Pammachius, Paulinus, Melania, Demetrias and others at that time, to whom Pelagius was well known, and much esteemed by them, before his Heresie was discover'd. The chief Emploiment of these Persons, next to their Devotions, was the Study of the Scriptures, as appears by St. Jerome's Epistles; And some grave Person made it his business to instruct his Disciples therein: So St. Jerome did at Bethlehem; So Ruffinus did Pammachius, Melania and her Family; And so Pelagius did at Rome, where he had Scholars whom he brought up, as appears both by Coelestius, and Julianus whom he instructed very young, and by Timasius and Jacobus. From this Emploiment it was that he wrote his short Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles, and his Epistles to Melania and Demetrias; But after he was accused of Heresie, his time was spent in Vindication of himself, in Africa, Asia and Rome; and after many Bandyings to and fro from want of understanding the meaning of Pelagius, he was, besides the Councils in Africa, at last condemned in a Council at Antioch, under Theodotus, as (g)(g)Marius Merc. in Co…ment. c. 3.Marius Mercator shews; And from thence forward, he spent the Remainder of his Life in Obscurity, dying somewhere in the East.

From whence it appears, that there is no probability, that Pelagius and Coelestius should come back to p. 186Britain, to spread their Heresie here. For he complain'd of his Age, when he set forth his Commentaries at Rome, about Anno Domini 404. And he was certainly in the East at the Council of Diospolis, Anno Domini 415. from whence he sent Coelestius to Rome, but abode there himself with Albina, Pinianus and Melania; And wrote Letters to clear himself first to Innocentius, and then to Zosimus, who was so well satisfied therewith, that he wrote a sharp Letter to the African Bishops (who had condemned him) in his Vindication; severely taxing his Accusers; Although there were Heresie in that Confession which Coelestius tendred to Zosimus, and which he esteemed Orthodox. And (h)(h)Aug. de Peccat. Origin. c. 6. ad Bonifac. l. 2. c. 3.St. Augustine, is fain to make use of all his Wit to bring the Pope off from approving of Heresie. (i)(i)Noris Histor. Pelag. l. 1. c. 12.Henr. de Noris confesseth that he was circumvented by the Pelagians. But it was in a matter of Fact, saith (k)(k)Jansen. Hist. Pelag. p. 28.Jansenius; What, when he denied Original Sin in that very Paper he delivered in to Zosimus! (l)(l)Cappell. de Appellat. c. 2. § 28.Cappellus thinks it better to deny Zosimus his Letter; but therein he is condemned by (m)(m)Petav. Dogm. Theol. Tom. 3. de Haer. Pelag. c. 1. § 15. Garner. Diss. 2. de Synodis in Causa Pelag. Natal. Alex. Saec. 5. p. 169.Petavius and others who have lately written about this matter, and say, that Cappellus his Opinion is singular and false, being contradicted by the Testimonies of Marius Mercator, Facundus Hermianensis and St. Augustine: And one of them blames the Pope for too great easiness; and the other for too great hastiness, and doth think, that the business of Appeals, then contested by the African Bishops stuck in the Pope's stomach, which made him willing to take this Occasion to rebuke them. But the African Fathers proceeding smartly against the Pelagians, notwithstanding Zosimus his Letter, made him to comply too, in condemning both Coelestius and Pelagius, notwithstanding his former Epistle. So that upon the whole matter Pelagius and Coelestius, by their own natural Wit, had, in all probability been too hard for a whole Succession of Popes, Innocentius, Zosimus and Xystus, had not the African Fathers interposed, and freely told them what the true Doctrine of the Church was. For (n)(n)Aug. ad Bonif. l. 2. c. 3, 4.they offer'd to subscribe Innocentius his Epistles; Zosimus was very well satisfied, and thought them peevish and unreasonable that were not; (o)(o)Aug. Ep. 104.Xystus was their Patron p. 187at Rome, before the African Bishops appear'd so resolute in the Cause. And had it not been for them; for all that I can see, Pelagianism had spread with the Approbation of the Roman See.

But notwithstanding it was at last condemned at Rome, and Imperial Constitutions published against it; Yet it found a Way over into the British Churches, by the means of one Agricola, the Son of Severianus, a Pelagian Bishop, as (p)(p)Prosper. in Chron. Florent. & Diony. Cons.Prosper informs us. It appears by the Rescript of (q)(q)Concil. Gall. Tom. 1. p. 54.Valentinian III. Anno Dom. 425. There were several Pelagian Bishops in Gaul. And the severe Execution of the Edict there was probably the occasion of this Agricola's coming over hither and spreading that Doctrine here. (r)(r)Bal. de Scrip. Brit. Cent. 1. n. 4Bale and (s)(s)Pits de Scr. Aet. 5. n. 34▪Pits run into many Mistakes about this Agricola. (1.) They call him Leporius Agricola, and then confound the two Stories of Leporius and Agricola together: For after his Preaching Pelagianism, they mention his Conversion and Recantation by St. Augustine's means. Now there was one Leporius of whom (t)(t)Cassian. de incarn. l. 1. c. 4.Cassian and (u)(u)Gennad. de Script. c. 59.Gennadius speak, that was a Disciple of Pelagius, who was driven out of Gaul by Proculus, Bishop of Marseilles, and Cylinnius of Forum Julii, and so went into Africa, where being convinced by St. Augustine, he published his Recantation extant in (w)(w)Concil. Gall. To. 1. p. 51.Sirmondus his Gallican Councils, and elsewhere; And Aurelius, Augustinus and Florentius, gave an account of it to the Bishops of Provence; But there is no Pelagian errour there mention'd, but something of Nestorianism: And by Leontius succeeding Cylinnius in his See, before Anno Dom. 420. It follows, that Leporius recanted before the Pelagian Heresie was spread into these Parts; And therefore this Leporius could have nothing to doe in it: Besides, it seems probable that this Leporius, after his Recantation, continued in Africa; For one Leporius, a Presbyter, is (x)(x)Aug. Ep. 110.mention'd in the Election of Eradius in the See of Hippo, Anno Dom. 426. and (y)(y)Aug. Serm. 50. de diversis ▪St. Augustine saith, he was a Stranger. (2.) Bale makes him the Son of Severus Sulpicius, a Pelagian Priest in Britain: But Prosper and Bede say, he was the Son of Severianus, a Bishop. It is true (z)(z)Gennad. de Script. c. 19.Gennadius charges Severus Sulpicius with Pelagianism in his old Age; But if he died, as the p. 188(a)(a)Gall. Christia. To. 1. p. 147.Sammarthani say, Anno Dom. 410. Pelagianism was not known to the World then; And (b)(b)Apud Bolland. Acta Sanct. Ian. 29.Guibertus Abbas frees him from the imputation of it: But this Severus never was a Bishop, and therefore could not be the Father of Agricola. (3.) They both make him a Monk of Banghor; which had need to have been a large Place to receive all that they send thither. (4.) They say he did write against one Timotheus, a British Heretick; two Books, saith Bale; but one, saith Pits; Which arises from a Mistake of Sigebert's Copy, where Britannia is put for Bithynia, as our Learned Archbishop Vsher hath observed: And Pits seemed to have some mistrust of this, for he doth not affirm his spreading his Doctrine in Britain as the other doth.

