Contraremonstrant is but the old method of speaking all that is ill of those who differ from our opinions in any thing as the Dutch man in his rage calls his horse an Arminian because he doth not goe as hee would have him And this is all that can soberly be concluded from such suggestions that they are displeased and passionate that thus speak 14. As for the Annotations on Cassander c. and the consequent vindications of himself against Rivet those have with some colour been deemed more favourable toward Popery but yet I suppose will be capable of benigne interpretations if they be read with these few cautions or remembrances 15. 1. That they were designed to shew a way to peace whensoever mens minds on both sides should be piously affected to it Secondly that he did not hope for this temper in this age the humour on both sides being so turgent and extreamly contâ—…ary to it and the controversie debated on both sides by those qui aterna cupiunt esse dissidia saith he who desire to eternize and not compose contentions and therefore makes his appeal to posterity when this paroxisme shall be over Judicet â—qua posteritas ad quam maxime provoco 16. Thirdly That for the chief usurpations of the Paâ—acie he leaves it to Christian Princes to joyn together to vindicate their own rights and reduce the Pope ad Canones to that temper which the antient Canons allow and require of him aâ—d if that will not be done to reform every one within their own dominions 17. Fourthly That what he saith in favour of some Popish doctrines above what some other learned Protestants have said is not so much by way of assertion or justification of them as to shew what reasons they may justly be thought to proceed upon and so not to be so irrational or impious as they are ordinarily accounted and this onely in order to the peace of the Christian world that we may have as much charitie to others and not as high animosities live with all men as sweetly and amicably and peaceably and not as bitterly as is possible accounting the Wars and Seditions and Divisions and Rebellions that are raised and managed upon the account of Religion far greater and more scandalous unchristian evils than are the errors of some Romish doctrines especially as they are maintain'd by the more sober and moderate men among them Cassander Picherel c. 18. Fifthly What he saith in his Discussio of a conjunction of Protestants with those that adhere to the Bishop of Rome is no farther to be extended than his words extend it 1. That there is not any other visible way to the end there mention'd by him of acquiring or preserving universal unity 2. That this is to be done not crudely by returning to them as they are submitting our necks to our former yâ—ke but by taking away at once the division and the causes of it on which side soever adding onely in the third place that the bare Primacie of the Bishop of Rome secundùm Canones such as the antient Canons allow of which hath nothing of supreme universal power or authority in it is none of those causes nor consequently necessary to be excluded in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 citing that as the confession of that excellent person Phil. Melancthon 19. So that in effect that whole speech of his which is so solemnly vouched by Mr. Knot and lookt on so jealously by many of us is no more than this that such a Primacie of the Bishop of Rome as the antient Canons allow'd him were for so glorious an end as is the regaining the peace of Christendome very reasonably to be afforded him nay absolutely necessary to be yielded him whensoever any such Catholick union shall be attempted which as it had been the expresse opinion of Melancthon one of the first and wisest Reformers so it is far from any design of establishing the usurpations of the Papacie or any of their false doctrines attending them but onely designed as an expedient for the restoring the peace of the whole Christian world which every disciple of Christ is so passionately required to contend and pray for 20. So that in a word setting aside the prudential consideration and question as whether it were not a hopelesse designe that Grotius ingaged himself in expressing desires of an universal reconciliation when there was so little hope on either side that the extream parties would remit so much as to meet in the middle point to which also the expressing of his no hopes of it at this time and the making his appeal to more impartial posterity is a satisâ—…orie answer all that this very learned man was guilty of in this matter was but this his passionate desire of the unitie of the Church in the bands of peace and truth and a full dislike of all uncharitable distempers and impioâ—s doctrines whether those which he deemed destructive to the practice of all Christian virtue or which had a particularity of ill inâ—luence toward the undermining of Government and publick peace wheresoever he met with them 21. All which notwithstanding the temper of that learned man was known to be such as rendred him in a special manner a lover and admirer of the frame and moderation observed in our Church of England as it stood shaken but not cast down in his life time desiring earnestly to live himselfe in the Communion of it and to see it copied out by the rest of the world 22. And so much for this large digression which if it be no necessary return to the Prefacer may yet tend to the satisfaction of some others and to the vindicating the memory of that Learned man Sect. 3. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Clemens How many Orders there were in Corinth at the writing this Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Metropolitical Churches at the first Philippi a Metropolis at the first as Canterbury at Augustines first planting the Faith The Institution of Presbyters when by what authority St. Jerome's opinion The use of the word Presbyters in Scripture The Bishops task Num. 1. THE Prefacer now proceeds to take notice of a second answer of mine to the objection from the plurality of the Elders in Clement and this yields him also matter for many questions and great appearance of triumph It is managed in these words 2. But the Doctor hath yet another answer to this multiplication of Elders and he mention of them with Deacons with the eminent identity that is between them and Bishops through the whole Epistle the same persons being unquestionably intended in respect of the same office by both these appelations Now this second answer is founded up on the supposition of the former a goodly foundation namely that the Epistle under consideration was written and sent not to the Church of Corinth onely but to all the Churches of Achaia of which Corinth was the Metropolitane Now this second answer is that the
