Chapter 7: Of Metropoles and Metropolitans

Of Metropoles and Metropolitans.

Sect. 1.

Some account of the probations produced for Episcopacie, [in non-Latin alphabet]. The power of Metropolitans. Their relations to more Churches than one. An enumeration of Prymates, and Metropolitans.

Num. 1. Having made this solemne promise, that I should be so highly rewarded in case I produced any intimation to prove, that there was any other but single particular Congregations, It was now timely remembred that I had done somewhat like this already, in proving the seven Angels of the seven Churches in the Revelation to be Metropolitans, and to the consideration of that he now next proceeds, and that brings in an examination of what I have said of Metropoles and Metropolitans: And it begins thus,

But it may be said, what need we any more writing, what need we any truer proof, or testimony? The learned Doctor in his Dissertations, Dissert. 4. cap. 5. has abundantly discharged this worke, and proved the seven Bishops of the seven Churches mentioned (Revelation 2–3) to have been Metropolitans or Arch-Bishops; so that no just cause remaines, why we should farther contend.

Let then the Reader pardon this my utmost excursion, in this digression, to whose compasse I had not the least thoughts of going forth at the entrance thereof, and I shall returne there from where I have turned aside.

Dissert. 4. cap. 5. The Doctor tells us, that Septem Ecclesiarum Angeli non tantum Episcopi, sed & Metropolitae, that is Archi-Episcopi statuendi sunt, that is principelium urbium, [in non-Latin alphabet], ad quos provinciae integrae, & in iis multarum inferiorum urbium Ecclesiae, earumque Episcopi tanquam ad Archiepiscopum aut Metropolitanum pertinebant.

The Doctor in this Chapter commences per saltum, and taking it for granted, that he has proved Diocesan Bishops sufficiently before, though he has scarce spoken any one word to that purpose in his whole book (for to prove one superintending in a Church, by the name of a Bishop, others acting in some kinde of subordination to him, by the name of Elders and Presbyters, upon the account of what has been offered concerning the state of the Churches in those dayes, will no way reach to the maintenance of this presumption) he sacrifices his paines to the Metropoliticall Archiepiscopall dignity, which as we must suppose is so clearly founded in Scripture and Antiquity, that they are as blind as Bars and Moles, who cannot see the ground and foundation of it.

But first, be it taken for granted, that the Angels of the seven Churches are taken for the Governors of those Churches, then that each Angell be an Individuall Bishop of the Church to which he did belong: 2 be it also granted, that they were Bishops of the most eminent Church or Churches, in that province, or Roman politicall distribution of those Countreys, in the management of the government of them, I say, Bishops of such Churches, not urbium [in non-Latin alphabet] (as the Doctor termes them) what advance is made by all this to the Assertation of a Metropoliticall Archiepiscopacy, I cannot as yet discover. That they were ordinary officers of Christs institution, relating in their office and ordinary discharge of it, not onely to the particular Churches wherein they were placed, but to many Churches also no lesse committed to their charge, than these wherein they did reside, the Officers, Rulers, Governors, of which Churches depended on them, not onely as to their advice and counsell; but as to their power and jurisdiction, holding their place and employment from them, is some part of that, which in this undertaking is incumbent on our Doctor to make good, if he will not be supposed to prevaricate in the cause in hand.

3. Being here called out anew to the maintaining of what I had said in the Dissert: concerning Metropoliticall Churches, and Bishops, and having so lately been ingaged in the same taske by the exceptions of the London-Ministers, and many objections, which here in the processe of this discourse are lightly proposed, being by them formerly made, and accordingly answer accommodated to them, and yet farther, the maine thing which is here done, being to set downe many Latine passages, out of the Dissert: and to deem them confuted by the bare recitall of them, upon these grounds I doe not foresee that there will be any necessity of making any large returnes to this last, but not concisest part of his digression. What had been returned to the London-Ministers, the Reader will finde in that Vindication, Cap. 1. Sect. 16 (of which number, by the fault of the Printer, he will meet with two Section) and so on for the three subsequent Sections, and to the Dissertations themselves, and that vindication of them, I shall willingly referre this matter. Yet shall I not omit to gather up whatever I shall here finde suggested, which was not there punctually spoken to, and of that nature here are foure things in this Paragraph.

4. First that in the 5. Ch. of Diss: 4. I commence per saltum, taking it for granted, that I had proved Diocesan Bishops before, though says he, I had scarce spoken one word to that purpose in my whole Booke. To this I answer, that as in the first Dissertation had answered one sort of objections against Episcopacy, and in the whole second Diss. asserted it out of Ignatius and Saint Hierome himselfe, so in the third, I had deduced it from Christ and the Apostles, and I suppose laid those grounds, and by all antiquity confirmed, and by answer of Blondel's objections vindicated them, so that they were competently fitted to beare that structure of Episcopacie, which I had laid upon them; and then having in the fourth Diss: added to this the visible practice of this in the hands of single Governors, whether the Apostles in their severall [in non-Latin alphabet], or their successors the first Bishops, called secundarie Apostles, mentioned in the Scripture, and yet more particularly in the Angels of the seven Churches, (which being acknowledged to be the Governors of those Churches, were proved to be single Governors of them, which was the onely thing in question between Blondel and me) I had some reason to hope that I might be allowed to have spoken some one word to that purpose in that Booke, before I came to prove those Angels to have been Metropolitans, which he knowes was not attempted, till all this of Episcopacie had been premised by me.

5. The reason, which he adds in a parenthesis, why he affirmes thus expresly, that I had scarce spoken one word to prove a Diocesan Bishop in that Booke, is the second thing I am to reply to; For, says he, to prove one superintending in a Church by the name of Bishop, others acting in some kinde of subordination to him under the name of Elders and Presbyters, will no way reach to the maintenance of this presumption.

6. To which I answer, that the question lying, as there it did between Blondel and me, there can be no doubt, but, if I have evinced the power in every Church, to have been in the hands of a single Bishop, and either no college of Presbyters in that Church, or else those Presbyters subordinate to the Bishop (meaning by subordinate, subject to his power and authority over them) I have also evinced the cause against Blondel. And this I may have leave to hope is there done, till the contrary be made appeare, and here being no offer of that, but only a mention of the account of what has been offered by the Prefacer, concerning the state of the Churches in those days, 1. that account has already been shewn to have no force in it, 2. if it had, it belongs not to the controversie, as it lay between me and Blondel, but is as contrary to Blondel's pretensions as to mine, and so still I cannot see how I fell under his Animadversion in this matter, or how I commenced per saltum, in doing what there I did as regularly as I could imagine.

7. The third thing is, that I call the Bishops of the most eminent Churches, urbium [in non-Latin alphabet], whom he will have called Bishops only. But of this there can be no Controversie, the fitnesse and propriety of words being to be judged from the use of them, and the case being cleare, that a Metropolitan, especially a Primate, was called [in non-Latin alphabet] in the antient Councels and Church-writings, and from them, and not from Scripture, which useth no higher style for them, than of Bishops and Angels, it is, that I borrowed that appellation.

8. The last thing, that I must, if I will not be supposed to prevaricate, make good, is, that the Angels of the Churches related in their office not only to the particular Churches wherein they were placed, but to many Churches also, no lesse committed to their charge, than these wherein they did reside, and that to power and jurisdiction, &c.

9. That they related to other Churches besides their own, even to all that belonged to their Province, I suppose myself obliged to make good, and the 34. Apostolick Canon is alone able to doe it in generall, as shall anon appeare. Then more particularly, that they had power of ordeining Bishops, and of judging them also, is Saint Chrysostome's affirmation of Titus, whom I suppose to be such a Metropolitan in Crete, That if any were made Bishop [in non-Latin alphabet], without the judgement and liking of the Metropolitan, [in non-Latin alphabet] [in non-Latin alphabet], He ought not to be a Bishop, is the sixth Canon of the first Councel of Nice. And what is there defined of the Metropolitan's rights, besides that 'tis done by 318. Bishops, the most select of the whole Christian world, and in an age very competent to passe a judgement of an Apostolical custome, it is also vouched by them expresly as one of the [in non-Latin alphabet] the antient immemorial customes of the Church. And much more to the same purpose is evident by the antient Canons of the universal Church, as has in some measure been set downe (and as farre as I can be concerned to make good, either against the Presbyterian, or Congregational, or Papist way) in a tract of Schisme, Chap. 3. Sect. 11 &c.

10. To this the story of those first times exactly accords, telling us that Irenaeus by being Metropolitan of Lyons, [in non-Latin alphabet] [in non-Latin alphabet], was Bishop (that sure must be interpreted Metropolitan or Primate) of the Diocesse and so Bishops that pertaine to France, and againe [in non-Latin alphabet] he had the Government of the Brethren, that is, the Christians that belong to France. And this [illegible] the Scholar of Polycarpe, auditor of the Apostles, then Demetrius [in non-Latin alphabet] undertooke the administration of the Dioceses belonging to Alexandria, and both these at the same time in Commodus's reigne. And that whole Chapter in Eusebius is but the enumeration of severall such Metropolitans by name, who were all at the same time, of the Church of the Antiochians, Serapion, the eighth from the Apostles, of the Church of Rome, Eleutherus's successor, Victor; of [illegible] [in non-Latin alphabet], or as he phraseth it in the next Chapter, [in non-Latin alphabet], Theophilus; of the Church in Jerusalem, Narcissas; of the Church of Corinth; [in non-Latin alphabet], Banchyllus; and of Ephesus, or, as he phraseth it, [in non-Latin alphabet], Polycrates, of whom he after says that [in non-Latin alphabet], he was chiefe as Prime or Ruler of the Bishops of Asia. In the same manner as afterward, Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage in the Councel of Constantinople in Trullo styled [in non-Latin alphabet] Archbishop of the Region, or Province of Africk, which is, as to the matter of it, own'd by himselfe (Epistle 40. and 45.) where he mentions his Province, and the extent of it.

Sect. 2.

Of Churches in the plural, and a Church in the singular in the Scripture.

[illegible]. 1. In pursuit of this matter of Metropolitanes, he proceeds next to take notice of one observation of mine in these words.

2. To this end he informs sect. 2. that in the New Testament there is in sundry places mention made of Church [illegible] number, as Galatians 1:21, 1 Thessalonians 2:14, Acts 9:35, Acts [illegible], Galatians [illegible], Revelation 1:11, sometimes of Church only [illegible], as Acts 8:1, 15:4, 22, Acts 1:[illegible], Hebrews 16:1, 1 Corinthians [illegible], 2 Corinthians [illegible], 1 Thessalonians 1:1, Revelation [illegible], [illegible], 8, 1[illegible], 18. Now this is [illegible] beholding to the Doctor for it, no more I suppose [illegible] found to be to it, when the reason of it shall be a little weighed. The summe is, that the name Church, in the singular [illegible], but where it relates to the single congregation, in, or of one City or Town: That of Churches respecting the several Churches Congregations that were gathered in any Country or Province: Manifest then it is from hence, that there is in the New Testament, no Church of one denomination beyond a single Congregation: And where there are more, they are always called Churches: How evidently this is destructive to any Diocesan Metropolitical Officer, who has no Church left him thereby of Christ's institution to be related to, another opportunity will manifest.