But Pelagianism was not spread here by Agricola alone; for (c)(c)Prosper. c. Coll.Prosper, speaking of Celestine's care to root it out of Britain, he saith, It had taken possession here by the Enemies of God's Grace, Solum suae originis occupantes, returning to the Soil from whence they sprang: So that there were more than one, and those Britains who, being infected with that Heresie themselves, did return hither to infect others. From hence (d)(d)Jansen. Hist. Pelag. l. 1.some have thought that Coelestius at least, if not Pelagius, did come hither, being driven out of Italy by Celestine; as Prosper relates: which Jansenius thought not improbable: But it now appears by the Commonitorium of Marius Mercator delivered to Theodosius in the Consulship of Dionysius and Florentius, i. e. Anno Domini 429. That Coelestius did return into the East, and was banished from Constantinople by the Emperour's Edict; From whence it follows, That Coelestius came not into these Parts; nor do we reade what became of him after the Council of Ephesus, wherein he was condemned by 275 Bishops, as the same Marius Mercator shews. Whose account of these things, being a Person of that time, and active in this Cause, hath clear'd several things, which were much in the dark before.

But whosoever they were who brought Pelagianism hither, it appears by Prosper that they were Britains, and had too great Success here by the spreading of Pelagianism. But care was taken by the sounder part to get it out; and therefore, distrusting their own sufficiency p. 189to deal with such subtile Adversaries, they send for help, saith (e)(e)Bed. l. 1. c. 17.Bede, to the Bishops of Gaul; Who called a great Council, and unanimously chose Germanus and Lupus, two Bishops of great Reputation, to come over on purpose. They readily undertook the Employment, and performed it with great Success, as it is at large related by (f)(f)Constant. vit. Germani.Constantius and Bede. It is affirmed by a late (g)(g)Garner. diss. 2. c. 21.Authour, That the Acts of the Council which sent Germanus and Lupus are still in being, with the Instructions given them at their coming hither; If ever they come to light, they will very much clear this intricate part of the History of the British Churches. For there is now fifteen years difference among Writers about the time of their coming. Prosper saith it was, Anno Dom. 429. But Sigebert, as (h)(h)Sirmond. Not. in Concil. Gall. Tom. 1. p. 86.Sirmondus observes, places it, Anno Dom. 446. To which he thinks Bede's Relation doth best agree; And Sirmondus himself puts it that year Aetius III. and Symmachus were Consuls, in the 21 of Valentinian III. and 5 of Leo I. If this Computation of the time be true, then it is impossible that St. German should be sent hither by Celestine, as Prosper affirms; For Xystus was Pope after Celestine, Anno Dom. 432. And it is incredible, That if he had been sent hither by Commission from him, Neither Constantius in his Life of St. German, who lived so near that time; Nor the Authour of the Life of St. Lupus Trecensis; Nor Bede should take any notice of it. But they all mention the particular Application made by the Britains to the Gallican Bishops for their Assistance; and their meeting in Council on purpose, and chusing, and dispatching St. German and Lupus, without any intimation of Celestine. (i)(i)Baron. A. D. 429. n. 9.Baronius and (k)(k)Jansen. Hist. Pelag. l. 1.Jansenius go about to reconcile these things, by saying, Either that the Pope approved him whom the Council chose; Or that the Pope left it to the Council to chuse; But neither of these will hold. For Prosper saith, That Celestine sent him, Vice suâ, in his own Name and stead; Which is very different from appointing a Council to chuse one to be sent: And Constantius saith, That immediately they went; Which shews they did not stay for the Pope's Approbation. And withall, the kindness was not so great at that time between Celestine p. 190and the Gallican Bishops, That either he should send to them to appoint; or they should wait for his direction in this matter. For Prosper and Hilary had made great Complaints of them at Rome, as favouring Pelagianism too much. And, among these, Hilary, Bishop of Arles, was the chief. For (l)(l)Prosper. Ep. ad Aug. inter Aug. Epist. 225.Prosper complains of him particularly in his Epistle to St. Augustine, which was sent to him, Anno Dom. 428, or 429. as the late Editors of St. Augustine's Epistles conclude; So that Hilary was Bishop of Arles at that time before St. Augustine's death, Anno Dom. 430. After his death, the same Prosper and another Hilary join in a Complaint to Celestine, and went to Rome on purpose; as appears by his (m)(m)Concil. Gall. Tom. 1. p. 59.Answer, who therein reproves the Bishops of Gaul, for giving too much countenance to some Presbyters who vented new Doctrines, viz. Cassian and his Followers; and who reflected on the memory of St. Augustine. It is not therefore any ways probable that the Gallican Bishops, having been complained of so long before St. Augustine's death, that he wrote a Book in answer to them before he died, should be intrusted by Celestine to chuse Persons to go over into Britain to confute Pelagianism, when he suspected them, from Prosper's information, to be too much inclined to it. It seems therefore most likely that St. German and Lupus were sent by a Council of Gallican Bishops, without the Pope's concurrence, since Constantius, who certainly knew all the circumstances of this matter, saith nothing at all of it. And this St. German was so great with Hilary, Bishop of Arles, that he joined with him in the deposing Chelidonius (for which Pope Leo was so incensed against him) as Honoratus affirms in his Life: which was no new acquaintance, but of so long standing, that if Hilary of Arles were at that time suspected at Rome, St. German would harldly have been pitched upon by Celestine for his Legate into Britain.