the Epistle to the Magnesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 mention'd in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans who appeares 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 2. I come now to his view of the Testimony from the Epistle to the Romanes and it is set downe in these words 3. But to make all suâ—e thâ— lâ—…ctor will noâ— so give â—ver but Sect. 11. hee addes that â—he Epigraph of the Epistle to the Romans gâ—ants him the whole case â—hat is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex qua saith he Eâ—â—lisiae Romanae ejusque Episcopo suoâ—… Eâ—…iis omnibuâ— in urâ—…riâ— regione aut pâ—oviâ—câ—â Romaâ— a contâ—ntiâ— pâ—aefeâ—… compâ—…e vide â—uâ— Although I havâ— spent some time in the consideration of mens conjectures oâ— those subâ— bicarian Churches that as is pâ—…nded 〈◊〉 here pointed to and the rise of the Bishop of Romes juâ—â—sdiction â—ver those Churches in a correspondencie to the civill Government of the Prefect oâ— the City yet sâ— great a Câ—itick in the Greek â—ongue as Casaâ—â—oâ— Exâ—…c â—6 ad Ann. 150. having professed that expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to â—e barbarous and uâ—inteâ—…gâ—… I shall not coâ—… about it For the presidency me â—…ioned of the Church iâ— or at Rome that it was a presidency of juâ—isdiction and not onely in eminence of Fâ—…h and Holynesse that is in ended â—he Doctor thinks it not incumbent on him to prove Those with whom he hath to â—o are of another mind altâ—ough by this time some a teraâ—… mign be attempted yea â—here was as elâ—where shall be shewed And so much foâ— Ignatiusâ—is â—is Archieâ—…e 4. This Testimony it seemes must be throwne off upon the one score of Casaubon's Censure that the expression was barbâ—rous and unintelligible I must therfore 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. Casaâ—bon's words are these speaking of Bellarmine's collection of the Roman domination from thence 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 intreated first to explain to u a barbarous expression before they draw any argument from those words which they themselves dâ—e not indeed understand Here it 〈◊〉 true thâ—t Casaubâ—n saith of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is barbara locutio but for the unâ—… which the Prefacer addes and which seems to be exprâ—…n these words also it is possible it may be a mistakâ— Isaâ—c 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man utterly unskill'd in the Greek learning adding that all his works especially that which hee last wrote demonstrate it And why may not the ne ipsi quidem intelligunt be thus meant by him that Bellarmine was very unsit to make collections out of a Greâ—… which 't was certain he did not understand 〈…〉 I am sure he had before said of him expresly concerning the writings of Dionysius Areopagita Est quidem ridicula plane res It is a very ridiculous thing for one that hath nâ— Greek to â—ffer to judâ—e of a Greek Author Which being granted of that Cardinal I should yet well have hoped that the Prefacer who hath so much Greek in this Preface and very little of it translated might himselfe have been able to understand such plaine words for of the words it is that Casaubone speaks not of the full importance of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 saith that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not proper oâ— vulgar style but in some respect barbarous I shall yet suppose it put by Ignatius being joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presidence for the Latine sedes seat or see which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place will without any forcing signifie as when the Gallican Church in their Epistle to Eleutherius saith of Iraeneus Archbishop of Lyons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we knew that place would purchase righteousnesse 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throne or seat but hath no Manuscriptâ—o â—o favour his conjecture Nay if we shall observe the antient Latine forms we shall have no reason farther to deem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barbarous than as it directly answers to the Latine usage of locus place and that sure may be allow'd 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 plaine as the words intelligible that the Church to which that Epistle was addrest was the presiding Church in the place or seat of the region of the Romans i. e in the chief place or seat or City of that Region commonly called the suburbicarian Region And thus hath Jacobuâ— Gâ—ttâ—fredâ—… a learned Lawyer and Critick exprest himself to understand it meaning by the suburbicarian region all that in the civile notâ—tiae 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 offer'd 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 Citie and territory that hath oft been spoken to already and need not be again
to that of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governour of the Church of every City must keep conformity to the ruler of those that are in the City Contr. Cels l. 3. but also in hypothesi that so it was particularly in this of Corinth 26. To which purpose it were easie to multiply testimonies which put it out of question that Corinth was a Metropolitical Church and so is recorded to be in all the Notitiae that are extant But I shall content my selfe with one testimony that of Saint Chrysostome who asketh this question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why writing to the Metropolis he writes i. e. expresses himselfe to write to all by or through that whereas in other Epistles he doth not doe so for writing to the Thessalonians he no where addresseth it to the Macedonians also and writing to the Ephesians in like manner he comprehendeth not all Asia and the Epistle to the Romans was not addrest also to the inhabitants of Italy but here this he doth and in the Epistle to the Galatians for there also he makes his addresse not to one or two or three Cities but to all every where dispersed saying Paul an Apostle to the churches of Galatia where as Corinth at the time when Saint Paul wrote that Epistle is by him supposed to be a Metropolis and so Thessalonica and Ephesus and Rome so both in the Epistles to the Corinthians and in that to the Galatians there were more Cities than one to whom they were addrest And then I suppose there is a full testimony to all and more than I undertook to prove from it At the present it