3. Here is but one thing done by the Prefacer, a recital of my observation in the words, just as I set it, that there is in the New Testament mention sometimes of Churches in the plural, sometimes of a Church in the singular.

4. For this observation he says, he is not beholding to me, and I shall imitate him thus far in replying, that neither is he the first that has mistaken it, the London Ministers had done before him just what now he thinks fit to do. For having duly recited the observation, when he comes to give the sum of it, that sum is very different from the particulars (just as by the London Ministers it had been before) namely, that my observation is, that the word Church is never used in the singular, but when it relates to a single congregation.

5. Here I must interpose (as to the London-Ministers I did, and to the Vindication there I refer the Reader for it, and shall here recite it no farther than only thus) that I only say the word Church was so used in the singular for the Church of one City, meaning still (as I there express, and I always do, when I speak of a City-Church) with the territory adjoining, whether again that be a territory of more Cities, when that which is spoken of is a Metropolis, as many of those which I there mention, were, Corinth, Ephesus (and all certainly, except Cenchrea, being near to, and a Haven-City of Corinth, [in non-Latin alphabet], says Stephanus Byzantinus, [in non-Latin alphabet].) or whether the villages adjacent, when it is not a Metropolis. But that the word Church in the singular, is never used but when it thus relates to the single congregation in, or of one City, Metropolis, or not Metropolis, that I never said, nor thought, nor was it useful to me to observe or suggest any such thing.

6. And so being mistaken in his ground, his inference must also suddenly vanish, which he affirmed to be so manifest, and so likewise all the advantage, which when opportunity should serve, he meant to have made of it.

Sect. 3.

The meaning of Provinces. Philippi a Metropolis. Dionysius's Epistle to Gortyna. Philip Bishop of all the Churches in Crete. [in non-Latin alphabet].

Num. 1. From the mention of my observation, he goes on to examine the use which I made of it.

2. For the present (says he) let us see what use our Doctor makes of this observation.

Sect. 3: says he, [reconstructed: Judaea] and the rest of the places where Churches are mentioned, are the names of Provinces, [in non-Latin alphabet], quatenus [reconstructed: contradistinguuntur]: But if the Doctor takes these words in an Ecclesiastical sense, he begs that which will upon such unworthy terms never be granted him. If no more be intended but that [reconstructed: Judaea], [reconstructed: Galatia], and the like names of countries were Provinces wherein were many Churches; Smyrna, Ephesus, of Towns and Cities wherein there was but one, we grant him [illegible].

And how much that [illegible] is to his advantage has been intimated: and this seems to be his [illegible] by his following words, [reconstructed: Provinciarum] inquam, in quibus [illegible] singularum Ecclesiarum [illegible], [illegible], [illegible] Ecclesiae in plurali istius sive istius [reconstructed: Provinciae]; well, what then? [reconstructed: Cum] tamen unaquaeque civitas, cum [reconstructed: territorio] sibi [reconstructed: adjuncto] ([in non-Latin alphabet]!) ab Episcopo suo administrata, singularis Ecclesia dicenda sit: [reconstructed: idque] quod [in non-Latin alphabet] factum dicitur (Acts 14:15), [in non-Latin alphabet] jubetur (Titus 1:5). That in every City there was a singular Church in those Provinces (I speak of those where any number were converted to the Faith) I grant; for the annexed territories let the Doctor take care. These bring one Church at [reconstructed: Corinth], and another at Cenchrea, so that every single city had its own single Church with its Bishop in it, as at [reconstructed: Philippi]. The passage mentioned by the Doctor, concerning the Epistle of Dionysius to the Church of [reconstructed: Gortyna] in Crete, is very little to his purpose: neither does he call [reconstructed: Philip] the Bishop of that Church, the Bishop of all the other Churches in Crete, as the Doctor intimates; but the Bishop of them to whom especially and eminently he wrote.

3. It being here, as he says, uncertain to him, what I mean, when I say Judaea, Syria, and the like are Provinces, as they are contra-distinguished from those which were no more than Dioceses in our modern use of the word, though I thought I had spoken intelligibly enough before, yet I am most ready farther to explain myself, that I mean Province in an Ecclesiastical sense, the several Churches of several Cities (with their territories adjoining to them) altogether making up one Provincial Church, so styled, as meeting occasionally, or at set times at the Metropolis in an Assembly ordinarily called Provincial, in which the Bishop of the Metropolis presides, as James at Jerusalem with the Bishops of all Judaea joining with him, as I conceive the model set down both (Acts 15) and (Revelation 4:4), by way of visional representation.

4. These several Churches considered by themselves, are each the Church in, or of such a City, and so each mentioned in the singular number. But being considered all together, though the [illegible], wherein they all agree, be in the singular also — Judaea, Syria, etc. (and accordingly we have in Ignatius the Church of Syria, both Church and Syria in the singular number) which, as comprehensive of all the several parts in it, I call a Province (as men have generally done before me) — yet the several parts so comprehended, are often mentioned in the plural, the Churches of Judaea, etc. This is the observation, and being, as [illegible] thought, evidenced by the instances there made, I did not think it could want farther proof, or be liable to be censured as that fallacy of begging the question on such terms, as he is pleased to think unworthy.

5. At the present, all that I had there to say in the Dissertations being only this, the rendering some reason of that difference of style in Scripture, sometimes the Churches in the plural, sometimes in the singular, and that reason being visible, because Judaea had many Churches in it, as many Cities, and Cenchrea, etc. was but one Church of one City, and the territory (though perhaps many places of Ecclesiastical assemblies in that circuit) this cannot be a begging of more than is made evident. All that I am by him warned to take farther care of, is, the territory (what cause he had to cry [in non-Latin alphabet]! at the mention of it, I shall not inquire) which I shall be mindful to do, when it is in any danger, or need of my care, which as yet it is not, being no way assaulted by him, and therefore there is at present no place of my farther solicitude.

6. What he is pleased to interpose of Philippi, its being a single city with its bishop in it, he cannot but know, is, as to me, a mere begging of the question, which just then he had accused in me, some pains being taken in that Dissertation, cap. 10. to show that those plural bishops, were not the bishops of that one city of Philippi; to which having never offered the least word of answer, the contrary should not thus have been taken for granted by him.

7. One thing he adds in the close, which was a little unexpected, that the passage, concerning the Epistle of Dionysius to the Church at Gortyna in Crete, is very little to my purpose, and that neither does he call the bishop of that Church, the bishop of all the other Churches in Crete. What truth there is in this suggestion will soon be [illegible].

8. And first, these are the words of that Epistle, of the [illegible] of it, in Eusebius l. 4. c. [illegible]. Dionysius bishop of Corinth [illegible] (this he should not have rendered, to the Church of Gortyna, but) to the Church adjacent or lying about Gortyna, [illegible], together with the rest of the [illegible] (the word common to dioceses and provinces) in Crete. The controversy, I perceive, here, is not concerning [illegible], what that signifies (but the [illegible] the rest, how far that extends, whether to all, or to some to whom he especially and eminently wrote) and so I shall not need insist on it, else it were easy to show, that signifying originally, adjacence of habitation, it belongs indifferently, whether to a greater or lesser circuit, a parish (which word comes from there) or adjacence of houses; a diocese, or adjacence of parishes to a city; a province, or adjacence of cities (with their territories) to a metropolis or chief city. And which of these it signifies at any time, the context must define.

9. So the Church [illegible], must here be the whole province, relating to Gortyna the metropolis of Crete, and then the [illegible], can be no other but the rest of the (provinces if there were more than one, or else the) dioceses (as we now style them) which were in Crete. And then certainly the adding of [illegible] the rest, to the mention of that which Gortyna was the metropolis, must conclude him to comprehend all the other, beside that, which were in Crete, and Philip, which is there said to be bishop [illegible] of them, in the plural, not only [illegible] of that about Gortyna, must needs be concluded bishop of them all, which he could not be any other way, than as he was bishop of the metropolis, to which those other related. And then what could be more to my purpose than this, I confess I know not. Against this there is no word of reason offered, only 'tis said that it is not to my purpose — and so I have nothing to which I can make reply in this matter.

Sect. 4.

The Original of Metropolitical Churches. Accommodation of the Ecclesiastical to the Civil distributions. The Bishop of Rome's greatness.

Num. 1. The next thing he is pleased to examine, he calls (I shall not debate how fitly) my application of the forementioned observation, and from there he expects some great advantage.

2. Sect. 4. says he, Application is made of the forementioned observation: Sect. 2. and the Interpretation given of it, Sect. 3. in these words, His sic positis, illud statim sequitur ut (in Imperii cognitione) in provincia qualibet, cum plures Urbes sint, una tamen primaria & principalis censenda erat, [illegible] ideo dicta, cui itidem inferiores reliquae civitates subjiciebantur, et civitatibus regiones, sic & inter Ecclesias, & Cathedras Episcopales unam semper primariam & Metropoliticam fuisse.

In this Section the Doctor has most ingenuously and truly given us the rise and occasion of his diocesan and metropolitical prelates, from the aims of men, to accommodate ecclesiastical or church affairs, to the state and condition of the civil government, and distributions of provinces, metropolitan cities, and chief towns within the several dependencies (the neighboring villages being cast in as things of no great esteem, to the lot of the next considerable town and seat of judicature) did the hierarchy, which he so sedulously contends for, arise. What advantage was afforded to the work, by the paucity of believers in the villages and lesser towns (from which at length the whole body of heathenish idolaters were denominated pagans) the first planting of churches in the greater cities, the eminence of the officers of the first churches in those cities, the weakness of many rural bishops, the multiplying and growing in numbers and persons, of gifts, abilities, and considerable fortunes and employments in this world, in the metropolitan cities, with their fame thereby, the tradition of the abode of some one or other of the Apostles in such cities and churches, with the eminent accommodation at the administration of civil jurisdiction and other affairs, which appeared in that subordination and dependency, whereunto the provinces, chief cities, and territories in the Roman Empire were cast, with which opportunities Satan got by these means, to introduce their ways, state, pomp, words, phrases, terms of honor of the world into the churches; insensibly getting ground upon them, and prevailing to their declension from the naked simplicity and purity wherein they were first planted, some other occasion may give advantage for us to manifest. For the present it may suffice that it is granted, that the magnificent hierarchy of the Church arose from the accommodation of its state and condition of the Roman Empire and provinces. And this in the instances of later ages that might be produced, will easily be made yet farther evident; in those shameful, or indeed rather shameless contests, which fell out among the bishops of the third century, and downward, about precedency, titles of honor, extent of jurisdiction, ecclesiastical subjection to, or exemption from one another, the considerableness of their cities in the civil state of the Roman Empire where they did reside, was still the most prevalent and cogent argument in their brawls. The most notable brush, that in all antiquity we find given to the great Leviathan of Rome, who sported himself in those gatherings together of the waters of people, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues, or the general councils (as they are called) was from an argument taken from the seat of the Empire, being fixed at Constantinople, making it become new Rome, so that the bishop of the Church there, was to enjoy equal privilege with him, whose lot was fallen in the old imperial city.