I wonder how (n)(n)Baron. A. D. 426. n. 20.Baronius and (o)(o)Voss. Hist. Pelag. l. 1. c. 19.Vossius came to mistake the Hilary who joined with Prosper, for Hilary Bishop of Arles; Since this Hilary never was a Disciple of St. Augustine's, as the other was; And he was certainly Bishop of Arles, after St. Augustine's death, when Celestine mentions the other Hilary as present p. 191with Prosper at Rome, when they informed against the Bishops of Gaul. For Honoratus succeeded Patroclus in the See of Arles; Prosper saith, that Patroclus was killed, Anno Dom. 426. Honoratus continued but two years in the See: And so Hilary might well be newly Bishop of Arles, when Prosper and the other Hilary sent to St. Augustine, as plainly appears by their Epistle; So that Semipelagianism did not, as Archbishop (p)(p)Usser. de Prim. p. 344.Vsher supposes, then begin in Gaul, when St. Germanus and Lupus were here employ'd against Pelagianism, but was begun before, and embraced by those very Bishops who sent them hither; Who for their own Vindication appear'd zealous against Pelagianism, and were therefore willing to embrace this opportunity to send two of their Number into Britain. And it is the more strange, that so Learned a Person should fall into this mistake, when he had so fully proved, as (q)(q)Holsten. Not. in Martyrol. Rom. 345.Holstenius confesses, That Hilary, Bishop of Arles, did favour the Semipelagians; and it is certain that Prosper did complain of him to St. Augustine (if the Copies be not corrupt, as he shews they are not) before St. German's voyage into Britain. For St. Augustine received the Complaint time enough to write his two Books of Predestination and Perseverance, in answer to it, after his Book of Retractations, and before his elaborate Work against Julian, and therefore they are probably supposed to be written, Anno Dom. 428. If we then yield that St. German's coming hither was when Prosper saith, Anno Dom. 429. yet we find that Semipelagianism had prevailed among the Gallican Bishops before that time, or else there was no cause at all for Prosper's Complaint.

And to make it appear yet more improbable, that Celestine should send St. Germanus and St. Lupus; We are to consider, that Lupus was Brother to Vincentius Lirinensis, and were both of the same Society. Which Vincentius was a great Stickler in the Semipelagian Cause, as all the Members of that Society that were considerable were engaged in it; And when the Pope wrote so smartly against the Accusers of St. Augustine's Doctrine, it is very unlikely he should pitch upon one of that Society most suspected for it, and whose Brother appeared so p. 192early and so warmly in it; Not onelyonly by the Objections under his Name in Prosper; But by the whole Design of his Commonitorium; Which, if I mistake not, was levell'd against those who went about to broach a new Doctrine about Predestination, as they said, under St. Augustine's name. And they who carefully reade over that Discourse, and consider the drift of it, will find I am not mistaken: But (r)(r)Baron. Not. ad Martyrol. 24. Maii.Baronius is, when he would clear the Authour of the Commonitorium from favouring those who impugned St. Augustine's Doctrine about Predestination; Which was quite another thing from favouring Pelagianism, which Cassianus, Faustus, and this Vincentius all professed to abhor.

But what shall be said to Prosper, who affirms that Celestine sent St. German? (1.) (s)(s)Prosper. c. Cass. ad fin.Prosper, in his undoubted Work against Cassian, doth not affirm it. For there he onelyonly saith, That Celestine took care to free Britain from Pelagianism. Why is not the Mission of St. German here mention'd, when it had been most seasonable against the chief of the Semipelagians? No doubt Prosper would not have lost this Opportunity of magnifying Celestine's care, by sending Bishops of so great Reputation. Especially, if these Bishops were not Semipelagians; But if so, why doth he not mention them in that Work as such, when he complains how much Semipelagianism did prevail, and even among their Bishops? (2.) The Prosper published by Pithaeus never mentions it, which he thought to be the genuine Chronicon of Prosper. (t)(t)Rer. Franc. l. 3. p. 102.Hadrianus Valescus concludes one or the other not to be genuine; since they differ in point of time, and it is not probable the same Man would write two several Books about the same matter with such Diversity. (u)(u)Doctr. Tem. c. 12. p. 212.Bucherins thinks it impossible the same Person should write both; yet both pass under the Name of Tyro Prosper; and so he saith the ancient MS. of it, which he had (which was like that (w)(w)Pontac. App. ad Chron. p. 28.Pontacus calls Lodunense) had that Name in the Title of it; But Pontacus his had the Title of Prosper Aquitanus, where he is said to be Episcopus Regini, and great debate hath been, whether he was Bishop of Regium Lepidum in p. 193Italy; or of Regium (Riez) in Gaul; But (x)(x)Sirmond. Not. ad Sidon. Apoll. l. 8. ep. 15.Sirmondus proves, he was neither one, nor the other; By the Testimonies of Gennadius, Victorius, Marcellinus, and others; And by Faustus immediately succeeding Maximus in that See: And so leaving no room for Prosper between them. But there was a Prosper, Bishop of Orleans at that time; and another Prosper, Bishop of Regium Lepidum in Italy, as (y)(y)Ughell. Ital. Sacr. Tom. 2. p. 259.Vghellus shews, which might occasion the Mistake; But, besides these, (z)(z)Sirmond. Hist. Praedest. c. 5.Sirmondus tells us, there was another Prosper in Gaul who wrote a Chronicon too, and ended at the same time with Tyro Prosper; with this difference, that the one was onelyonly an Appendix to St. Jerome, the other an entire Chronicon, as Gennadius expresses it. Which is supposed to be that published by Labbe out of several MSS. But (a)(a)Annal. Eccles. Franc. A.D. 455. n. 7.433. n. 18.those who have carefully examin'd it have found such a difference in the Computation used in the several parts of it, That they cannot think them written by the same Authour; And therefore conclude that published by Pithaeus to be the genuine Chronicon of Prosper, as far as it reaches; And that the first Part, which should make it entire, is not yet discover'd. So that it remains uncertain whether this Passage be in the true Prosper or not. Our (b)(b)Usser. de Prim. p. 429.Learned Primate of Armagh was of opinion, That the Chronicon published by Pithaeus was not written by Prosper, but by Gennadius; because Boston of Bury saith, That Gennadius added a Chronicon to St. Jerome. And, I confess, the Passage in it about the Heresie of the Praedestinati doth better agree with Gennadius than Prosper; And for that Reason Sirmondus hath found out another Prosper. But the President (c)(c)Maug. Hist. & Chronica Dissert. p. 519.Mauguin saith, it was counterfeited by the Semipelagians in Prosper's name; And that there is no mention in any Authours of another Prosper who published a Chronicon, which ended at the time the true Prosper did, viz. Anno Domini 444. Sirmondus saith, All the ancient Copies had the Name of Prosper upon it. And it is so quoted by Sigebert; But if he had a mind to pass for the other Prosper, he would never have differ'd so materially as he doth from him. So that this whole matter is very dark and obscure yet. (3.) Suppose it be granted that Prosper wrote so, yet p. 194there is greater Reason to believe Constantius than Prosper in this matter. For Constantius was not onelyonly living in that Age; but a Person of great Reputation, as appears by Sidonius Apollinaris his Epistles to him; and one that wrote with great fidelity, saith (f)(f)Baron. A.D. 429. n. 9.Baronius; And therefore it cannot be supposed that he should not expresly set down by whom St. German was sent into Britain. Besides, Constantius is not alone; but the Authour of the Life of St. Lupus gives the same account; and so doth Bede, (with whom Paulus Diaconus, Frecalphus, Erricus and Ado Viennensis agree) And he places their coming after the Reign of Theodosius; And therefore it was impossible that Celestine should send them.