sufficeth Corinth saith he was a Metropolis and that in the Ecclesiastick notion when Saint Paul wrote to it 27. What the Prefacer farther addes is for the examining my next proofe or evidence that Clement's Epistle belonged to the Churches of Achaia and not to Corinth onely because the Epistles of Saint Paul appear to have done so And besides the scoffs and the demurer accusation about Grotius which shall anon be considered all that he replyes is 1. That though St. Pauls being expresly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directed to the Churches of Aâ—haia cannot be confined to the Church of Corinth yet Clement directing his Epistle to the Church of orinth onely without mention or insinuation of any intention to extend it to any other handling in it the peculiar concernment of that Church and a difference about one or two persons therein cannot be supposed to be written thus to the Churches of all Achaia Secondly That in his opinion I might more probably have adhered to a former conjecture of mine concerning two different Churches with distinct Officers in the same City though this would not suffice neither 28. To these I reply 1. That oâ— Paul's onely one the second is expresly directed to all the Churches of Achaia and yet the former is without that expresse direction already sufficiently cleared and not here denied to belong to the same Churches and the same reasons hold for this of Clemens which was written to them to whom â—aul wrote and not to the Church of Corinth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church ad acent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the territorie that belonged to it And therefore secondly That this is more than an insinuation of an intention to extendâ—t â—t to those other Churches Thirâ—ly That the concernments of the Epistle are no way restrained to the particular Church of Corinth but by common to the other Churches of Achaia Fourthly that the difference or rather sedition doth no way appeare to be peculiar to the Church of that one City The one or two if they signifie strictly no greater a number than two might yet as probably be in any one or two other Cities of Greece as in that one of Corinth And there is no probability of reason to conclude that the Errors about the Resurrection c. had spread no farther than that one City 29. Lastly for his opinion that I might more probably have adhered to my former conjecture concerning the two different Assemblies of of Jewish and Gentile Christians in one citie All that I need say is that though I still adhere to that conjecture as far as ever and no way feare what he threatens that any use which I shall repent of will or ever can be made of this concession yet I never thought fit to apply it to this matter both because here is no need of such aids and I may have leave to think the Prefacer would not have suggested it to me if there had and that if he had had any way to wrest the former hold from me he would not thus have attempted it by diversion and because as I am not sure that there ever were two such distinct Coetus at Corinth under distinct Bishops onely from the authority of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth that there were two parts of their first plantation one from Paul another from â—eter so if there ever were yet they might before this time of Clement's writing be made up into one body as I know the Jewish and Gentile Church at Rome that had been under different Governours were now united under Clement 30. And therefore to conclude this matter I desire every man may be allowed liberty to use his own arguments and answers and to take his owne time to produce and apply them and that till what hath been said be refuted I may be permitted to think that the whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Elders in this Epistle of â—lement are the singular Governors of the severall cities of Achaia 31. What he saith by the by of Act. 20. 8. and Act. 14. 23. that those two places must be excepted from the universall negative that there were never more Bishops than one in a city he cannot but know how little force it hath against me who have manifestâ—d out of Irenaeus that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Bishops â—ct 20. were the Bishops of Asia not of the one city of Ephesâ—â— and that the Elders ordeined in every Church Act. 14. were the Bishops ordeined at Lystra Iconium and Antioch and not any plurality of Presbyters in one city 32. Having now done with all the three former particulars wherein Ignatius and Clement Episcopacy and Presbyterie were concern'd there remains onely that which is personal to me in relation to Grotius but that consisting of several branches of which it will presently appear how many or rather how few of them have any degree either of weight or of truth in them 33. The first is very light and unconsiderable that in interpreting all in every place 1 Cor 1. 2. Grotius saith the same with me And would not any man believe this assertion of the Prefacer take it on his word and not think it needfull to examine it but resolve it is so much the better and that thereby it
Elders or Presbyters here mention'd were properly those whom he calls Bishops Diocesans men of a third order and rank above Deaâ—ons and Presbyters in the Church Administrations and Government And for those who are properly called Presbyters there were then none in the Church To give colour to this misrable evasion Diss 4. c. 10 11. He discourseth about the government and ordering of Church affairs by Bishops and Deacons In some Churches that were small not yet formed or compleated nor come to perfection at the first planting of them how well this is accommodated to the Church of Corinth which Clement calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which himself would have to be a Metropolitical Church being confessedly great numerous furnished with great and large gifts and abilities is seen with half an eye How ill also this shâ—ft is accommodated to help in the case for whose service it was first invented is no lesse evident It was to save the sword of Phil. 1. 