3. The brief sum of what he there quotes in Latin, is this, that as in the civil account, the chief city where there are many in a Province, is the Metropolis, to which the inferior cities are subjected (and relate to it, as the adjacent region to the city) so the chief church in a Province was by the Apostles designed (which I hope is far enough from Satan's introducing it) to be a Metropolitical church, on which the inferior churches and their Bishops depended, and observed concord and unity with it. This the Prefacer looks on, as a special discovery, and having threatened what some other occasion may give advantage to manifest, he is not pleased to make any the least objection against it at this time, or to endeavor to prove that it was not thus, but is very well satisfied that it is granted, that the Magnific (as he will style it) hierarchy of the church arose from this accommodation of the Ecclesiastic to the civil forms of distributions.

4. This indeed, as far as concerns every national church, which by this means is best disposed for order and unity within itself, is by me willingly and professedly granted, and if the reasonableness, that it should do so, does not competently vindicate it, yet supposing (as the discourse there does) that the Apostles themselves did generally so design it in every region, I hope there will lie no charge against it; and if further than so, the observing of it proved useful, as he says it did, to the reducing the Bishop of Rome to some moderate terms, equalling another Bishop to him, when the Empire was removed to another seat, I know not still, why this should be such a disobligation to the Prefacer, who will hardly be able to give any more moderate or less Popish account of the immense greatness which that Bishop by prescription of some number of years did challenge, than this of the Imperial seat having been fixed at Rome, and these privileges accruing to him by that means, and not by any investiture from Christ, by succession to Saint Peter, as they plead, nor by appointment of the Apostles in their first plantations, which now we speak of.

5. I have elsewhere spoken on this subject in the tract of Schism, in the latter part of chapter 3. and to the London Ministers, chapter 1. section 16. and there briefly showed the reasonableness of it. And here being yet nothing but promises of objections against it, it may suffice that I defer the answering them, till they be produced.

Sect. 5.

The grounds of the Apostles instituting Metropoles. The frame of Heathen governments, and the patterns among the Jews, civil, and sacred.

N[illegible]. 1. Next he proceeds to that which I add, as an image of this model in the church, taken from God's direction to Moses for the government of the Jews, thus,

2. B[illegible] Doctor adds, Sect. 5. Illud [illegible] Judaeorum exemplari transcripsisse Apostolos videmur, cum Mosaica id lege cautum esset, ut Judices et ministri qualibet civitate ordinentur, (Deuteronomy 16:18) illi veteribus dabitur ad Judicem (Mosis successorem) Synedrio Hierosolymitano cinctum recurrere tenentur, (chapter 17:9) and in Sect. 6. [illegible] proves Jerusalem to have been the Metropolis of the Nation, Eg[illegible] vero laudem! But

1. The Doctor presumes knows before this, that those with whom he has to [illegible] give him the thing in question upon his begging, or request [illegible] consideration and inquiry is, whether the Apostles [instituted] any such model of church order and government as is by the Doctor contended for; to this he tells you, that the Apostles seem to have done it, from the pattern of Mosaical institutions in the church of the Jews; but, Doctor, the question is not, with what respect they did it, but whether they did it at all or no? This the Doctor thought good to let alone till another time, if we would not grant him upon his petition, that so they did.

2. This then is the Doctor's second argument for his Diocesan and Metropolitan Prelates. His first was, from the example of the Heathens, in their civil administrations and rule, this second from the example of the Jews. Not to divert into the handling of the church and political state of the Jews, as appointed by God, nor that dissonance that is between the institution of civil magistrates, and Evangelical administrations, this is the sum of the Doctor's reasoning, in his 5, 6, 7, and 8. sections: God in the church and among the people of the Jews, chose out one city to place his name there, making it the place where all the types and ceremonies which he had appointed for the discovery and shadowing forth of the Lord Jesus Christ, were visibly and gloriously to be managed, acted, and [illegible] forth (sundry of them being such, as whose typicalness would have been destroyed by their multiplication) and principally on this account, making that place or city (which was first the seat of the Kingdom, or habitation of the chief ruler, for the administration of justice, who appointed judges in all the land, for the good and peace of the people) therefore the churches of Jesus Christ, disposed over the face of the whole world, freed from obligations to cities or mountains, walking before God, in, and with a pure and spiritual worship, having no one reason of that former institution, in common with the church of the Jews, must be cast into the same mold and figure; I hope without offence I may take leave to deny the consequence, and what more I have to say to this argument I shall yet defer.

3. One great fallacy I am here charged to be guilty of, (but having been oft accused of this very crime, I yet never had the ill luck to be convicted by him) that I beg the question again, which, says he, is only this, whether the Apostles instituted any such order, or no?

4. But can this be a begging the question, when in section 9. of that chapter, I expressly undertake to prove that the Apostles did institute such a model, and when he himself in the very next paragraph, expressly confesses that I proceed to prove it.

5. Can that be said to be begged, which is undertaken to be proved, and the proofs as yet not so much as considered by him, and so certainly not invalidated? Or can a man be bound to prove his assertion, before he has explained what he means by it, or upon what grounds of credibility he affirms it?

6. That which I do in that Chapter may analytically be divided into two parts, 1. the grounds upon which [◊] conceive the Apostles thus modeled the Church, and secondly; the proofs or testimonies by which I manifest that they did so. The question in hand being a matter of fact, whether or no the Apostles instituted Metropolitical Churches, &c. that was to be proved or disproved only by testimonies, and if that be not attempted to be done, but taken for granted, that were indeed a begging of the question, but a due place being reserved for that in the latter part of the Chapter, I conceive it no breach of the laws of discourse, owned and exemplified by artists, first to render the assertion credible, by proposing the grounds upon which I conceive they did it.

7. And those grounds were of two sorts, 1 The known frame of the Heathen governments, where they came to plant the Gospel, and by attending to which they should plant it more advantageously, and then what Nazianzen says of Julian, that it was in him a wise but a wicked policy, for the reducing Heathenism among Christians to appoint the heathen priests to make use of the Christian observances, may be very credible, as an act of divine policy in the Apostles, to make their advantage for the propagating and preserving the faith, by observing and not going contrary to the civil distributions, which they should meet with among the Heathens.

8. Secondly, The patterns of this among the Jews, and those we know, the more considerable in this, because they were there instituted by God himself, and because many other observances in Christianity are by Christ and the Apostles visibly accommodated from the Jews. And again there are two of those patterns, one in their civil management, Judges and Officers in every City (Deuteronomy 16:18), and Moses in matters of higher concernment and difficulty with [◊] San[illegible]d[illegible]im at Jerusalem; and the other in their Ecclesiastical, the three families of the Levites, separated for the sacred offices, a [in non-Latin alphabet] or chief over them (Numbers 3:24), and over them Eleazar the Son of Aaron the [in non-Latin alphabet], the chief of the chiefs of the Levites. And the advantages of order, and unity, and due administration of justice, which recommended those forms among the Jews, were all fit to be taken care of, and consequently were so many motives to induce the Apostles to copy them out under the New Testament, and to observe the like uniformity in all their plantations.

9. And these grounds being thus laid as a foundation, to support and fit the building, which in the remainder of the Chapter was regularly, that is by testimony of the Scripture and the ancient Church, superstructed on it, I cannot guess, what I could otherwise have done in respect of the method, than what was there designed by me. And truly if I did, let the proof of the fact alone, as he says, till another time, as long as that other time was so near at hand, in the same Chapter, in the very next Section after the setting down [◊] exemplar[illegible] among the Jews, I cannot yet discern how I have [illegible] in it. No man can do two things at once, and I was free to choose my own method, as long as [◊] neither omitted nor put off (as the Prefacer has often done, and so now again in the last words of this Paragraph he does) to some other occasion, that which was so necessary to be proved there.

10. As for his summary account of my discourse again, it is very much varied from that, which those four Sections yield, which is no more than this, that as by God's appointment to Moses, there were many inferior and one superior court; many in the several Cities of Judea, and one at Jerusalem, to which the inferior related, as the Mother and prime; and as in the Temple about the Levites there were heads of the Levites, and heads of those heads, so it would be [illegible]ctly parallel in the Apostles to institute Bishops in every City Church, and Metropolitans in the chief Cities, which as it is no argument at all to prove the matter of fact, that indeed it was so, nor by me designed for such, proposed only as an exemplar or parallel, not as a proof, and accordingly induced with [ad hanc imaginem, after this image] Sect. 9. an [as] and [so] not a [therefore] and so there was no consequence in it capable of being denied so again such as it was it very much differed from that which is here set down in Italic letters, as if it were the English of my Sections (which, again, were never set down in English, till now that this advantage might be gained by it.)

11. This manner of dealing, what it imports I shall not judge, but leave the Prefacer to pass his own animadversions on it.

Sect. 6.

Of Antioch the Metropolis of Syria (Acts 15). What the dependence of inferior Churches to their Metropolis. The reference to Jerusalem made by the Church of Antioch. The decrees delivered to other Churches. Jerusalem the grand Metropolis. Philo's Testimony. Ignatius Pastor, Bishop of Syria. The Epistle to the Antiochians. A Testimony from there.

Num. 1. Now then he proceeds to the examination of my proofs, (If it might have been foreseen that there were any such, the last Paragraph might certainly have been spared.)

2. But, says he, the Doctor proceeds to prove, that indeed the Apostles did dispose of the Churches in this frame and order, according to the pattern of the civil government of the Roman Empire, and that instituted of God among the Jews. The ninth section, wherein he attempts the proof of this assertion, is as followeth.