St. Germanus and Lupus being thus employ'd by the Bishops of Gaul, in a solemn Conference at (g)(g)Matt. West. A. D. 446.Verulam they disputed with the Pelagians; and had so great Success therein; and by their Preaching up and down in many places; That they left the Britains well settled, as they supposed, in the ancient Faith. But no sooner were they returned, but some of the Pelagians got ground again; which occasion'd another Message to St. German, who then took with him (h)(h)Bed. l. 1. c. 21.Severus, Bishop of Triers; And then they prevailed so far as to procure the banishment of these Heretical Teachers, according to the Edict of Valentinian; And from thence forward Bede observes that the British Churches continued sound and orthodox.

But here it will be proper to consider how justly two British Bishops have been charged with Pelagianism; the one is Fastidius, and the other Faustus.

As to Fastidius, (i)(i)Leland. de Script.Leland confesses, that his memory had been lost, but for the mention which Gennadius makes of him; (k)(k)Gen. Catalog.who saith of him, that he was Britannorum Episcopus; And wrote a Book to one Fatalis, De vita beata, wherein the Doctrine was very sound and good. (l)(l)Trith. de Script.Trithemius highly commends him, as a man of great Wit and Eloquence, an excellent Preacher, and very pious Man. (m)(m)Bal. Cent. 1. n. 41.Bale saith, that, being made Bishop, he preached over all Britain, and was, as is reported, Metropolitane of London: What Bale speaks upon report; (n)(n)Pit. de Scrip. At. 5. n. 30.Pits affirms with confidence, that he was p. 195Archbishop of London. (o)(o)Usser. de Prim. p. 317.Archbishop Vsher thinks, they had no other ground for this, but a different reading in Gennadius, Britanniarum Episcopus. From whence they concluded, He must be Archbishop of London, that being, as they supposed, the Metropolis of Britain; But he rather inclines to the opinion of Berterius;p. 97. That York was then the Metropolis of Britain; Not onelyonly because it was a Roman Colony, but because the Praetorium and Emperour's Palace was there. But these Arguments are not sufficient to overthrow London's being the chief Metropolis of the Roman times. For every Province had its Metropolis; And the superiority of one Metropolis above another depended on the Residence of the Roman Governour, the Vicarius Britanniarum. I grant that, in the time of the Wars with the Northern Britains, York was the chief Seat of the Emperour when he was here, as in the times of Severus and Constantius; but that was for the conveniency of attending the Wars, and being near to give Directions and send Supplies. But the Preheminence of Places in the Roman Account did depend more upon the Civil than the Military Officers; These being more uncertain than the other, and where the Supreme Court of Judicature was, that was the chief Metropolis, and that was where the Supreme Governour of those Provinces had his residence. Thus every Province had a President in the Metropolis; but where there was a Superiour Officer over these Presidents, as the Vicarius Britanniarum was over the five Provinces, the Place of his residence was the highest Metropolis, because the Presidents Courts were in Subordination to his, whether they were consular or presidial; and therefore the solemn Conventus out of the Provinces were appointed there. Of these things we have a clear instance in the Case of Arles, where by the Constitution of (p)(p)Vit. Sirmond. Not. ad Sidon. Apollin. p. 245.Honorius, the seven Provinces, over which that was the Metropolis, were to have an annual Assembly there, where the chief Magistrate resided; and the Reasons there given are, the great conveniency of that City being upon the River Rhosn, both for other business and trading into all parts. The same Reasons will hold to make London the chief Metropolis in the Roman times, because of p. 196its admirable situation for Trade and Commerce, and the opportunity of sending into, or receiving Dispatches from the foreign Provinces and the Emperour's Court where ever it was. So that I see no reason to question London's being the chief Metropolis among the Romans. The Argument from York's being a Colony signifies nothing after Antoninus gave the Jus Civitatis to the whole Empire; and London was a Colony before York, (as I may shew elsewhere) and of a higher nature, when it was called (q)(q)Am. Marcel. l. 27.8.28.3.Augusta, which shews that it was then the Imperial City of Britain, that name being given to no other City in Britain besides. And it is observed by the learned (r)(r)Velser. Rer. Vindel. l. 5.Marc. Velserus, That those Cities which had the Title of Augusta conferred upon them, were the Capita Gentium, the chief Metropoles of the Provinces; And since by the general Rule of the Church, the Ecclesiastical Government did follow the Civil, There is no reason to question, but if Fastidius were then Bishop of London, he was the chief Metropolitane over the Churches of Britain.