1. from the throat of Episcopacie he contendeth for That Epistle is directed to the Saints or Church at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Two things doe here trouble our Doctor 1. The mention of more Bishops than one at Philippi 2. The knitting together of Bishops and Deacons as the onely two orders in the Church bringing downâ—… Episcopacie one degree at least from that height whereto he would exalt it For the first of these he tells you that Philippi was the Metropolitane Church of the Province of Macedonia that the rest of the Churches which had every one their severall Bishops Diocesan we must suppose were all comprised in the mentioning of Philippi so that though the Epistle be preciselyâ—… directed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Bishops that were with them must be supposed to be the Bishops of the whole Province of Macedonia because the Church of Philippi was the Metropolitane The whole Countrey must have been supposed to be converted and who that knowes any thing of Antiquity will dispute that and so divided with Diocesans as England of late was the Arch-Bishops so being at Philippi but how came it then to pâ—sse that here is mention made of Bishops and Deacons onely without any word of a third order or ranke of men distinct from them called Presbyters or Elders To this he answers secondly that when the Church was first planted before any great number were converted or any sit to be made Presbyters there was onely those two orders instituted Bishops and Deacons and so that this Church of Philippi seems to have been a Metropoliticall Infant The truth is if ever the Doctor be put upon reconciling the contradictions of his answers one to another not onely in this but almost in every particular he deals withall an intanglemen which he is throwne into by his bold and groundlesse conjectures he will finde it to be as endlesse as fruitlesse but it is not my present businesse to interpose in his quarrells either with himselfe or Presbyterie As to the matter under consideration I desire onely to be resolved in these few Queries 1. If there were in the time of Clement no Presbyters in the Churches not in so great and flâ—urishing a Church as that of Corinth and if all the places in Scripture where there is mention of Elders doe precisely inten Bishops in a distinction from them who are Deacons and not Bishops also as he asserts when by whom by what Authority were Elders who are only so inferiour to Bishops peculiarly so termed instituted and appointed in the Churches And how comes it passe that there is such expresse mention made of the office of Deacons and the continuance of it none at all of Elders who are acknowledged to be superiour to them and on whose shoulders in all their own Churches lies the great weight and burthen of all Ecclesiasticall administration As we say of their Bishops so shall we of any Presbyter not instituted and appointed by the authority of Jesus Christ in the Church let them goe to the place from whence they came 2. I desire the Doctor to informe me in what sense he would have me to understand him Diss 2. cap. 20 21 22. Where he disputes that these words of Hicrome Antequam â—ludia in Religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Cepbae communi Presbyterorum consensu Ecclesia 〈…〉 be understood of the times of the Apostles when 〈…〉 Church of Corinth when it seems that neither 〈…〉 such thing as Presbyters in the 〈…〉 we can 〈…〉 As 〈…〉 Presbyters were Bishops properly so 〈…〉 who are they so 〈◊〉 of whom 〈◊〉 〈…〉 to be a 〈…〉 so called To 〈…〉 I 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 in the Scripture we 〈…〉 of Church 〈…〉 This 〈…〉 Doctâ—… is that of 〈…〉 give us 〈…〉 of Christ give us in every Church Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 than we 〈…〉 let those Bishops attend the 〈…〉 over which they â—…ching the 〈◊〉 and administâ—… O 〈…〉 in and to their 〈…〉 And I 〈◊〉 〈…〉 all the Comenders for Presbytery in this Nâ—â—ion and much 〈…〉 the Independents that there shall be a â—end of this quarrel that they will 〈…〉 with the Doctor not any living for the â—…duction of any 〈◊〉 soâ—t of persons though they should be 〈…〉 Presbyters into Church office and Government Onely this I must 〈…〉 this second sort of men 〈…〉 Presbyters than it doth Bishops and that word having been 〈…〉 third 〈…〉 we desire leave of the Dâ—ctor and his 〈…〉 if we also most frequently call them so no wayes declining the other application of Bishops so that it be applyed to signifie the second and not third 〈◊〉 of men But of this 〈◊〉 businesse with the nature conâ—… and frame of the first Churches and the 〈◊〉 mâ—stâ—k 〈…〉 men have be their owne prejudices been ingaged into in this dâ—… of them a 〈…〉 opportunity if God will may 〈◊〉 long be aâ—…ded 3. Here first I shall demand whence it appeares that I accommodated a double answer to the multiplication of Elders in Clemens c. Truly I doe not yet know or remember that I did This certainly was all and this can amount if to any but to one answer that which we have vindicated already that the Elders in the Epistle of Clemens were all the Bishops of Achaia This indeed when it was proposed was more distinctly set down by 4. steps or degrees but then again those are no more two than foure answers 1. that the Epistle was addrest to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to the whole Province Secondly that to make it capable of that title Corinth was knowne to be the Metropolis of Achaia Thirdly that Saint Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians belonged to all the Churches of Achaia not onely to Corinth and so in any probability Clements was to doe also being written to the same and inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore Fourthly that these many Elders were the singular Bishops in the severall Cities
reverenced for their Antiquity but not allowed the power or title of Laws as the body of the Canons is known to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we observe them as Laws saith Justinian and they are thence called Nomocanon and Canon Law 〈…〉 That this is the meaning of the word Apocryphal I shall conclude from the story of the fact for soon after this sentence of that Council of Rome within very few years we know that they were set up and received in that very place where they had been thus lookt on as Apocryphal For Dionysius Exiguus about the year 527. made a collection of Canons ex Graecis exemplaribus Canones Ecclesiasticos composuit quos â—odie usu celeberrimo Ecclesia Romana complectitur out of the Greek copies he composed Ecclesiastical Canons which at this day the Church of Rome embraceth and useth most honourably as Cassiodore his contemporarie and consort saith of him Divin Lect. c. 23. In this collection he set fifty of these in the front under the title of Apostolical Canons prefacing this concerning them In principio Canones qui dicuntur Apostolorum de Graeco transtulimus quibus quia plurimi consensum non praebuere facilem hoc ipsum ignorare vestram noluimus sanctitatem quamvis postea quâ—dam constituta Pontificum ex ipsis Canonibus assumpta esse videantur