Ad hanc imaginem, Apostolo[illegible] Ecclesias ubique disponendas curasse, & in omnbus plantationibus su[illegible], minorum ab [illegible]m[illegible]ioribus civitatibus dependentiam & subordinationem constituisse exemplis quidem plurimi[illegible] monstrari possit, illud in Syriâ & Cilicia patet Act. 6. 4 cùm[illegible] illud c. 15. 2. Hierosolymas referr[illegible]tur ab Ecclesiâ [in non-Latin alphabet] Antiochiâ, Cap. 14 26 & 15. 3. & de[illegible] etum ab Apostolis d[illegible]ò ad eos mitteretur v. 22. in Epistolâ quâ decretum illud co[illegible]tin[illegible]batu[illegible], [illegible]imul cum Antiochensibus, [in non-Latin alphabet] comprehensos videmus v. 23. De[illegible] Epistolâ [◊] Antioch[illegible] Ecclesi[illegible] redditâ v. 30. Paulus tandem & Sylas Syriam & Cili[illegible]iam peragr[illegible]tes v. 41. c. 16. 4. [in non-Latin alphabet] singulis civitatibus observanda tradiderunt, ut quae ad hanc Antiochiae Metropolin, ut [illegible]idem subordinat[illegible] Ecclesiae pertinerent, ut & ipsa Antiochia ad Hieros[illegible]ly[illegible]as, primariam tam latae (ut ex Ph[illegible]lone praediximus) Provinciae Metropolin pertinebat, & ad [illegible]am, ad [illegible]imen[illegible]am litem istam, se conferebat.

This being all that the Doctor has to produce from the Scripture to his purpose in hand, I have transcribed it at large; for this being removed, all that follows, will fall of its own accord.

Then, the dependance on, and subordination of lesser cities to the greater, is asserted as an Apostolical institution; now because I suppose the Doctor will not assert, nor does intend a civil dependance, and subordination of cities, as such, among themselves, nor will a dependance as to counsel, advice, assistance, and the like supplies, which in their mutual communion, the lesser churches might receive from the greater and more eminent, serve his turn: but an ecclesiastical dependance and subordination, such as whereby many particular churches, with inferior officers residing in them, and with them, depended on, and were in subjection to some one person of a superior order, commonly residing in some eminent city, and many of these governors of a superior order in the greater cities were in subordination to some one of high degree, termed a Metropolitan, and all this by Apostolical institution is that which he aims at, which being a most gallant adventure for a waking generation, we shall doubtless find him quitting himself like a man in his undertaking.

2. Then he tells you that the question about Mosaical Rites, and necessity of their observation, was referred to Jerusalem by the single Church of Antioch. But how does the Doctor make good this first step, which if he could, would do him no good at all? It is true, that Paul was now come to Antioch (Chapter 14:26), and that he was brought on his way by the Church (Chapter 15:3). But yet that the brethren who were taught the Doctrine contested about were only of the Church of Antioch (when it is most certain from the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Colossians, Romans, and others, that great disturbance was raised far and wide, in all the Churches of the Gentiles about this controversy) nothing is offered. It seems indeed that their disputes grew to the greatest heights at Antioch, where brethren from other parts and Churches did also come, while Barnabas and Paul abode there, but that that single Church referred the determining of that controversy, to them at Jerusalem, exclusively to others, the Doctor proves not. And it is most evident, from the return of the answers sent by the Apostles from Jerusalem (verse 23), that the reference was from all the Churches of the Gentiles, yes and all the scattered brethren, perhaps as yet not brought into the Church order, not only at Antioch, but also throughout Syria and Cilicia. It is then granted what he next observes, namely that in the answer returned from Jerusalem, with them at Antioch, those in Syria and Cilicia are joined, the reason of it being manifest, namely their trouble about the same controversy, being no less than theirs at Antioch. It is also granted, that as Paul passed through the Cities, that he delivered them the decrees to keep, that were ordained by the Apostles and Elders (Chapter 16:4), and that not only to the Churches of Syria, and Cilicia, which he left (Chapter 15:41), but also to those throughout Phrygia, and the regions of Galatia (verse 6). What now follows out of all this? What but that Antioch by Apostolical institution was the Metropolitan See of all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia. Good Doctor, do not be angry, but tell us how this may be proved. Why doubtless it was so; as Antioch belonged to the Metropolitan Church at Jerusalem, as he told us out of Philo (who was excellently acquainted with Apostolical institutions) what Jerusalem was to the whole Church and Nation of the Jews, while the name of God was fixed there, we know. But what was the primitive estate of the Churches of Jesus Christ, made of Jews and Gentiles, tied neither to City, or Mountain, I must be pardoned if I cannot find the Doctor making any tender of manifesting or declaring. The reasons of referring this controversy to a determination at Jerusalem, the Holy Ghost acquaints us with (Acts 15:2), so that we have no need of this Metropolitical figment, to inform us in it. And now if we will not, not only submit to Diocesan Bishops, but also reverence the grave Metropolitans, standing upon such clear Apostolical institution, it is fit that all the world should count us the arrantest schismatics that ever lived since Pope Boniface his time. The sum then of this doubtful argument for the Apostolical institution of Metropolitans (that none might ever more dare to call Diocesans into question hereafter) is this: Paul who was converted about the third or fourth year of Caligula, five or six years after the ascension of Christ, having with great success for three years preached the Gospel, went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, upon the persecution raised against him at Damascus (Acts 9:22), from where returning to the work, he went first to Tarsus (Acts 9:30), from there to Antioch, where he abode one whole year (Acts 11:25, 26), and was then sent to Jerusalem with the collections for the Saints, about the fourth year of Claudius (verse 30), from there returning again to Antioch, he was sent out by the command of the Holy Ghost more eminently, and peculiarly than formerly for the conversion of the Gentiles (Acts 13:1, 2, 3). In this undertaking in the space of a year or two, he preached and gathered Churches (whereof express mention is made) at Salamis (Acts 13:5), in the Isle of Paphos (verse 6), at Perga in Pamphylia (verse 13), at Antioch in Pisidia (verse 14), at Iconium (Chapter 14:1), at Lystra and Derbe (verse 6), and at Perga (verse 26), in all these places gathering some believers to Christ, whom before they returned to Antioch, he visited all over the second time, and settled Elders in the several congregations (Chapter 14:21, 22, 23). In this journey and travel for the propagation of the Gospel, he seems in all places to have been followed almost at the heels, by the professing Pharisees, who imposed the necessity of the observation of Mosaical Ceremonies upon his new converts; for instantly upon his return to Antioch, where during his absence, probably they had much prevailed, he falls into dispute with them (Chapter 15:1). And that he was not concerned in this controversy, only upon the account of the Church of Antioch, himself informs us (Galatians 2:4), affirming that the false brethren, which caused those disputes and dissensions, crept in to spy out his liberty, in his preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles (verse 2), that is in the places before mentioned, throughout a great part of Asia. For the appeasing of this difference, and the establishing of the souls of the disciples, which were grievously perplexed with the imposition of the Mosaical yoke, it is determined that the case should be resolved by the Apostles (Acts 15:2), partly because of their authority in all the Churches, wherein those, who contended with Paul, would be compelled to acquiesce, and partly because those Judaizing teachers pretended the commission of the Apostles for the Doctrine they preached, as is evident from the disclaimer made by them, of any such commission or command (verse 24). Upon Paul's return from the assembly at Jerusalem, wherein the great controversy about Jewish Ceremonies was stated and determined, after he had in the first place delivered the decree and Apostolical salutation by Epistle to the Church at Antioch, he goes with them also to the Churches in Syria and Cilicia, expressed in the letter by name, as also to those in Pamphylia, Pisidia, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, etc. (Chapter 16:1, 2, 3, 4), and all the Churches which he had gathered and planted in his travels through Asia, whereunto he was commanded by the Holy Ghost (Acts 13:1, 2). Things being thus stated, it necessarily follows, that the Apostles had instituted Diocesan and Metropolitan Bishops. For though the Churches were so small, and thin, and few in number, that seven years after this, may we believe our Doctor, the Apostles had not instituted or appointed any Elders or Presbyters in them, namely when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Philippians, which was when he was prisoner at Rome, as appears (Chapter 1:7, 13, 14; Chapter 4:22), about the third year of Nero, yet that he had fully built and settled the Hierarchical fabric contended for, who once dares question? Audacia — Creditur à multis fiducia.

But if this will not doe, yet Ignatius hits the nayle on the head, and is ready at hand to make good whatever the Doctor will have him say, and his testimony takes up the sense of the two next following Sections, whereof the first is as follows.

Hinc dicti Ignatiani ratio constat in Epistolâ ad Romanos, ubi ille Antiochia Episcopus se [in non-Latin alphabet], pastorem Ecclesiae quae est in Syria appellatum ad Antiochiam, scil. ut ad Metropolin suam tota Syria pertineret. Sic & Author Epistolae ad Antiocheos [in non-Latin alphabet] inscribens, totam Syriam ejus [in non-Latin alphabet] esse concludit.

But yet I feare the Doctor will finde he has need of other weapons, and other manner of Assistance to make good the cause he has undertaken. The words of Ignatius in that Epistle to the Romans [in non-Latin alphabet]: Because he recommends to them that particular Church in Syria, which by his imprisonment was deprived of its Pastor therefore without doubt he was a Metropolitical Arch-bishop. Tityre tu pat. &c.

But the Doctor is resolved to carry his cause, & therefore being forsaken of all faire and honest meanes, from where he might hope for assistance or success, he tryes (as Saul the witch at Endor) the counterfeit, spurious title, of a counterfeit Epistle to the Antiochians, to see if that will speake any comfortable words, for his relief or no. And to make sure worke, he causes this Gentleman so to speake, as if he intended to make us believe that Syria was in Antioch, not Antioch in Syria, as in some remote parts of the world, they say they inquire whether London be in England, or England in London. What other sence can be made of the words as by the Doctor transcribed? [in non-Latin alphabet], To the Church of God dwelling in Syria which is in Antioch: now if this be so, I shall confesse it is possible we may be in more errors than one, and that we much want the learned Doctors assistance for our information; the words themselves, as they are used by the worshipful writer of that Epistle, will scarce furnish us with this learned and rare notion, they are at length, [in non-Latin alphabet] (for so he first opens his mouth with a lye) [in non-Latin alphabet], What is here more expressed, than that the latter passage is restrictive of what went before, was spoken of its residence in Syria, with reference to the name of Christian, first given to the Disciples in that place, I know not; and therefore it is most certaine that the Apostles instituted Metropolitan Archbishops, [in non-Latin alphabet].

3. The large transcripts of the Latine sections being the foundation of his whole insuing discourses, it is a litle necessary they should be made intelligible to all, to whom the confutation of them is addrest. This I shall be content to doe for him; and the plaine English is this.