But whether Fastidius were Metropolitane, or onelyonly a British Bishop, his Doctrine is of late charged to be inclinable to Pelagianism. For Holstenius found in ancient MS. the Book Fastidius wrote De Vita Christiana with his name to it, and so published it; but it is not directed ad Fatalem, but to a certain Widow. In this Book a late (s)(s)Hen. de Noris, Hist. Pelag. l. 1. c. 19.Augustinian hath discovered, as he thinks, some Tincture of Pelagianism; but to any candid Reader his Exceptions will appear very frivolous, and there is so much of true Primitive Christianity in the rest of it, as makes good the Character which Gennadius and Trithemius give of him. Out of which Book, and no great one, Bale hath made four, one De Vita Christiana, a second De Doctrina Spiritûs, a third De Viduitate servanda, a fourth, Admonitiones Piae. Pits keeps the same number, but lest he should seem to take all out of Bale, he alters the Title of one of them; And because Gennadius saith his Doctrine was Deo digna, therefore Pits, very artificially, makes the Title of his second Book to be De Doctrina Deo digna vel spirituali. Boston of Bury makes him the Authour of two Books, by mistaking Gennadius; but as far as we can p. 197find, there is but one exstant. (t)(t)Dempster. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. n. 530.Sir 50:6Dempster hath found Fastidius to have been born upon the Mountains of the Western parts of Scotland, and he makes him Authour of a fifth Book called Chronicon Scotorum, which is a Strain beyond Pits. He possitively affirms that he lived An. Dom. 440. Trithemius saith, about An. Dom. 420.

As to Faustus, his Case is much harder. That he was originally a Britain I find not denied by any; For although (u)(u)Facund. c. Mocian. p. 561.Facundus calls him a Gaul, yet that was because of his being a Bishop so long there, as Sirmondus observes; he being Ortu Britannus, habitaculo Regiensis, as (w)(w)Alc. Avit. Ep. 4. p. 35.Alcimus Avitus saith, in his Epistle to Gundobadus, King of the Burgundians, to whom, he saith, Faustus was known. In his (x)(x)Canis. Antiquae Lect. To. 5. p. 435.Epistles to Ruricius, Faustus speaks of his living in a State of Banishment, and the Comforts he found in it; This our Learned (y)(y)De Primord. p. 439.Primate understood of his living out of his own Countrey; But (z)(z)Noris Hist. Pelag. l. 2. c. 16.Hen. de Noris, of a Banishment by Euaricus an Arian King then in Gaul, which he supposes he underwent for writing against the Arians. If he had produced any Testimony of such Banishment, there might have been Reason to have understood his Expression so; But since there is none, and his Words are general as to his Countrey; I see no cause to take them in any other sense. For Men do not use to call that their Countrey where they live as Strangers, and he speaks of the kindness of Ruricius so to him, that he did Patriam in peregrinatione facere, which cannot well bear any other sense, than that he made up the want of his own Countrey to him. (a)(a)Sirmond. Not. ad Facund. p. 562.Sirmondus grants he was a Britain, but he adds, he was one of those Britains who dwelt upon the Loir, i. e. in the parts of Aremorica. There is no question, but in the time of Faustus, there were great numbers of Britains there; for (b)(b)Jornand. c. 45.Jornandes saith, That Riothamus, their King or General, went with 12000 Britains against Euricus, King of the Visigoths. Which Riothamus (c)(c)Sidon. Apoll. l. 3. ep. 9.Sidonius Apollinaris writes to, and mentions the Britains with him; But it may be justly a question, whether there were any Colonies of Britains on the Continent, before Faustus his birth; For Faustus was made Abbat of Lerins, before the Saxons came first into Britain; For he was Abbat p. 198when St. Caprasius died, as the Authour of his Life affirms, which was about Anno Domini 430. But their coming was not till Anno Domini 449. and it will be hard to make out any Settlement of the Britains on the Loir before. It is then most probable that Faustus went at first out of Britain into Gaul, where he attained to a wonderfull Reputation both for Piety and Learning. He was worshipped as a Saint, saith (d)(d)Hist. Pelag. l. 2. p. 297.Noris, in the Church of Riez, and his Name was preserved in the Calendar of the Gallican Church. Molanus was the first who durst adventure to strike out his name; Baronius follow'd him, but upon admonition restored it, as (e)(e)Acta Sanct. ad 16 Jan.Bollandus observes, who likewise takes notice, that he was called a Saint by Cl. Robertus, by Ferrarius, and by Pet. Galesinius, in his Martyrology, who adds, that his Books are piously and learnedly written, and that Miracles are said to be wrought by him. It is certain, he was a Person in mighty esteem in his own time, as appears by the Passages of (f)(f)Sidon. Apoll. Ep. 3, 9. l. 9. & in Euchar.Sidonius Apollinaris, of (g)(g)Ruric. Epist. l. 1. ep. 2.Ruricius, and others, concerning both his Eloquence, Learning and Piety. Of whom Sidonius Apollinaris gives that excellent Character, that he had learnt to speak better than he was taught, and to live better than he spake: He was Bishop of Riez, Anno Domini 462. for at that time he was joined with Auxanius in determining the Controversie between Leontius of Arles and Mamertus of Vienna. But nothing can more manifest the esteem he was then in among the Gallican Bishops, than that in the Council of Arles he was pitched upon as the fittest Person to draw up their sense in the great Points then so much agitated about Predestination and Grace, as appears by his Preface to Leontius. At this Council thirty Bishops were present, and there Lucidus presented his Recantation of the Errours he held about Predestination, and after this Faustus wrote his Books of Grace and Free-will, to which, he saith, another Council at Lyons caused some things to be added. In these Books it is thought that, under a Pretence of confuting those Errours, he sets himself against St. Augustine's Doctrine, as seems clear by one Expression in his first Book; That if it be true, that some are predestinated to Life, and others to Destruction, p. 199ut quidam Sanctorum dixit, non judicandi nascimur; sed judicati: But these words may refer to what follows, as well as to what went before, As a certain holy Man hath said, We are not born to be judged, but we are judged before we are born. According to which Doctrine, saith Faustus, There can be no Equity in the day of Iudgment.