In the beginning we have translated out of Greek the Canons which are said to be the Apostles to which because very many have been hard to give assent we have thought fit to mention so much to you though afterward some constitutions of Bishops seem to have been taken out of these very Canons Here it is evident 1. that what was a few years since lookt on as Apocryphal is within a while received into their Codex celâ—berrimo usu said Cassiodore at that very time And 2. whilst it was not in the Codex yet Constitutions of the Bishops were taken â—…ut of them which argues to me that they were not to be rejected as to be disliked but onely so as not to be obligatorâ—… any farther than as some new Decrees of the Church should give them their authority So again in Mercator's Collection he prefaceth thus Propter â—orum authoritatem câ—teris concilâ—…s praeposâ—imus Canones qui dicuntur Apostâ—lâ—rum licâ—t a quibusdam Apocrypha dicantur quoniam plures eos recipiunt sancti Patres eorum sententias Synodali authoritate roboraverunt inter Canonicas posuerunt constitutiones In respect of their authority we have before the rest of the Councils past set down the Canons of the Apostles so called though by some they are said to be Apocryphal because more receive them and the holy Fathers have confirmed them by authority of Council and placed them among Canonical Constitution Where the opposition is clear betwixt Apocryphal on one side and confirmed by Councils and placed among Canonical constitutions on the other side 5. One thing onely I can foresee to bee by Mr. Daille or any man objected against this viz. the Censure that Isidore Hispalensis hath past upon the Apostolike Canons in these words which I see are thought by some learned men to refer to that Council at Rome under Gelasius but whether by Mr. Daillé I know not Eodem nec sedes Apostolica recepit nec sancti patres illis assensum praelucerunt pro co quod ab haereticis sub nomine Apostolorum compositi dignoscuntur The Apostolike See received them not and the holy Fathers have not allowed them their assent because they are discerned to be framed by haereticks under the name of the Apostles Here I shall offer my conjecture and submit it to better judgements that Isidore speaks not of the first fifty Canons which were certainly before his time who was a member of the Council of Toledo in Spain An. 633. received into the Romane Codex as hath already appeared nor consequently refers to the Synod under Gelasius which upon other reasons I acknowledge spake even of those fifty but of the whole number of 85 for in those latter 35 it is and not in the first fifty that the Apostles are praetended to be the Authors of them viz. Can. 82. Where they call Philemon's servant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Onesimus and Can. 85. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Acts or Canons of us the Apostles whereas no such thing is so much as intimated in the first fifty For as for those words in the fiftieth Canon which refer to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the sentence of Christ and our constitution by the spirit 't is evident that they are in Turrian's Edition inserted and added to that Canon after the words with which Dionysius Exiguus his old collection and translation ended And so in the former part of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he said not unto us as if the Writers were the Apostles 't is certain that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to us is inserted And accordingly in Balsamon's Text and Comment which I have before me the Canon is intire without either of those insertions To all which I may adde that the matter of all those first fiftie Canons and the very form of words is such as gives not the least occasion to think them composed by haereticks certainly not put under the Apostles names by those haereticks as Isidore affirms of those of which he speaks 6. This is to my understanding the meaning of the Controversie concerning the number and authority of these Canons which were to be accounted Apocryphal and which not and so likewise which Genuine and which not and to this Controversie it is that my insinuation and my words refer and the second Canon being one of those former 50 which though they have been counted Apocryphal in one sense were yet Genuine in another i. e. none of the later addition of 35. which are called by learned men novitii and adulterate I thought I had reason and cannot but still think it to say that that second Canon was semper inter genuinos habitus alwayes accounted genuine i. e. received and acknowledged among the Canons of the Antient Church by those who controverted and rejected the other 35. 7. Thus much may perhaps suffice to remove the two mistakes which by some indications I conceive to have produced this Animadversion For 1. when in the words immediately precedent he saith they are disavowed and disclaimed by the most learned Papists as Apocryphal this I suppose must be his meaning either that by that Synod at Rome under Pope Gelasius they were defined to be Apocryphal and then as there is truth in that so I may be permitted to have told him what I conceive meant by Apocryphal in that place those that were not yet received into their Codex or else that the rest besides the first 50 are disclaimed by the most learned Papists so I learn from my Lord Primate that they are by Humbert in his Answer to Nicetas
one of the two following heads of discourse and therefore I am now to hasten to them Onely to be sâ—re to have neglected nothing that can expect to be considered in the least It is here presently visible 1. how causelesly Ignatius is quarrell'd with for mentioning the Orders of the Church upon no occasion when the designe of his Epistles being to preserve truth and peace among the Churches he had no better and more compendious way to doe it than by requiring their subjection to their Governors and thereupon he so constantly inculcates it and this is a very important occasion and that which alwayes makes it very seasonable and pertinent whensoever it is done by him 6. Secondly How fallaciously the discourse proceeds which supposeth Clemens to call those Presbyters which ought to signifie as among us the word now signifies collegues and fellow-rulers in the same Church whom before he had called Bishops adding that he plainly asserts Episcopacy to be the office of Presbyters and that their Spirituall Governors were the Presbyters of the Church and a plurality of Presbyters in the same Church whereas all this while he knowes that Clement saith