4. According to the image of the civil government among the Jewes, and the like againe in their Temple (forementioned) the Apostles appeare to have disposed of Churches every where, and in all their plantations to have constituted a subordination and dependance of the Churches in the inferior Cities, to those in the Chief or Metropoles. An example of this we have in the story of the Acts, concerning Syria and Cilicia, and the severall Cities thereof, in relation to Antioch the Metropolis. For when the question (Acts 15:2) was referred and brought to Jerusalem from the Church (peculiarly) of Antioch (chap. 14:26 and 15:3) and the decree of the Councel returned to them by whom the question was proposed, that is, to the Church of Antioch (ver. 22) yet in the Epistle in which that decree was contained, we finde the brethren through Syria and Cilicia, that is, all the Christians of that Province, to be expressed and joyned with those of Antioch (ver. 23). And after, when that Decretal Epistle was delivered to the Church of Antioch (ver. 30) Paul and Sylas went over Syria and Cilicia (ver. 41, 42) and as they went, they delivered to every City the Decrees of the Councel (c. 16:4) which is an evidence, that the Churches of those Cities, related either immediately to Antioch, or, as Antioch it self did to Jerusalem, and were in subordination to it, as to the principal Metropolis, of so wide a Province, according to that of Philo, that Jerusalem was in his time the Metropolis not of Judea alone, but of many other regions, in respect of the Colonies, which is sent out of the Jewes that dwelt in them, naming Syria & Cilicia & divers others.

5. What is here said, may be divided into two branches, one concerning the Cities of Syria as relating to Antioch, the other concerning Antioch it selfe and other Cities, relating to Jerusalem. The latter is mentioned incidentally; the former is it, which was proposed for the example to testifie the Apostles distributions, and the plaine story of the Acts seemed to me to manifest it fully, that the Churches of the inferior Cities of Syria &c. related to Antioch as to the Metropolis. And the matter also being farther cleare by all Ecclesiastick writers, which make Antioch the Metropolis of Syria, I gave a tast thereof out of Ignatius's Epistle to the Romanes, who being the known Bishop of Antioch, setled there by the Apostles, calls himself Pastor as elsewhere Bishop of the Church in Syria. And so the Antient writer of the Epistle to the Antiochians under Ignatius's name, (but none of those which we receive from Polycarps collection) has these words in his inscription: [in non-Latin alphabet] to the Church of God which is at Antioch, lying together in Syria, making Syria to be the [in non-Latin alphabet] or Province, of which Antioch was the Metropolis.

6. The same is after manifested of other chief Cities, Rome, Alexandria, Gortyna in Crete, and the seven Churches of Asia, and the plain words of the three Councels forementioned, which devolve the whole businesse of the rights of Metropoles to their first plantations. And of all these there is not one word replyed, save onely what concernes Rome and Alexandria. To those two, we shall come in the next Section. But in this I am to consider what he has to object to the severall proofes concerning the Church of Antioch, being as I conceive it manifest, a Metropoliticall Church in the Apostles times.

7. And first it seems I must define, what I mean by this dependence and subordination of inferior Churches to their Metropolis. And I shall do it, in my own words, not in his, for they are very obscure. 1. I mean by inferior Churches, the several Churches in the several lesser Cities with the region adjoining, administered and governed each of them by the Bishop of each such lesser City-Church, and his officers under him. 2. By the Metropolis, I mean the Church of the chief City of that Region or Province, and such, say I, was the Church of Antioch in respect of Syria. 3. By the subordination and dependence of the inferior to the Metropolis, I mean not any inferiority of order and dignity, nor a dependence only as to counsel and advice and mutual communion, but an inferiority of power in many things, which the Apostles left not to the Bishops of the inferior Cities, but reserved to the Metropolitans. To this purpose the 34th Apostolic Canon is clear, [in non-Latin alphabet], the Bishops of every Nation must know their Primate, ([in non-Latin alphabet], says Zonaras) and account him as the head of them, and the powers that thus belong to him, are known in the ancient Councils by the title of [in non-Latin alphabet] privileges and preeminence, which are proper to such, and for which even immemorial and Apostolical tradition and custom is vouched by them. Such as receiving accusations against, and appeals from inferior Bishops, ordaining of them, as Titus is appointed to do through Crete, and as the sixth Canon of Nice says, that he that is made Bishop without the Metropolitan, shall not be deemed a Bishop; for this I again refer the Reader to the Discourse of Schism, pag. 60. &c. and there to that ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch, the same in effect with the 34th Apostolical Canon forementioned, where the Bishops of inferior Cities are interdicted doing, without the Metropolitan, any thing which is there styled [in non-Latin alphabet], that is (as is there explained) where in more Churches than one are concerned equally. The Bishops power extending to the administration of affairs in his own Diocese, [in non-Latin alphabet], whatever belongs to his Diocese, say both those Canons, but things of a more foreign nature, which belong not to the particular Bishop, ratione officii, [in non-Latin alphabet], which respect the common state of the Church (as Zonaras interprets [in non-Latin alphabet]) being reserved and pertaining to the care of the Metropolitan.

8. This, I suppose, sufficiently expresses, what subordination I mean, the very same which the most ancient Canons of the Universal Church express to be due from the Bishop to the Metropolitan, and then I shall not trouble myself to inquire what he means by [some eminent Cities, and, Governors of a superior order in greater Cities] which I should have thought had been Metropoles and Metropolitans, had I not found them all placed by him in subordination to some one of high degree termed a Metropolitan. And by that character being assured, that by the former he must mean no more but Bishops of inferior Cities, I must be content not to understand the mystery, why they should yet be styled eminent and greater Cities, and so briefly pass to the next thing.

9. Secondly then, he will examine my plea from that passage in the Acts, cap. 15. and the thing he dislikes is my making the question sent for resolution to Jerusalem, to be referred to them by the single Church of Antioch. This, says he, [◊] do not prove, though if I could prove it, it would do me no good at all. And yet, to see, in the process of the discourse, he severally grants all the rest, and only desires me not to be angry, but to prove that Antioch by Apostolical institution was the Metropolitan See of all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, which is in effect to deny, or bid me prove the conclusion, without offering to deny above one proposition, which therefore, I must assume, will, if it be proved, infer the conclusion, and so do me all the good, which I pretend to expect from it.

10. Now truly, that this question thus referred to Jerusalem, was at this time (Acts 15:1) referred to it, by the single Church of Antioch (but that as Metropolis of all Syria) I thought sufficiently proved by the text itself first cited, cap. 14. 26. and 15. 3. In the former of these places, the Apostles were come to Antioch, as that signifies Antioch the great (to difference it from another City of that name, v. 21. the same which is by Pliny placed in Pisidia, as here also it is, ver. 24.) that City peculiarly where the Scripture says they were first called Christians, and whereof Euodius and Ignatius were constituted Bishops by Peter and Paul, one of the Jewish, the other of the Gentile Christians. And being there they gathered the Church together, ver. 17. that I suppose to be the Church of the City of Antioch, (or if any more, those certainly as some way relating and subordinate to Antioch, which again infers Antioch to be their Metropolis) Then of Antioch it follows that there they abode, v. 28. And then cap 15. [◊]. certain men, which came down from Judea, infused the Judaical ritual doctrine into the brethren, who are those but the Christians of Antioch, where then they were? And upon the dispute had with those Judaizers, v. 2. they determined, that sure must still be the Church of Antioch peculiarly, that Paul and Barnabas should go to Jerusalem about this question, and then ver. [◊]. they are brought on their way by the Church, what Church is this still, but the Church cap. 14. 27. that is, the Church of Antioch?

11. This was my way of proof (designed to lay the foundation of that argument of Antioch's being the Metropolitical See) that this question was referred to Jerusalem from the Church peculiarly of Antioch. And I must hereby think it competently proved, unless some weak part be discovered in it, or some absurdity or repugnancy be objected to it; none of which, I see, is here done.

For 1. as to that which is offered at, by his saying that I have not proved that the brethren that taught the doctrine contested about, ver. 1. were only of the Church of Antioch, sure that is of no force. For as I doubt not but the same doctrine might be, and was infused into many others in Galatia, Colosse, yes, and Rome itself, as he truly says, and never conceived that the poison was confined to, or inclosed within Antioch, so all that is needful to my purpose, is this, that at this point of time noted (Acts 15:1) the Judaizers pretensions were solicited at Antioch, and that on that particular occasion of the dispute between Paul and them, the question was by them peculiarly referred to Jerusalem. And that sure might be done by them alone, though others far distant as well as they, either at that or some other time were disturbed with the like scruples.

That which the Prefacer here confesses, that the disputes grew to the greatest height in Antioch, is a very sufficient account in this matter, why Antioch peculiarly should send up to Jerusalem about this question, when others, who were not so much concerned in it, did not do so. And moreover the convenience of such Messengers, Paul & Barnabas, who could say so much, from the success they had had among the Gentiles toward the deciding of the question, might both qualify and incite them to do it, rather than any others at this time. And so still there is more reason why I should conceive the question referred to Jerusalem, peculiarly or alone by Antioch (and not so by Colosse, or Rome, or Galatia) and no appearance of any thing yet produced to the contrary.

Secondly, He adds, then to Antioch brethren from other parts and Churches also came, while Paul and Barnabas abode there. To what purpose this is urged by him I know not, but this I know, that there is no mention in that story of any such, but only of those which ver. 1. came from Judea, and taught the necessity of Judaizing. And of them 'tis not probable that they joined with the Antiochians to refer the question to Jerusalem, or if they did, I am sure the Decretal Epistle from the Council was not addressed to them, but to the Gentile Christians ver. 19. 23. and takes no other notice of them, than as of seducers ver. 24. And so still it appears not of any, that they thus referred the question, but only of the Antiochians.

Thirdly, Whereas he concludes it most evident from the Council's answer, ver. 23. that the reference is made from all the Churches of the Gentiles, if he mean it of all other Gentile Churches, beside Syria, and Cilicia, as Phrygia, Galatia &c. which he after mentions, and Rome, and Colosse, which before he had mentioned, there is no appearance of truth in it, the text saying expressly, that it was sent to the brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. But if he means it of all not absolutely, but all of Syria and Cilicia, and not only of Antioch, then as that is the very thing observed by me, to prove that Antioch was the Metropolis of Syria and Cilicia, so certainly it is far from evidencing the contrary. I grant, no, I make it matter of observation, that when the Question was sent to Jerusalem by Antioch peculiarly, the Decretal Answer of the Council is addressed, not only to Antioch, but also to all the Christians of Syria and Cilicia, and what reason can there be for that, when the Question was not, as far as appears, proposed by them, but only this, that those Regions depended on, and related to that Church, from which the Question was sent, that is, to Antioch; which if it be but possible (much more, if by other evidence, that out of Ignatius, it be proved to be more than possible, even perfectly true) it must from there follow, that the argument drawn from the Council's answer being addressed to Syria and Cilicia, as well as to Antioch, will no way conclude that the Question was referred by all those, when the Text, which is the only ground of affirming ought in this matter, mentions none but the Church of Antioch in the referring of the question, and this other reason is so ready at hand, for the mention of more, in their giving answer to it.

