rus; John of the first Justiniana, or Ocrida, metropolitan of Dardania ; Virgil of Arles, metropolitan of Narbonne, and to the metropolitan bishops of Aquileja, Cagliari, Dyrrachium, Crete, Philipopolis, Salonica. When sending the pallium to Augustin, Gregory admonished him that the rights of the Gaulish metropolitan over his own province should remain inviolate : "We give you no authority over the bishops of Gaul, because from the ancient times of my predecessors, the bishop of Arles received the pallium, whom we must not deprive of the authority with which he is invested."* Leo the Great, on the election of Ravennius to the See of Arles, had written to the bishops of the province, congratulating them on this event, and "by his judgment strengthened" their good work. It is probable that the pallium was sent on this occasion. Gregory directed the pallium to be given to the bishop of Autun in a synod, which he ordered to be held, requiring, however, a promise on his part to remove simoniacal abuses. At the same time he assigned to this bishop the next place after the bishop of Lyons, by his own indulgence and authority. When Desiderius, a bishop of some place in Gaul, sought the pallium, Gregory answered that after diligent search in the Roman archives, he could find no document of such a grant to the predecessors of the petitioner.|| In sending the pallium to the bishop of Palermo, he observed: "We admonish you that the reverence due to the Apostolic See should be disturbed by the presumption of no one, for the state of the members is sound, when the head of faith suffers no injury, and the authority of the canons continues always safe and inviolate."T Several instances of the grant of this emblem of authority to the English metropolitans are recorded by Venerable Bede. St. Boniface V. sent it to Justin, archbishop of Canterbury:** Pope Honorius invested with it his namesake who had succeeded to this See, and gave it also to Paulinus of York, authorizing the survivor of them to provide for the vacant See by ordaining a bishop.tt Theodore, a Greek monk, was consecrated at Rome in 668, for the See of Canterbury, by Pope Vitalian, from whom he received the pallium.‡‡ Long after the time of Bede the like facts are recorded. In 1005, Elphege, archbishop of Canterbury 'received the pallium at Rome, from the hands of John XVIII. It may be superfluous to quote other instances, since the fact of the dependance of the English Church on the Holy See from the time of Gregory to the reign of Henry VIII. a period of above nine hundred years is freely avowed by Anglican writers, who trace to Augustin their claims to the apostolic succession.* In 1059 Alfred, archbishop of York, with Gison elect of Wells and Walter of Hereford, went to Rome, the first seeking the pallium, the others their confirmation of their election. The archbishop being * I borrow the following list from the appendix to a recent work of an American divine, Rev. Lloyd Winslow: 174 Eleutherius, 187 Victor, 198 Zephyrinus, 216 Calixtus, 221 Urban. 229 Pontianus, 235 Anteros, 236 Fabianus, 251 Cornelius, 253 Lucius, 255 Stephanus, 257 Sixtus II. 259 Dionysius, 269 Felix 1. 269 Felix II. 275 Eutychianus, 283 Caius, 296 Marcellinus, 308 Marcellus I. 310 Eusebius, 310 Melchiades, 314 Silvester I. 336 Mark, 337 Julius I. 352 Liberius, 366 Damasus I. 385 Siricius, 398 Anastasius I. 402 Innocent I. 417 Zosimus. 418 Boniface I. 422 Celestine I. 432 Sixtus III. 530 Boniface II. 532 John II. 535 Agapetus I. 590 Gregory I. the great, 1122 William Corbeil, who sent Augustine, 1138 Theobald, a monk, missionary 1162 Thomas a Becket to England,and with 1174 Richard, the consent of Eth- 1184 Baldwin, elbert, king of Kent, 1191 Reginald Fitzjocelin 596 He was succeeded in 1234 Edmund, 605 by Laurence, 759 Bregwin, 803 Wulfred, 1245 Boniface, 1272 Robert Kilwardby, 1503 William Warham, From Appendix to Inquiry into the Ministerial Commission. charged with simony met with a refusal, but afterwards, having suffered from the violence of a brigand, moved the Pope to grant his request. The others were confirmed without difficulty.* Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas archbishop of York in 1071, went to Rome to ask the pallium from Pope Alexander II. who granted it, and in token of special favor, granted a second pallium to Lanfranc, that which the Pontiff himself was wont to use in celebrating Mass.† In the contests about privileges between the archbishops of Canterbury and York, the concessions of the Popes were relied on, as appears from the report by Lanfranc to Alexander II. of the proceedings of the council held to determine them: "For the final strength and support of the whole case, the privileges and writings of your predecessors Gregory, Boniface, Honorius, Vitalian, Sergius, also of another Gregory, and of the last Leo were produced, which had been given or transmitted at various times to the prelates of the Church of Canterbury, and to the English kings.”‡ In 1117 Henry I. of England solicited Paschal II. to relieve his kingdom from the necessity of receiving Papal legates, alleging that the archbishop of Canterbury was by the decree of Gregory the Great legate of the Holy See, or as Canonists say, legatus natus. The Pope replied that he wished the privileges of the See of Canterbury to be preserved inviolate, and asked for documentary evidence. In 1194 Celestine at the request of King Richard and the suffragan bishops, appointed Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, his legate.