that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons in all Cities and Regions and that these are by us cleared to be singular Bishops and that to prevent contentions they left a list of successors to that singular office in each Church and that these singular Bishops are oft called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders not onely before but after Clemens even by those that appeare and are acknowledged to assert the three Orders and consequently that Clement may well be allowed to style them so in whose time for ought appears there were none of that second order now vulgarly called Presbyters yet erected either at Rome from whence or at Corinth or in all Achaia to which he wrote this Epistle 7. Thirdly How infirme a way of arguing it is to say that Clement doth not in the least intimate any singular person promoted above his fellows and that had there been any such at Corinth it had been impossible he should be thus pass'd by in silence when he knowes that the Apostles constituting Bishops and Deacons and what followes on that account is by us insisted on and confirmed to be more than an intimation of it and when the whole purport of the Epistle is to preserve the authority of the Governors of the severall Churches under that Metropolis whom he knowes we contend and prove to be the singular Bishops and must not forgoe that pretension till it be confuted 8. To proceed to the second head of discourse his asserting the Bishops mentioned in Clemens to be bare Presbyters For this it is certaine that he makes no tender of any other argument or appearance of proofe but onely the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he renders Presbyters in the plural whom therefore he concludes to be many Presbyters in the same Church But 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder signifies Bishop in Scripture in Clemens in Polycarpe in those of the Antients after them that are knowne to assert the singular Bishop above Presbyters in each Church And this having been said and cleared in the Dissert is not in the least attempted to be disproved by him 9. Secondly These many Elders are not all or more than one said or intimated by Clement to be in one City For the Epistle as was shewed in the Dissert is I suppose most certainly may have been addrest by Clement not to the single Church of that one City of Corinth but to the Churches of all Achaia or Greece of which Corinth was the chiefe being the Metropolis 10. That it was not so is barely said but largely proved in that place Dissert 5. cap. 2. first from the title of the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it is on each part the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whole province as of Rome so of Corinth the Region and territory that belonged to either of those Metropoles which in that age was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the adjacent region exprest by Ignatius by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place of the region of the Romans by Polycarpe in the same kind speaking of Philiâ—pi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church adjoyning or belonging to Philippi and by Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province belonging to Corinth of which Dionysius was Bishop or Metropolitan 11. Secondly this was proved by the analogie held between this Epistle of Clemens and the Epistle of Saint Paul inscribed to the Corinthians For I demand was not this Epistle of Clement written to the same Church or Churches to whom Saint Paul's two Epistles had been addressed That it was is more than probable by the Common title and other Characters in the Epistle it selfe incline to it As that he refers them to the Epistles of Saint Paul written to them and that upon the like occasion of divisions and factions so early crept in among them So pag. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take saith he the Epistle of Saint Paul consider what he saith to you in the beginning of his preaching to you certainely it was by inspiration from God that he wrote to you concerning himselfe and Cephas and Apollos because that then ye had partialities and inclinations to one more than to another but that partiality brought lesse sinne unto you Here still it is the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you that before and now were guilty of this sinne of carnality admiration of person faction and now at length sedition and so the same Churches now and then to whom these Epistles on that occasion were addrest and there is no circumstance producible that restrains one more than the other 11. Now of the Epistles of Paul it is evident they were not confined to the one City of Corinth but to all the Churches of Achaia so it is specified of the secondâ— of them 2 Cor. 1. 1. To the Church of God which is at Corinth with all the Saints which are in all Achaâ—a And though this be not expresly said of or in the first Epistle or in this of Clement yet the relation that one hath to the other will conclude it of those also and the phrase which there we find superadded to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all that are called by the name of Christ all Christians in every place and the like forme at the conclusion of this The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with all every where that are called by God hath in all probability the same importance for that being universal and extended beyond Corinth must not yet be interpreted of all Christians in the world for that would make each of these a Catholick Epistle and would conclude the Apostle to have received an Epistle from the Catholick Church to which this returne was made c. 7. 1. and