It hath been a great Question among some Learned Men, whether there were any Persons who drew ill Consequences from Saint Augustine's Doctrine, and were therefore opposed by Faustus and others, or whether it were the mere Doctrine of St. Augustine that was so opposed by them, and urged with those Consequences as following from it. I see no Reason to deny, that the Semipelagians did charge the Followers of St. Augustine with the same things which are made the Opinions of those who are called the Predestinatian Hereticks by Sigebert, Gennadius, Hincmarus, and others. But yet that there were certain Persons who did own such bad Consequences as the overthrowing the Liberty of Man's Will and the Necessity of our Endeavours, will appear from these two Reasons. (1.) St. Augustine's Doctrine was so misunderstood by some in his Life time, as appears by the Controversie amongst the Adrumetine Monks. The Case was this, Florus, one of that Society, going to Vzala, a City near Vtica, between Hippo and Carthage, where Euodius was then Bishop, a Friend of St. Augustine's, there met with (h)(h)Valent. ad Aug. Ep. 216.St. Augustine's large Epistle to Sixtus against the Pelagians, which being sent home, and Florus himself going to Carthage, before his return they were fallen into great Heats upon the Occasion of that Epistle. Some of them, as (i)(i)Aug. ad Valent. Epist. 214.St. Augustine himself saith, did so preach up the Grace of God, as to deny Free-will, and consequently to say, That God in the day of Iudgment would not render to men according to their Works; Others said, That our Free-will was assisted by the Grace of God, that we may know and doe the things that are right; That the Lord, when he comes to render to every Man according to their Works; may find our Works good, which he hath prepared that we may walk in them. And they, saith he, who judge thus do judge rightly. Therefore those who p. 200thought otherwise did mistake his Doctrine; For, as he saith, If there be no Grace, there can be no Salvation; If there be no Free-will, there can be no day of Iudgment. To what purpose is all this, if some of these did not so misunderstand his Doctrine as to overthrow all Liberty of Will in Mankind? And so (k)(k)Apud Sirmond. Hist. Praedest. c. 1.Euodius, in his Answer to those Adrumetine Monks shews, That there is still Free-will in us, but wounded by the Fall, and onelyonly recoverable by the Grace of Christ. (l)(l)Jansen. Hist. Pelag. l. 1. p. 27.Jansenius grants that they did misunderstand St. Augustine's Doctrine, thinking that Free-will was wholly destroyed by it; And that no Man ought to be reproved when he doeth amiss, but that others ought to pray that he may have Grace to doe better. l. 7. c. 1.But the President (m)(m)Praedest. Fab. confut. c. 1.Mauguin will not allow this; For he saith, That St. Augustine was at first falsely informed of the state of the Controversie among them by Cresconius and Felix; But after Florus his coming he found they were Semipelagians who misunderstood his Doctrine. But to what purpose then doth (n)(n)De Corrept. & Grat. c. 1.St. Augustine take such pains to prove even in the Book he wrote after the coming of Florus, That there is Free-will still left in Mankind? Liberum itaque arbitrium confitendum nos est habere, & ad malum, & ad bonum faciendum. Not so as to exclude the necessity of Divine Grace, as he proves at large, but yet in such a manner as to shew its consistency with Divine Commands, c. 4.14, 15, 16.and the just Reproof and Punishment of those who doe amiss. Which shews plainly, That he thought there were some still who misinterpreted his Doctrine, not barely to object against it, but to make ill use of it. Therefore (o)(o)Hist. Pelag. l. 2. p. 281.Noris had no Reason to conclude that the Errour of the Adrumetine Monks was Semipelagianism. (2.) It appears evidently from the Case of Lucidus, and the Councils of Arles and Lyons. I grant that the Objections mentioned by Prosper and Hilary were made by the Semipelagians, and not by any Predestinatian Hereticks at that time in Gaul; and therein (p)(p)Hist. Praedest. c. 2, 3.Sirmondus was certainly mistaken, as he was likewise, when he saith, that the Epistle of Celestine was against the latter, and not against the former. But it appears by Faustus his Epistle to Lucidus that there were some who did so assert Predestination as to make all Mens Endeavours vain and useless; And this dangerous p. 201Errour he renounced in his Recantation delivered to the Council of Arles. (q)(q)Praedest. Fab. confut. c. 7.Mauguin is very hard put to it, when he saith, That all these things were the mere invention of Faustus; whom he makes to be Countreyman with Pelagius and Coelestius, and to have sucked in the Poison of Pelagianism with his Milk. He grants that he was famous for his Wit, Eloquence and Philosophy; But especially for a profound cunning, which (r)(r)Isid. de viru illustr. c. 14.Isidore mentions in him; From whence he endeavours to prove by many Arguments, That these Councils and Epistles were all forged by Faustus. But he is so far from persuading Learned Men to be of his Mind, That (s)(s)Hist. Pelag. l. 2. c. 15.Noris himself confesseth he can never assent to it; And although it be looked on as part of the cunning of Faustus, That he designed to convey his Books so privately to his Countreymen the Britains, as appears by the Epistle of Sidonius Apollinaris to him, yet it is utterly incredible that he should forge two Councils, and set down the Names of several Bishops as present in them, with whom Sidonius Apollinaris was particularly acquainted, and yet he not discover the Cheat and Imposture. But the Jansenists yield, that both those Councils were held about Anno Domini 475. But they say, that the Bishops were partly Semipelagians, partly deceived by Faustus who was so; And Noris doth not deny, that there were other Persons who were then charged with those Opinions which Lucidus held. But, he saith, they were not many nor considerable enough to make a Sect; And that they did not willingly yield those Consequences. But not knowing how to answer the Semipelagians, they were forced to assert them; Which their Adversaries therefore charged them with as their own Opinions. Which seems no improbable Account of those called Predestinatians. It cannot be denied, that Faustus his Books were severely censured after his death, not onelyonly by the Scythian Monks at Constantinople, among whom Joh. Maxentius was the chief; but by the African Bishops who were then Exiles in Sardinia, by whom Fulgentius was employ'd to write against them. But Possessor, one of the African exiled Bishops, being then at Constantinople, and finding great Heats about Faustus his Books, sends to Pope Hormisdas, to know p. 202his Judgment about them; Which he did at the request of Vitalianus and Justinianus two of the greatest Men in the Emperour's Court. He returns a cautious Answer as to Faustus; Which, by the way, shews how little Credit is to be given to the Decree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Books, for therein Faustus his Books are condemned. But if this had been done by Gelasius, is it probable that Hormisdas, his Successour, would have stuck so much at it as Maxentius saith that he did? But he refers them for the sense of the Church to St. Augustine, and Prosper, and Hilary; And the Definitions of his Predecessours. Maxentius rails against this Answer, as unsatisfactory and next to heretical, and sets St. Augustine's Sayings against those of Faustus. Afterwards, Caesarius, Bishop of Arles, not onelyonly wrote against Faustus his Doctrine, but by his means chiefly it was condemned in the Second Council of Orange: Which asserted the Necessity of Preventing Grace; The denying whereof was the main Errour charg'd on Faustus, not so much as to good Works (for (t)(t)Jansen. Hist. Pelag. l. 8.Jansenius hath at large proved, That the Semipelagians did yield the Necessity of Internal Grace as to them;) but Faustus and Cassian and Gennadius denied it as to Faith or Good Inclinations.