Fourthly: Whereas he adds, that the Apostles delivered these Decrees, not only to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, which Paul left, c. 15. 41. but also to those throughout Phrygia, and the Regions of Galatia, ver. 6. 1. 'tis no where said, that they did so in Phrygia, and the regions of Galatia; for the mention of the delivering the Decrees being ver. 4. no way belongs to Phrygia and Galatia, which are not mentioned till ver. 6. nor can be further extended than to Derbe and Lystra forementioned ver. 1. which we know were Cities of Lycaonia (Acts 14:6) and neither of Phrygia nor Galatia. No, 2. it is not necessary, that the delivering of the Decrees mentioned chap. 16. 4. should belong to all the Cities which had by that time been mentioned: Saint Luke's words will be true, that as they went through the Cities they delivered them the Decrees to keep, though it should be affirmed, that they delivered them only to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, which they are said to confirm cap. 15. 41. as here to establish in the Faith, cap. 16. 5. But these two things having been said only [in non-Latin alphabet], to show how far the Prefacer is from speaking demonstratively, when he is censuring others for want of that. In the third place, I shall acknowledge it very possible, and most probable, that Saint Paul did deliver these Decrees of Jerusalem to other Churches beyond Syria and Cilicia, where he came, particularly to the Churches of Lycaonia, Derbe and Lystra, yes, and to the Churches of Phrygia and Galatia, which no way disturbs my pretensions, because as Paul that planted those Churches might reasonably have care to uphold them in the truth, so in the latitude of Philo's speech, all these, even Phrygia and Galatia also, in respect of the Jewish inhabitants dispersed among them, might in the secular account refer to Jerusalem as their grand Metropolis.

For so says Philo, it was the Metropolis of most, to where it had sent Colonies, naming Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, and Coelosyria, and [in non-Latin alphabet] others far distant, Pamphylia, Cilicia, and a great deal of Asia as far as Bithynia and Pontus (and Lycaonia, &c. are sure within this distance, nearer to Jerusalem than some here named) and then by the contemperation we speak of, of the Ecclesiastical to the Civil distributions, why should not they all relate to the Metropolitical Church at Jerusalem also?

18. And Saint Paul's delivering them these [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], decrees to keep, and doing it not upon his own authority, as his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], his private Apostolical judgement, but as [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], judged, and conciliarly determined by the Council at Jerusalem, this sure is an evidence that Saint Paul, that planted these Churches, set them in subordination to, and dependance on the grand Metropolis of those parts, that at Jerusalem: Which is the thing I was to prove, that these distributions were made by the Apostles, that planted Christianity.

19. But then it must still be remembred, that the Cities of Lycaonia and Phrygia, and Galatia were not named in the Council's Epistle, but only Syria and Cilicia, and accordingly this of c. 16. 4. is no proof, I acknowledge, that these Churches did belong, and were subordinate to Antioch. That was to be proved not by this passage c. 16. 4. (thus understood) but from the inscription of the response of the Council to the brethren of Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, as it was before explained and cleared, and farther from Ignatius his styling himself Pastor of Syria, who, we know, was no otherwise so, than as he was Bishop of Antioch, the Metropolis of Syria. And so still I hope the conclusion now regularly follows out of these premisses, there shortly set down, but here more largely evidenced to inferre, that Antioch was by Apostolical institution the Metropolitan See of all the Churches of Syria, and Cilicia. And so sure I have no temptation to be angry, nor ever discovered any part of that passion to the Prefacer, and so needed not have been besought, so affectionately, not to fall into it at this time, when there is no rub in my way, no difficulty to oppose, or provoke the least degree of it, in the most ragefull.

20. What follows by way of scoffe at the citation from Philo, as if I took him for a person well acquainted with Apostolical Institutions, might also, as now appeares, very well have been spared. I had brought in that testimony seasonably enough sect. 6. when I was speaking of the exemplar among the Jews, and by it shewed that Jerusalem was the Metropolis to all those regions in the Jewish account, and now all that I concluded in reference to that citation, was, that Antioch was in the number, and then the appeale which Antioch made to the Council at Jerusalem (and not the testimony of Philo) was the argument on which I inferr'd the conclusion, that the Church of Antioch was now subordinate to the Church or Council at Jerusalem (which if it were, must be by the Apostles' institution) as all Syria in Philo was to the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem.

21. To which I shall now farther adde: If it were not so, why did the Church send up Paul and Barnabas there? Why did not Paul, who planted Christianity there, finally determine the controversie? Why did the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or Elders, whoever they were (the Bishops of Judaea, I suppose, but it will be much more strange, if they were but the Presbyters of Jerusalem) joyne with the Apostles in making decrees, whereby those of Antioch, and all through Syria should be bound, if all this while the Church of Jerusalem were not their Metropolis, and so had no manner of power over them?

22. As to that which he says, that the Holy Ghost, (Acts 15:2) acquaints us with the reasons of referring this controversie to a determination at Jerusalem, so that he has no need of this (as he will style it) Metropolitical figment, to informe him in it. I confesse I cannot reach him in it, for all that that verse informes us, is, that upon occasion of that dispute between Paul and Barnabas on the one side, and the Judaizers that came from Judaea, on the other side, the Church determined to send up to Jerusalem about this question. This only informes us of the occasion of referring the question, whereon there was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], no small dispute, such, as it seems, they could not so convincingly decide within themselves, but this renders no account, why they sent and referr'd it to Jerusalem peculiarly, and not to any other Church, unlesse we here suppose, as I do, that Jerusalem was lookt upon as their Mother Church.

23. What reason it is which the Prefacer findes in that second verse, or by what medium it comes to have the force of a reason, he is not here pleased to communicate, but only says, the Holy Ghost has there acquainted us with the reason. But in the next page he is more liberall, gives us the reasons of their sending to Jerusalem, partly because of the authority of the Apostles (which were there) in all the Churches, wherein those, who contended with Paul, would be compell'd to acquiesce; partly because those Judaizing Teachers pretended the commission of the Apostles for their doctrine.

24. As for the first of these, I suppose that, taken alone, cannot be the reason, because there being but two Apostles there at that time, Peter and John, 1. there might be so many in some other City. 2. Paul and Barnabas being before this separated by God's command to the Apostolick Office, were in this respect of equal authority with them, and so in this sence the words of Saint Paul have truth, in relation to them (Galatians 2:6) [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], they added nothing to me. 3. The reference is made (Acts 15:2) not to the Apostles alone, but to the Apostles and Elders, that is, the whole Council at Jerusalem at this time. 4. The cause of the reference was not only the contention of those who came out of Judaea, but the Antiochian Christians being taught, that is, seduced by them, c. 15. 1. and accordingly the Decree respected them peculiarly. And so this first reason is of no force.

25. For the second; 'tis true indeed, and 'tis affirm'd ver. 1. that certain men, which came down from Jerusalem, taught the brethren, and said, except you be circumcised, you cannot be saved, and that may seem to be set down as the reason of their making this reference to Jerusalem, because the men came from Judaea, which made it fit to inquire whether the Apostles and Council there were of these men's opinions: But then even this will very little advance his, or prejudice our pretensions: For this goes upon a ground which will be useful, not disadvantageous to me, namely, that if these certain men, which came from Judaea, had been truly sent, or commissionated by the Church of Jerusalem, then this would have been of some force at Antioch (which it could not be, if Antioch were perfectly Independent from Jerusalem) and accordingly in the Epistle from the Council, ver. 24. we have these words; For as much as we have heard, that certain, which went out from us, have troubled you, &c. to whom we gave no such commandment or commission (so [in non-Latin alphabet] literally signifies) It seemed good to us, &c.

26. Where it is apparent that any such former commission being disclaim'd, now they send their express decree, not their bare counsel, or advice, or assistance, which the Prefacer would allow, but, I say, a [in non-Latin alphabet], a conciliarie, dogmatical definition, by which, as it appears by the consequents, all were deemed to be obliged, which were within the circuit, of which Jerusalem in the Jewish account was the Metropolis. And so still, this reason, if any such be discernible (Acts 15:2), confirms my assertion instead of invalidating it.

27. That which next follows in the Prefacer, as the sum of my argument, is very far from being what he says it is, either my argument, or the sum of it: My argument it is not, being quite a distant thing, a recapitulation of the whole story of Saint Paul from his conversion to his coming this time to Jerusalem from Antioch, whereas I collected nothing from any part of the whole story, but only from this particular, the reference from Antioch to Jerusalem. And then what is so much larger than the particulars diffusively taken, is sure very unlikely to be the sum of them. And yet 'tis a little strange, that that which is so over large a recitation, should choose to omit the one thing, whereon the whole force of my argument lies, that is, either the reference made to Jerusalem from Antioch, to infer the dependence and subordination of Antioch to Jerusalem, or the style of the Epistle from the Council, taking in Syria and Cilicia, as well as Antioch, when the reference had been made, and the Messengers sent from Antioch peculiarly.

28. And when he says, that for the appeasing of the difference it was determined, that the case should be resolved by the Apostles, that sure is unduly suggested; for c. 15. 2. the reference is not made either to the Apostles indefinitely, wherever they were, or to the Apostles that were at Jerusalem at that time, and to none but such, but in express words, to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders, comprehending under the word Apostles, James the Bishop of Jerusalem, which was none of the twelve, and yet pronounces the decree, [in non-Latin alphabet], I judge, or, my sentence is, v. 19. and by the word Elders, as I suppose, all the Bishops of Judaea, sitting in Council with him: And so still this is to the Church of Jerusalem, as the Metropolis of Judaea, and in an eminent manner, of Syria also, and not only to the Apostles alone, or peculiarly to be resolved by them.

29. The Prefacer here in his haste says, that Paul goes with the decrees to the Churches in Pamphylia, Pisidia, and by name Iconium, citing c. 16. 1, 2, 3, 4. and all the Churches which he had gathered through Asia. Whereas 1. there is no mention of Pisidia, or Pamphylia in those verses (nor since, c. 14. 24. for what is said of Mark's departing from them from Pamphylia, c. 15. 38. belongs to the former story) nor of any City but of Derbe and Lystra, which are known to be in Lycaonia. Secondly; That there is no mention of their passing through Iconium, nor of the very name of the City, but once incidentally, that Timothy was well reported of by the brethren that were at Iconium, ver. 2. Thirdly; That for Asia, the Text says expressly, ver. 6. that they were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, and that therefore when they had gone through Phrygia and Galatia, they came to Mysia, &c. So that he could not well have multiplied more mistakes in so few words, and all to make up his hypothesis, that the Decree of Jerusalem had no more reference to Antioch, and the regions, whereof that was the Metropolis, than to all those other Churches, which yet if it be extended no farther than to Asia itself, will by Philo's words be interpretable of the Province subordinate to Jerusalem.

30. What remains to this head, is made up of contumely and reproach of my audaciousness, with reflection only upon a supposition of mine, that after this time the Churches were small, and thin, and few in number, and so that of Philippi was seven years after this, which is designed as a prejudice to my hypothesis concerning Metropolitan Churches so early. But to the former of these, the reproaches, I have nothing to return but my thanks; to the latter I have answered formerly, that the smallness of the number of Christians nothing hinders the dependence of one Church upon another. See Vindic. to Lond. Minist. chap. 1. sect. 16. numb. 14. And so much for the evidence out of the Acts.