|| In 1173 when Henry II. was opposed by his son, who usurped the regal title and authority, he made several nominations to the vacant Sees, and sent the elect to Rome for confirmation, to prevent which an ambassador from the son also presented himself to the Pontiff. Alexander III. decided in favor of the right of the father, and in 1174 with his own hands solemnly consecrated Richard, prior of Dover, archbishop of Canterbury, as Roger relates.T After a constant and unquestionable usage of above nine centuries, wherein the English hierarchy was modelled and regulated by the Apostolic See,** it must be a matter of surprise to hear modern writers *Baron. ad an 1059, p. 258. Apud Baron. an. 1072, p. 409. Ib. an. 1194, p. 875. † Baron. an. 1071, p. 400. § Apud Baron. an. 1117. ¶ Baron. ad an 1174, p. 666. **“As to the Anglo-Saxon Church," says Guizot, “ You know that having been founded by the Popes themselves, it was placed from the commencement under their most direct influence." Cours d'histoire moderne t. iii. p. 67. rely on the alleged independence of the ancient British Church. If this were proved, it could avail nothing to those who derive whatever coloring of claim they may have from the See of Canterbury, founded by Augustin, among the converted English. This independence is claimed chiefly on the authority of an address, said to have been made by the Abbot Dinoth to the venerable missionary, at an interview with the British prelates. I shall take leave to submit to the readers the evidence of the supposititious nature of this document in the words of a learned correspondent of the Catholic Herald. "I. This document has no voucher for its authenticity. 1. Spelman was the first to produce it in 1639,* copied,—from, what he calls, an old manuscript, of which, however, nothing is known, but that it belonged to a Welsh gentleman, named P. Moston. He neither states the nature nor the author of the work, in which he found it, nor any other circumstance that might enable us to form an opinion of the value to be attached to it. Indeed, he himself does not appear to give it much weight, or to look upon it as ancient: he avows, that he cannot say by whom, or at what time it was written, though he thinks it was copied from a more ancient manuscript (antiquiorem procul dubio imitante). 2. He says he copied the Welch, and the interlinear English translation, without changing an iota (ut ne in apice quidem ab exemplari discederem), and has added a Latin one for the use of foreigners. The English, however, is evidently not much anterior to his own time. It differs from that given in your book only in the spelling of two words-helpe and spirituall. This shows that Spelman's manuscript was not ancient. 3. Spelman thought that the original manuscript was in the Cotton library; and Wilkins, in reproducing Dinoth's answer a century later, quotes one of the Cotton manuscripts. Still not a word about its author-its appearance-its date, or any one circumstance that would throw light on its authenticity: though, be it remarked, this was contested from its first appearance. Although Wilkins had access to the Cotton manuscript, he leaves us as much in the dark as ever, and is satisfied with quoting Spelman's description and reasoning, at full length. "II. It bears evident marks of being spurious. 1. Dinoth would not have addressed St. Augustine in British (Welch). The Abbot of Bangor certainly could have addressed him in Latin, and Augustine did not understand British. The document, on the other hand, is not pretended to be a translation. 2. Persons acquainted with the Welch * Spelman, Conc Tom. i. p. 108. † Spelman, Conc. Tom. i. p. 109. Wilk. Conc. Tom. i. p. 26. tongue appear to have admitted that the language of the piece is modern.* In the passage, which I will quote below from Fuller, he appears to give up this point. The word helpio (to help), evidently from the Saxon, betrays a later date. 3. The word Paab (Pope,) is used as if that title was then given exclusively to the Bishop of Rome by all. The word Papa means "father," and for many centuries was given to all bishops. There are one or two instances, during the sixth century, of its being applied to the Bishop of Rome, in a peculiar manner, but the custom of doing so was not universally established till long after, nor did it finally obtain till as late as the eleventh century. The dignity designated by it now, was expressed by other words in ancient times. "III. There is a glaring anachronism in the document. The bishop of Caerleon is spoken of as the metropolitan of the Britons, though the archiepiscopal See was removed from that place, more than 80 years before the interview in question. It was transferred to Landaff in 512; and thence to Menevia (afterwards called S. David's) in 519,|| Bingham, Spelman,** Fuller,†† and others, meet this argument, by saying, that the bishop of Menevia retained also the bishopric of Caerleon; and therefore Dinoth might have spoken of him as bishop of either place, especially as Caerleon had formerly been the metropolitan See. To this I reply. 1. It is gratuitously asserted, that the bishop of Menevia retained the bishopric of Caerleon; and this is asserted merely for the purpose of evading an argument, without any proof that such was the fact; I, at least, have not been able to find any in the authors above quoted, or any allusion to its being proved by others. 2. In the absence of positive proof, we must say, that it is at least highly improbable that he did. If Caerleon did not retain a bishop of its own, after losing its archiepiscopal dignity, it is much more probable, that it remained under the government of the bishop of Landaff, to which See it was first united in 512, than that it was entrusted to the bishop of Menevia. Landaff is almost on the line between the two places,— but no more than 15 miles from Caerleon, whilst this latter is almost * Vid. Dolinger's History of the Church, vol. ii. p. 62, who quotes Tuberville Manual Controv. p. 460. ↑ Ducang. Glossar. ad verb. Papa. Binterim. Denk wurdigkeiren. 1 Band. 2 Theil. p. 144. Sirmond Not. in Ennod. Ticin. Epist. i. lib. 4. At the Council of Rome, A. D. 1075. Spelm. Conc. Tom. I. p. 25. Wilk. ad. ann. 519. page 106. tt p. 61. |