But to return to St. Germanus and his Companions into Britain; If we give Credit to our Antiquaries, they did other Kindnesses to the British Churches besides the confuting Pelagianism, whereof two are most considerable. (1.) The Institution of Schools of Learning among the Britains. (2.) The Introduction of the Gallican Liturgy into the use of these Churches.

(1.) As to Schools of Learning; none were more famous among the Britains than those of Dubricius and Iltutus, who are both said to have been the Disciples of St. German. The Anonymous Authour of the Chronicle in (u)(u)Collect. vol. 2. p. 42.Leland saith, that St. Germanus and Lupus, having rooted out Pelagianism, consecrated Bishops in several parts of Britain, and among the rest they placed a Cathedral at Landaff, and made Dubricius Archbishop, who disposed of his Disciples to several Churches; He made Daniel Bishop of Bangor, and sent Iltutus to a Place from him called Lan Iltut, or the Church of p. 203Iltutus. (w)(w)Brit. p. 498.Camden saith, to this day it is called Lantuit, where the Foundations of many Houses are still to be seen; Near the Place called Bovium in the Itinerary now Boverton. But there is another Place near Nidum or Neath, whose name comes very near it Llanylted. The (x)(x)v. Monast. Anglic. vol. 3. p. 188.old Register of Landaff, after it hath mention'd the frequent Messages the Britains sent to the neighbour Bishops of Gaul for assistence against the Pelagians, and the coming of Germanus and Lupus sent by them, it adds, that they consecrated Bishops in many Places, and made Dubricius Archbishop over all the Britains, Dextralis partis Britanniae, Of the right hand part of Britain. With which John of Tinmouth and Capgrave agree. What this Right hand part of Britain was at the time of the Consecration of Dubricius is not so easie to understand; Archbishop (y)(y)De Primord. p. 80.Vsher takes it for South Wales; it being the custome of the Britains to call the South the Right hand side; so Asserius Menevensis calls Sussex the Region of the Right hand Saxons. But it is observable that (z)(z)De Gestis Alfred. ad A. D. 884.Asserius there makes Demetia, or South Wales, to be but a part of what he calls Dextralis pars Britanniae. For when he saith in general, That all the Countrey of the Right hand of Britain submitted to King Alfred, he then instanceth particularly in Hemeid King of Demetia, and Houil, and other Kings of Guent, by which North Wales is as much understood as South Wales is by the other. And therefore I rather think Dubricius was made Archbishop over all the Britains in those parts; For (a)(a)Polychron. l. 1. c. 52.Ranulphus Cestrensis saith, The Bishop of Caerleon had seven suffragan Bishops under him: And (b)(b)Matt. Westm. A. D. 490, & 507.Matt. Westminster saith, That Dubricius was made Archbishop of Caerleon, (although he might have a Seat at Landaff, as the Register of that Church affirms, by the Gift of Mouricus.) But it appears that he had then Archiepiscopal Power; And possibly, upon the Disturbance of those times, the See might for a time be removed to Landaff; From whence it was again removed by St. David to the Town bearing his Name. But the Bishops of Landaff who succeeded were so unsatisfied with it; That the Register of that Church saith, That from Oudoceus the second, from Dubricius, (for he succeeded Teliaus in that See) They chose rather to be consecrated p. 204by the Archbishops of Canterbury, than by their own Metropolitan of St. David's, as appears by the Protestation made by the Bishop of Landaff to Calixtus II. in the Council of Rhemes, Anno Dom. 1119. But, I confess, it doth not seem very probable that a British Bishop should go for Consecration to Augustine the Monk or his Successours; For the British Bishops did all look on them as Intruders; And if any should have done it, how would they have been received by the British Churches at that time? It is therefore far more probable, either that they went over to the British Archbishop, at Dol in Britannie, or that there was a Succession preserved for some time of the Archbishops of London among the Britains, after the retirement of Theonus and Thadiocus, the two other Metropolitans of London and York, who, as (c)(c)Matt. Westm. A. D. 586.Matt. Westminster saith, did withdraw when their Churches were destroyed by the Saxons, with many of their Clergy into Wales; where as long as that Succession continued they might exercise some parts of their Function, leaving the main to the Archbisbop of Caerleon, to whom of right it belonged; And Ranulphus saith; That Province extended as far as the Severn, and so took in Chester, Hereford and Worcester; But before Dubricius was so much advanced, the Authours of his Life speak of the great number of Scholars which flocked to him from all parts of Britain; Not the Rude and Vulgar onelyonly, but Persons of greatest Reputation, among whom they name St. Theliaus, Samson, Aidanus, and many others. Two Places they mention, where he received and instructed his Disciples, one at Hentlan, on the River Wye, where they say he had a Thousand Students with him, whom he brought up in humane and divine Literature. And the other was at Moch-rhos, where he had a Place for Study and Devotion.