31. Next he comes to my proof out of Ignatius, who, say I, being Bishop of Antioch does yet in the Epistle to the Romans call himself Pastor of the Church of Syria. The words wherein he so styles himself, he sets down in the Greek, and instead of translating them (as they should be translated) Remember in your prayers the Church of Syria, which in stead of me has Christ for their Pastor (namely, now that he was carried from them to his Martyrdom) he takes advantage of the Reader's unskilfulness in that language, and forms my proof into a ridiculous argument, Because he recommends to them that particular Church in Syria, which by his imprisonment was deprived of its Pastor, therefore without doubt he was a Metropolitical Bishop; and then is very pleasant with his Tityre t[…] pat[…]——.

But would not a little sadness and justice have done better, and then it had been most clear that Ignatius his saying, that Christ was now their Pastor instead of him, must necessarily imply that he was formerly their Pastor, and whose Pastor was he? Expressly [in non-Latin alphabet], the Pastor of the Church in Syria; where it is evident, that the whole Church in Syria, not that particular Church only of Antioch, is by him supposed to be under his pastoral care, the same thing being before in the same Epistle expressed in words no way liable to misunderstanding, [in non-Latin alphabet], God has vouchsafed or dignified the Bishop of Syria, calling himself Bishop of Syria, and so not of Antioch only. This has been formerly cleared against all exception, and need not be here farther repeated.

There remains the testimony of the Author of the Epistle to the Antiochians, which I vouched not as the genuine writing of Ignatius, but only as an ancient writer according to the genuine in this matter. Hence I am cried out on as forsaken of all fair and honest means, and like Saul trying the Witch of Endor, &c. But this is but ordinary style, a flourish of his rhetoric, and need not stay us to consider it; that which follows is more to the purpose, that I make this counterfeit speak as if Syria were in Antioch, not Antioch in Syria, and here asks, What other sense can be made of the words as by me transcribed, [in non-Latin alphabet], to the Church of God dwelling in Syria, which is in Antioch, and then triumphs in this discovery.

But certainly the Witch was not so contrary to a wise woman, the counterfeit author so perfect a changeling, as here he is set out to be. Certainly the Greek, as transcribed by me, lies thus in the construction, [in non-Latin alphabet], to the Church of God which is at Antioch, with this farther denomination added to it, [in non-Latin alphabet], adjacent, or lying together in Syria, or allowing them the same position in English, which they have in Greek, To the Church of God lying together in Syria, the Church, or, that which is at Antioch; but taking all the words together (of which I there only gave the abstract) to the Church pitied by God, chosen by Christ, lying together in Syria, which first received the surname of Christian, the Church which is at Antioch—And so he may discern it possible to make sense of these words, a very little skill in that language being sufficient to enable one to join [in non-Latin alphabet] with [in non-Latin alphabet], the not very remote, as well as with [in non-Latin alphabet], the immediate antecedent. And so this leaves it clear as the day, 1. That Antioch was believed by that Author to be in Syria (not Syria in Antioch) and 2. That Syria was the [in non-Latin alphabet], or province belonging to Antioch the Metropolis, and that is a proof, as far as his authority will bear, that the Apostles instituted Metropolitans, and so of the very thing in earnest, [in non-Latin alphabet] which was to be demonstrated.

And if this authority were not so great as the former of the true Ignatius had been, yet, first, he was an ancient writer, and so acknowledged; and, secondly, one that imitated ancient style, and calls himself Ignatius, [in non-Latin alphabet], the known title of Ignatius, by which he was condemned by Trajane, and so, though he feigned a person, yet did it decently, and so testifies his opinion that this was the style of Ignatius's days, or else would not have discovered himself by using it. Thirdly, his testimony added to Ignatius's, and in concord with it, will not (certainly) take off the force from Ignatius's. And fourthly, if this be finally reprobated, there be several more behind of Scripture and the Ancients concerning Gortyna in Crete, and seven Metropolitical Churches in Asia, and a reference to the Archbishop of Armagh's discourse on that subject, and passages collected out of the Canons of the Ancient Universal Church, and no one word offered to be replied to all this, which makes it very impertinent to go about farther to confirm this assertion, which else I might do, and for brevity's sake refer the Reader to Frigevillaeus Gautius, Par. 1. c. 4. the subject of which Chapter is, Primates esse jure Divino, That Primates are by Divine right.

Sect. 7.

[in non-Latin alphabet]. Casaubon's censure of that phrase.

Numb. 1. Next he comes to examine Sect. 11. and that one small testimony from the inscription of Ignatius's Epistle to the Romans. Before I proceed to which, I shall confess to the Prefacer, that he has missed an opportunity of great rejoicing: For the truth is, in the end of sect. 10. there lay a passage, wherein though I affirmed not, but only past my conjecture (crediderim, &c.) yet I now, by a last reading over of Ignatius's Epistles, discern myself to have mistaken. For in the Epistle to the Magnesians, [in non-Latin alphabet] the Ephesians from Smyrna, are not, as I conceived it possible, the Smyrnaeans called Ephesians, because Ephesus was the prime Metropolis, but the Ephesians, which together with some of the Church of Smyrna, were sent with him from Smyrna, such as Burrhus mentioned in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, who appears to be a Deacon of the Church of Ephesus in the Epistle to them, and yet is said to be sent with him by the Smyrnaeans, [in non-Latin alphabet], with other of the Ephesians also. This I desire the Reader now to correct in the Dissertations, by blotting out that last part of Sect. 10. which concerns that matter.

I come now to his view of the testimony from the Epistle to the Romans, and it is set down in these words.

But to make all sure, the [illegible] will not so give over, but Sect. 11. he adds, that the Epigraph of the Epistle to the Romans grants him the whole case, that is, [in non-Latin alphabet], ex qua (says he) Ecclesiae Romanae ejusque Episcopo suo [illegible] Ecclesiis omnibus in urbe [illegible] regione, aut provincia Roma [illegible] contentis, praefecto compare vide [illegible].

Although I have spent some time in the consideration of mens conjectures of those suburbicarian Churches, that (as is pretended) are here pointed to, and the rise of the Bishop of Romes jurisdiction over those Churches, in a correspondencie to the civill government of the Prefect of the City, yet so great a Critick in the Greek tongue as Casaubon Exerc. 16. ad Ann. 150. having professed that expression, [in non-Latin alphabet], to be barbarous, and unintelligible, I shall not contest about it. For the presidency mentioned of the Church in, or at Rome, that it was a presidency of jurisdiction, and not only in eminence of faith and holiness that is intended, the Doctor thinks it not incumbent on him to prove: those with whom he has to do are of another mind; although by this time some alteration might be attempted; yes, there was as elsewhere shall be showed: And so much for Ignatius his Archiepiscopate.

4. This testimony it seems must be thrown off upon the one score of Isaac Casaubon's censure, that the expression was barbarous and unintelligible: I must therefore examine his words, which I find Exerc. 16. sect. 150. though not ad Ann. 150. that whole book of Exercitations against Baronius extending no farther than the Life of Christ.

5. Casaubon's words are these (speaking of Bellarmine's collection of the Roman domination from there) Rogandi sunt ut barbaram locutionem prius nobis explicent, quam ullum ex iis verbis argumentum ducant, quae ne ipsi quidem intelligant. They that endeavour to draw these words to this purpose, are to be entreated first to explain to us a barbarous expression, before they draw any argument from those words, which they themselves do not indeed understand. Here it is true that Casaubon says of [in non-Latin alphabet], that it is barbara locutio, but for the unintelligible, which the Prefacer adds, and which seems to be expressed in these words also, it is possible it may be a mistake. Isaac Casaubone conceived himself to have observed by many indications, that Cardinal Bellarmine understood no Greek; he calls him a little before, hominem Graecarum literarum prorsus [in non-Latin alphabet], a man utterly unskilled in the Greek learning; adding, that all his works, especially that which he last wrote, demonstrate it. And why may not the [ne ipsi quidem intelligunt] be thus meant by him, that Bellarmine was very unfit to make collections out of a Greek, which 'twas certain he did not understand. I am sure he had before said of him expressly, concerning the writings of Dionysius Areopagita, Est quidem ridicula plane res — It is a very ridiculous thing for one that has no Greek to offer to judge of a Greek Author. Which being granted of that Cardinal, I should yet well have hoped, that the Prefacer, who has so much Greek in this Preface, and very little of it translated, might himself have been able to understand such plain words (for, of the words it is that Casaubone speaks, not of the full importance of them) [in non-Latin alphabet], which presides in the place of the region of the Romans.

6. But then, secondly, there will be little reason to doubt what the full sense also of these words is: for without disputing what Casaubone says, that the word [in non-Latin alphabet] is not proper or vulgar style, but in some respect barbarous, I shall yet suppose it put by Ignatius (being joined with [in non-Latin alphabet], presidence) for the Latin sedes, seat, or see, which [[in non-Latin alphabet], place] will, without any forcing, signify, as when the Gallican Church in their Epistle to Eleutherius, says of Irenaeus Archbishop of Lyons, [in non-Latin alphabet], If we knew that place would purchase righteousness to any, the meaning is, if his being Bishop of so eminent a City and Province would commend him — (and accordingly Peter Halleix would here have it read [in non-Latin alphabet], throne, or seat, but has no Manuscript to favor his conjecture) No, if we shall observe the ancient Latin forms, we shall have no reason farther to deem [in non-Latin alphabet] barbarous, than as it directly answers to the Latin usage of locus, place, and that sure may be allowed Ignatius in an Epistle to the Romans: for in the second Epistle of Anacletus to the Bishops of Italy, we have these words, In capite Provinciarum, ipsis quoque in civitatibus vel locis nostris Patriarchias vel Primates, &c. In the head of Provinces, and in our Cities or places, Patriarchs, or Primates were constituted. The authority of that Epistle may sure be sufficient to manifest the use of a word, and then our City, and our place is all one, and that properly of a chief City or Metropolis, such as here Rome is contested to be. And then the sense will be as plain as the words intelligible, that the Church, to which that Epistle was addressed, was the presiding Church in the place, or seat of the region of the Romans, that is, in the chief place, or seat, or City of that region, commonly called the suburbicarian region. And thus has Jacobus Gottfredus, a learned Lawyer, and Critick expressed himself to understand it, meaning by the suburbicarian region, all that in the civil notitiae was under the administration of the Prefect of the City of Rome, answerable to which circuit was the Primitive Province of the Roman Bishop. And here being nothing offered against it, I have no occasion to give farther answer: for as to that of jurisdiction, what degree of that belonged to the Primate in every Province, over and above that which belonged to a Bishop of an ordinary City and territory, that has oft been spoken to already, and need not be again repeated or enlarged on.