desire I forthwith payd a due respect and in such manner as I was able gave you a scheme of my thoughts on that Prophecie and then soon after my answer sent to you I received a second Letter from you in which you said That which you have now sent me is the laying down of all the very grounds which I have laid down for the interpreting the Apocalypse and unlesse it be in one little particular the concurrence is exactly the same for the interpretation of the several parts And then you proceeded in that Letter to give mee the summe of every part of the Prophecie which is the exact summe of your interpretation which is published And this second Letter was dated Decemb. 18. 1648. I have thus punctually set down the times because it is very likely that you cannot with so much ease distinguish the times as may clear you perfectly from that calumnie if you think fit to take any notice thereof at all All that I shall adde to this seasonable assistance of my ill memorie is but this that Grotius's Notes were not published till the year 16â—0 And so much above what 〈◊〉 intended in answer to that suggestion 39. The fourth thing is that which is concluded from mine own Apologie as he is pleased to call it Dissert 5. c. 1. sect 24. where I said that I was glad to find by Grotius ' s Annotations on the Revelation read hastily by me after the Dissertations were finisht and transcribed for the Printer that he was of my opinion concerning a Gentile and a Jewish congregation of Christians in the same city How I offended in this or why this should be styled an Apologie or what I should have said in any syllable otherwise than I did I confesse I cannot imagine This onely I know that it was perfect truth what there I said that that whole discourse about the two sorts of Assemblies and Bishops in every branch of it was made before his Annotations either were read by me or publisht that if I had had his authority to have voucht for the whole observation I should most gladly have own'd it and counted it my interest to doe so that I might not be blamed for the singularity of the observation by those who were otherwise minded That as it was I was glad I had his suffrage and accordingly expressed I was so 40. And now truly I am very little concern'd in the gloss which quite contrary to my expectation I find put upon it were it not my duty to avert the suspition of a vice and the ill example consequent to it I should never have disturbed the fly which he tels me this hath let into my pot of ointment The Prefacer should have had my free leave to have said this and much more so long as it was so far from truth against me without my making any word of solemn reply to it As it is I am not ill pleased that I am now at an end of it Sect. 2. A digression concerning some jealousies spread of Hugo Grotius 1. YEt because I will be as little in the debt of that learned man Hugo Grotius as I may and because I have the occasion offer'd which suggests it my duty to make some return of gratitude to so good a friend of mine as I am told he is I shall doe it in a way which seems to me most proper at this time 2. This very pious learned judicious man hath of late among many fallen under a very unhappy fate being most unjustly calumniated sometimes as a Socinian sometimes as a Papist and as if he had learnt to reconcile Contradictories or the most distant extreames sometimes as both of them together 3. For that of his being a Socinian three things are vulgarly made use of to infuse that jealousie into mens minds 1. Some parcels of a Letter of his to Crellius 2. Some relations of what past from him at his death 3. Some passages in his Annotations Of these it may suffice to say briefly that the collection which is made from the first and the whole of the second is perfect calumnie and forgery the third an injustice in the publisher 4. For the first of them having seen above 20. years since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fragments or excerpta of a letter of his to Crellius on occasion of that mans defense of Socinus against his excellent book De satisfactione Christi wherein there were many civilities and commendations of what was any way commendable in the Socinian writings and finding that this was lookt on as an indication of his judgement very favourable to that sect that instead of replying to his confutation he returned nothing but words of kindnesse and esteeme to him and his whole tribe and having then commodity to make a more particular inquirie into the truth of that whole matter I accordingly made use of it and had this account from that lâ—arned man which as well as my memory will afford I will set downe intirely 1. that upon the Survey of Crellius's book against him he found there was but one thing of any weight which seemed to stand in force against him and to exact any reply from him and that was about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vicaria satisfactio one mans laying downe his life for another the innocent to rescue the nocent Secondly that after the publication of his Book De Satisfactione but withall long before Crellius's reply he had taken that one particular into more serious consideration and in his book De Jure Belli ac Pacis set downe his thoughts on that subject more exactly I thinke it was l. 2. c. 21. Thirdly that to that discourse he remitted him being of opinion that he needed not adde any more in relation to that Controversie as it lay betwixt them joyning as appears by the Excerpta many passages of civility and commendations which he thought duâ— to them in one respect their profest desire to advance the practice of vertue and Christian life And this account of this letter gives it a quite different and distant appearance from that which the fragments all of one sort taken alone out of this conjunction had given it 5. For the second concerning some words which are reported variously to have past from him at his death they will be evidenced to be either totally falsified or fouly mistaken and distorted from the true meaning of them by the account given of his sicknesse and last passages by John Quistorpius Doctor of Divinity and Pastor of the chiefe Church in Rostâ—ch who assisted him in his last tryall His Letter being already in Print in Causabone's little Booke intituled as I remember De Vsu verborum I must not here set it downe but referre the Reader to that view of it where he will finde no other words of his but these when the Doctor wished he had been to converse with him in health his answer was it a Deo visum est thus God hath pleased
the Church at Corinth and through Achaia might be numerous both Paul and Peter having labour'd there succesfully yet for some tâ—me there were not any where so many but that the Bishop and his Deacon or Deacons might be sufficient for them 13. So likewise the being a Metropolis is no argument that there should be Presbyters by this time constituted there for supposing as I doe and my grounds have been largely set down that the Apostles conformed their models to the Governments and forms among the Nations where they came at their first planting the Faith in any region it must follow that the Church of Corinth as soon as it was formed into a Church with a Bishop over it was also a Metropolitan Church in relation to all other Cities of Greece which either then did or should after believe as Jerusalem was to all the Cities of Judea or as Philippi being a prime Citie or Metropolis of Macedonia and the first where Paul planted the Faith was straightway a Metropolitical Church how few or how many Christians