Iltutus by (d)(d)Vincent. Spec. Hist. l. 21. c. 105.Vincentius, and the (e)(e)Biblioth. Floriac. p. 468.Authour of the Life of Samson is said positively to have been a Disciple of St. Germanus; And the (f)(f)Vit. Gild. Ib. c. 3.Authour of the Life of Gildas saith, That in the School of Iltutus many Noblemens Sons were brought up, among whom he reckons as the chief Samson, afterwards Archbishop of the Britains, viz. at Dol in Britannie; Paulus, Bishop p. 205of the Oxismii, the most Northern of the Aremorici (which Bishoprick is since divided into three, Treguier, St. Pol de Leon and St. Brieu) and Gildas, called Sapiens, of whom afterwards: Leland to these adds David and Paulinus: And saith, his School flourished like an Vniversity among the Britains. (g)(g)Act. Sanct. Feb. 9. Vit. S. Teliaj. Com. praev. § 1. n. 3.Bollandus and Henschenius make a very probable Conjecture, That when St. German came into Britain, and found the decay of Learning to have been the great occasion of the spreading of Pelagianism, he appointed Dubricius and Iltutus to undertake the Education of the British Clergy; And that by these means, as Bede saith, these Churches continued afterwards pure and free from this Heresie. Which was a wise and seasonable Institution; And hereby we see the British Churches were not defective in Learning in their lowest Condition, when the Britains were forced to leave their Habitations, and to fly into Corners.

Of which, besides these Nurseries of Dubricius and Iltutus, we have a famous Instance in the Monastery of Banchor, which even (h)(h)Bed. l. 2. c. 2.Bede saith, was furnished with learned Men at the coming of Augustine into England. This Banchor was distant but ten or twelve miles from Chester, as (i)(i)Polychr. l. 4. c. 31.Ranulphus Cestrensis and Bradshaw, in his Life of St. Werburg, say. (k)(k)Collect. vol. 2. p. 63.Leland in his Itinerary describes the Place as standing in a Valley, Itiner. p. 308.and having the compass of a walled Town, and two Gates remaining half a mile distant from each other. (l)(l)Camd. Brit. p. 457.Camden supposes it to be the Bomium in Antoninus, being ten miles distant from Deva, i. e. Chester. That which was most observable in this British Monastery was, that Men there were bred up to Learning and Devotion together, and so more resembling our Colleges than the Egyptian Monasteries, where men were brought up to Ignorance and Labour as much as to Devotion. Wherein the Benedictines followed them according to their first Institution: For St. Benedict himself not onelyonly despised Learning, as the Writers of his Life say; But he takes no care about it in the Rule of his Order; And when (m)(m)Bonifac. Epist. 141.Boniface gave an account to Zachary of his setting up a Benedictine Monastery at Fulda, he sets the Monks out by their Abstinence and p. 206hard Labour with their own Hands, without Servants. It is true that (n)(n)Chron. Hirs. A. D. 890.Trithemius speaks much of the Schools of Learning in the Benedictine Monasteries, but not before Anno Dom. 890. which was after the (o)(o)Capit. Anseg. l. 1. c. 71. l. 5. t. 95.Constitutions of Charles the great, who appointed Schools for instructing Youth both in Monasteries and Cathedrals; Which gave the first Countenance and Encouragement to Learning at that time; And (p)(p)Lup. Epist. 1.Lupus Ferrariensis saith, That the reviving of Learning was then owing to him: But although these Constitutions extended no farther than to Grammar Schools; yet from hence, those who were inclined to Learning in the Monasteries applied themselves more to it; and by degrees gained a great Reputation by it, as Rabanus Maurus at Fulda, whose esteem drew Lupus thither, and many others; Which example prevailing, and the Monks finding such resort to increase their Wealth as well as Reputation, as (q)(q)Orig. Monast. l. 2. c. 1.Aub. Miraeus observes; from that time the Monasteries were desirous to have some of their Number to be eminent for Learning, which had been before so much neglected by them, as wholly besides the Rule of their Order. But the Monasteries of the Western Churches before St. Benedict's time, such as that of St. Ambrose, St. Eusebius of Vercelles, St. Augustine in Africa, St. Martin in Gaul, were chiefly intended as Nurseries to the Church, and the Persons educated therein, were brought up with a design to doe the Church service afterwards. This method of Education taking so much in other Churches (as in Gaul, where so many eminent Bishops were taken out of the Monastery of Lerins, according to the Rule of Caprasius,) St. German who was so well acquainted with St. Honoratus, St. Hilary of Arles, and others of that Education, might probably be the first Instrument of setting up this way in the British Churches. And to confirm this, St. Patrick, who carried over this Monastick Education into Ireland, spent many years under the Discipline of St. German, as (r)(r)Prob. vit. Patr. apud Bed. To. 3.Probus and (s)(s)Jocel. vit. Patr. c. 22.Jocelin the Writers of his Life do agree. And those who have written of St. German have mention'd him as one of his Disciples, as (t)(t)Biblioth. MSS. Labb. Tom. 1. p. 537.Erricus of Auxerre. And (u)(u)De Gestis Pont. l. 2. p. 145.William of Malmsbury saith, he was not onelyonly a Disciple of Saint p. 207German, but being made Bishop by Celestine, he was sent by St. German into Ireland. And in the Irish Monasteries there were Schools like those of Dubricius and Iltutus for the breeding of Youth in Learning. For therein, as Rouse an Antiquary in Edward IV. time saith, The Masters did teach, secundum formam Studiorum antiquorum, according to the ancient method of Learning; Which our learned (w)(w)De Primorà. p. 910.Primate understands of joining the Studies of humane Learning with divine; of which he produces an Instance in a MS. of the Library of Worcester; Being a Commentary of an Irish Bishop upon Martianus Capella's Astrology which he read to his Disciples in the Monastery of St. Remigius in Down. And the Authour of the Opus Tripartitum of the Life of St. Patrick saith, That he set up at Armagh Summum studium literale. Which in the Language of that time is the same with an Vniversity, onelyonly this is a Law-term, and implies a Legal Society incorporated for the Profession of Learning, which the (x)(x)Choppin. de Dom…n. Franc. l. 3. tit. 27. Limn. Jus publ. l. 8.Civilians tell us, None but the Supreme Authority of a Nation can doe. In this School at Armagh, Caradoc of Lancarvan in his Life of Gildas saith, That he was a Professour, Studium regens & praedicans in Civitate Ardmaca. But the Anonymous Authour of his Life published out of an ancient MS. by Joh. à Bosco (y)(y)Biblioth. Flor. vit. Gild. c. 10.saith, That Gildas, going over into Ireland in the time of Ammeric, i. e. about Anno Dom. 566. found both Religion and Learning much decay'd there, and that he built many Churches and Monasteries, and brought up many Noble Mens Sons therein. In his younger days, he saith,Id. c. 6. Gildas went to Iren, and visited the Schools of many Learned Men, and enquired their Opinions in Philosophical and Divine matters.