7. In the close he is pleased to add, that by this time (that is, in Ignatius's time, who suffered in Trajan's time, and survived Saint John very little) some alteration was attempted, and if that were so meant by him, as to belong to the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome over other Churches, which the discourse is upon, this truly might pass for pretty ancient, being scarce distinguishable from Apostolical, and so if what was attempted, were attained also, 'twill be very like the yielding that, which I contended from that testimony.

Sect. 8.

Alexandria a Patriarchate instituted by Saint Mark. This proved and vindicated. The Essens in Alexandria, Christians, Bishops among them.

Num. 1. In the next, and last place, he will pass his judgement on the evidence drawn from the story of the Church of Alexandria, thus.

2. The example of Alexandria is urged in the next place in these words, id[illegible] de [illegible], de qua Eusebius, Mar[illegible] Ecclesias (in plurali) primum in Alexandriá instituisse. Ha[illegible] omnes ab eo sub nomine [illegible] administrandas sus[illegible]episse Anianum, Neronis anno octavo idem Eusebius affi[illegible]t, quibus pat[illegible]t primariam Alexandriae & Patriarchalem Cathed[illegible]m fi[illegible]sse, ad quam reliquae Provinciae ill[illegible]us Ecclesiae à Marco plantatae, ut [illegible] Met op[illegible]tica[illegible], suam pertinebant; doubtless. For 1. There is not any passage in any ancient author more clearly discovering the uncertainty of many things in Antiquity than this pointed to by the Doctor in Eusebius: F[illegible], the sending of Mark the Evangelist into Aegypt, and his preaching there at Alexandria, what he had written in the Gospel, is but a report: Men said so, but what ground they had for their saying so, he relates not. And yet we know what a foundation of many assertions, by following writers, his rumor or report is made to be. 2. In the very next words, the author affirms, and insists long upon it in the next chapter, that Philo's book [illegible] was written concerning the Christians converted by Mark's preaching at Alexandria, when it is notoriously known, that it treateth of the Essens, a sect among the Jews, among whose observances many things were vain, superstitious, and foolish; unworthy to be once applauded as the practice of any Christian in those days; that Philo, as far as can be gathered, living, and dying in the Jewish religion, having been employed by them with an apology to Rome in the days of Caligula. But 3. suppose that Mark were at Alexandria, and preached the Gospel there, which is not improbable, and raised many churches in that great and populous city of Jews and Gentiles, and that as an Evangelist the care of those churches was upon him in a peculiar manner; yes, and add farther, that after his death, as Hierome assures us, the elders and presbyters of those churches chose out one among themselves to preside in their convocations and meetings. I, I say all this be supposed, what will ensue? Why then it is manifest that there was fixed at Alexandria a Patriarchal chair, and a Metropolitical church, according to the appointment of Jesus Christ by his Apostles, Si hon non sit probationum satis, nescio quid sit satis. If some few congregations live together in love and communion, and the fellowship of the Gospel in a city, he is stark blind that sees not that to be an Archbishop's See. The reason is as clear as his in the Comedy, for the freedom of his wife; Sy Utinam Phrygiam exteram meam ità mecum videam liberan. Dem. Optima[illegible] muliere[illegible] quidem. Et quidem nepoti tuo, hujus fili[illegible], hodie primam mammam ded. haec. Dem. Hercle, vero, s[illegible]ò, siquidem priorem dedit, ba d[illegible]dubium qua[illegible] emi[illegible] Aequum s[illegible]t. M[illegible] Ob ea[illegible] rem? Dem. Ob [illegible]am. And there is an end of the contest. The Doctor indeed has sundry other sections added to these foregoing, which as they concern times more remote from those who first received the Apostolical institutions, so I must ingeniously profess that I cannot see any thing whereon to fasten a suspicion of a proof, so bare as to call it into examination, and therefore I shall absolve the reader from the penalty of this digression.

3. It is most true that I have deduced the original of metropolitans from the first plantation of the faith in Alexandria, the prime city of Aegypt, and having before spoken many things of it, I begin here with a reference to what had there been said. And for the clearing of it, it is not amiss that I give the reader a brief view of all.

4. They that write the history of that church, and are thought to write it least favourably to bishops, do yet affirm of the records of that church, that Saint Mark founded [illegible], and left Ananias, or Anianus Patriarch there. Of this Eusebius thus speaks, [illegible], that Mark first erected churches in Alexandria, [illegible] Anianus received and ruled, under that title [illegible] the province of Alexandria, adding that there was such a multitude of them, which upon Saint Mark's first onset received the Christian faith, [illegible] to it [illegible], by most philosophical, or pious excellent manner of living, that Philo Judaeus, who lived at that time, [illegible] to write a book to describe their whole manner of [illegible].

5. That the same Saint Mark constituted [illegible] so in Pentapolis, is affirmed by the author of his [illegible], and accordingly the sixth canon of the first [illegible] appoints those churches, as also all [illegible] Lybia, to be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria, affirming that so it was to be by the ancient and primitive custom.

6. Here it is evident, that by Mark himself Alexandria was constituted a Metropolitical Patriarchal See, in the hands and government of a Patriarch, who by being Bishop of that, had the care of the whole province, and many particular churches in it, and accordingly superintended in all of them. And this the second canon of the Council of Constantinople refers to, when it decrees [illegible], that the Bishop of Alexandria shall administer only the affairs of Aegypt, and this in their care [illegible], not to confound the churches, disturb the order anciently observed among them.

7. The only thing that I could foresee possible to be objected to this was the authority of Eutychius the Annalist, affirming that till the time of Demetrius's Patriarchate, there was no other Bishop in Aegypt but only at Alexandria. But to this authority it was sufficient to oppose the far greater of Eusebius, who speaking of that Demetrius, says, that after Julian he undertook, [illegible], the government of the dioceses there, in the plural, which cannot be imagined to be without bishops over them. And the same is in a manner confessed by Eutychius himself, who says Ananias was made Patriarch by Mark, which he could not be, if he had no bishops under him.

8. And indeed Philo describing the manner of these holy men in Aegypt, the Christians of Mark's planting, sets down [illegible], the manner of presidency, or rule of them who performed the ecclesiastical ministries, and says it was made up of deacons and bishops, who were in the uppermost rank placed over all.

And so when Tertullian tells us of Valentinus the heretic, that he had an ambition to be Bishop, it is evident enough that this was in Egypt, for he was of that Country; and 'tis no way probable that it was the Patriarchate of Alexandria, that he sued for, being, as Epiphanius says, [in non-Latin alphabet], of the Athribitick division, which was far distant from Alexandria. To which again belongs what was premised of Mark's planting Churches in Pentapolis, and the Nicene Council giving that Patriarch jurisdiction over them by the [in non-Latin alphabet], the ancient, or original customs, which supposes still that there were such Churches and Bishops originally from Saint Mark.

The matter lying thus, and being indeed in every branch thus laid in the Dissertations (if the Prefacer had been at leisure to attend it) I supposed the way clear to my conclusion. But he is pleased to make his Exceptions. Those he seems to promise shall be more than one, for he begins with [For 1.] but then having branched that again into three parts, and so again beginning [For first] by that time he has gotten through those branches, he has forgotten what was promised to succeed his first general in the division.

As it is, we have enough remaining: for his general exception being the uncertainty of things in this story (from where, by the way, he makes haste to conclude the clear discovery of the uncertainty of many things in Antiquity, so ready he is upon all occasions to express his affections that way, that his conclusion is far wider than his promises) the first that he mentions is, the sending Mark the Evangelist into Egypt, and his preaching at Alexandria what he had written in the Gospel: This, says he, is but a report, Men said so; but what ground they had for saying so, Eusebius relates not.

But 1. is there any thing more acknowledged, and uniformly attested in story, than this of Mark's preaching the Faith (that sure is what he had written in the Gospel) in Egypt, and particularly at Alexandria? Is it doubted of by any Writer? Or is there the least ground of doubting?

Secondly: Eusebius being to set down a fact of former times, which he received by tradition, either from man to man, or in writing, what could he say more, than [Men said so?] And who ever required other grounds of narrations of notorious facts, than the common unquestioned affirmations of men? And so, it seems, it was here: and certainly there is no cause imaginable, why any man should question this, or believe the contrary, and why following Writers should not found assertions on such matters of fact, with so uncontrolled a consent of all Historians (that speak of that Church's plantation) brought down to us, or why we Prelatists should not conclude from there, what even Saint Jerome himself, and Eutychius, the prime favored Authors of the Presbyterians have yielded us premises to conclude.

His next branch of Exceptions is against Eusebius's affirming Philo's book [in non-Latin alphabet] to have been written concerning the Christians converted by Mark's preaching, when, says he, it is notoriously known, that that book treats of the Essenes, and Philo lived and died a Jew. But certainly this no way prejudices Eusebius's affirmation, Essenes we know signify holy pious men, and Christians converted to the Faith by Saint Mark, may doubtless be such, and being Jews by parentage, and by the example and doctrine of Saint Mark brought to a strict ascetic life, why might not Philo describe and commend them as such, being, though a Jew, yet, that we can any way discern, not any professed enemy of Christianity, which also was but Judaism reformed and heightened.

And for any vanities or follies taken notice of in that sect of the Jews, ordinarily called the Essenes, there is no necessity that those should be found among the holy men in Egypt, described by Philo, or if any relics of them should be discerned among them, 'twould be no stranger, than that there should be some of the Pharisaical leaven among other Primitive Christians, as it is evident by Scripture that there was.

It will be very much more difficult for the Prefacer to avoid the force of many passages in that book of Philo, which inclined Eusebius that way, and have had the same force on many others. I shall mention but one, which is already touched on, and belongs to our business in hand, their [in non-Latin alphabet], and the Bishops and Deacons among them, which will not be found in any sect of Jews that were not Christian.

His third branch is made up of Concessions and liberalities (one more than is useful or necessary for me to have granted) and then as if he had repeated the full force of my argument, he laughs at it, and falls into a scene of the comedian, and so concludes in great cheerfulness. And truly I am very glad to find him in so good humor, and although my argument might with ease have been truly and fully repeated [namely, that Saint Mark planting many Churches in Egypt, subjected them all to the Patriarch of Alexandria, therefore here is an example in the Apostles' times of a Metropolitical Church constituted] and although the argument lying thus, it be far from ridiculous, and if it were not conclusive enough, there are many more evidences of the same matter in that Section of the Dissertations, and as there is no word offered to them, so what is objected against this, has appeared to have no force, yet I shall most willingly have the Prefacer excused for all this, and give my plaudit to his exit, upon that one score of the obligation laid upon me, much more than upon the Reader in absolving me from the penalty of this digression.