there were in it it matters not 14. And therefore for his change of the scene from Corinth and Clement's to Philippi and St. Paul's Epistle it will bring him no advantage The case between them is exactly parallel There was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province of Macedonia saith St. Luke of which Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Metropolis just as Corinth was of Achaia and this Citie being the first in that region wherein St. Paul planted the Faith it was certainly a Metropolitical Church and Epaphroditus was the Metropolitan of that Province the first day he was Bishop of it The truth of which is so evident that the jeere of the Metropolitical Infant might seasonably have been controverted into a more serious and decent expression there being no reason imaginable why if the Apostles did institute Metropolitical Churches as here is not one serious word of objection against all that hath been said to assert it those Churches should not at their first institution call it their infancie if you will be Metropolitical Churches For as to that of the whole countries being supposed to be converted and divided into Dioceses that is not consequent or necessary to my assertion for as Clement saith of the Biâ—hop and Deacon in each City at the first planting of the Faith that they were constituted in relation to them not onely which did but expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who should afterward believe so the Church and Bishop in the Metropolis when that was first converted might very well be Metropolitical in respect of the other Cities of that Province which should afterward receive the Faith 15. As we know when Augustin came first over into England and preacht the Faith and converted Christians first at Ethelbert's seat and the Metropolis of that Province he was by being made Bishop there made Metropolitan also That sure was Bede's meaning when he saith of it lib. 1 c. 27. Venit Arelas ab Archiepiscopo ejusdem civitatis Ethâ—rio Archiepiscopus Genâ—i Anglorum ordinatus est He came to Arles in France and by Etherius Archbishop of that Citie was ordained Archbishop to the Nation of the English and if as a learned Antiquarie thinkes Bede spake after the use of his own time and that the word Archiepiscopus was not in use here then at Augustine's coming hither yet for the substance of the thing wherein I make the instance and all that I contend from thence there can be no doubt but that he being at first made Bishop of the Metropolis was thereby made also Metropolitan 16. As for the divisions into Dioceses how little force that hath against all that I have said or thought in this businesse whether of Bishops or Metropolitans I have spoken enough to that in the Vindication to the London Ministers c. 1. sect 19. and to that I refer the Prefacer 17. And so still I am free enough from quarrelling with my self in the least or from being ingaged in any endlesse labour to reconcile the contradictions of my answers which as farre as my weak understanding can reach are perfectly at agreement with one another If the labour of shewing they are so prove fruitlesse I know to whom I am beholding for it even the Task-master whom I have undertaken to observe and in that guise of obedience shall now proceed briefly to answer every of his questions and I hope there cannot now need many words to doe it 18. To the first concerning the Institution of the second order that of Presbyters for the when I answer I know not the yeare but evidently before the writing of Ignatius's Epistles in Trajan's time and in all probability after the writing all the Bookes of Scripture and for ought I can discerne of Clement's Epistle as farre as concerns either Rome or Corinth 19. For the by whom and by what authority I answer I think they were first instituted by St. John in Asia before his death and shall adde to my reasons elswhere given for it this farther consideration that Ignatius in all his Epistles to the Churches of Asia Ephesus Smyrna Trallis Magnesia Philadelphia makes mention of them within few years after John's death though in his Epistle to the Romans he doth not And if this be so then also it appears by what authority viz. such as John's was Apostolical Or if this should not be firmly grounded as to the person of St. John yet the reason why they were not at first instituted as well as Deacons being but this because there was no need of them yet and the power given by the Apostles to the first Bishops being a plenarie power so far that they might communicate to others what was committed to them either in whole or in part and those accordingly in the force thereof constituting Presbyters in partem officii the authority still by which they were instituted will be Apostolical and so if as this Prefacer gives order they be let goe to the place from whence they came they will not be much hurt they are but remitted to the society of the Apostles and Apostolical persons by this 20. To the second concerning the meaning of my words Diss 2. c. 29 21. when I say that Hierom's words of Churches being governed by common consent of Presbyters are to be understood of the times of the Apostles and whether all those Presbyters were Bishops properly so called I answer that my meaning was that if Hierome be reconcileable to himself that must be his meaning that in the Apostles times the Churches were first governed by common consent of Presbyters and after in the Apostles times too upon the rising of Schismes a Bishop was every where set over them that according in Hierome's notion all those Presbyters were not Bishops but such as out of whom after one was chosen in every Church to be a Bishop 21. That this was the truth of the fact I no where
principelium urbium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad quos provinciae integrae in iâ— multarum inferiorum â—…bium Ecclesiae earumque Epâ—scopi tanquam ad Archiâ—pâ—scopum aut Metropolitanum pertinebant The Doctor in this Chapter commences per saltum and taking it for granted that he hath proved Diâ—cesan Bishops sufficiently before though he hath 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 hath 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 Archiâ—piscopall 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 gâ—anted 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 uâ—bium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Doctor termes them what aâ—…ce is maâ—e by all this to the Assertation of a Metropoliticall Archiepâ—…pacy I cannot as yet â—…isâ—…vâ—r That they were ordinary officers of Christs institution relâ—…ing in their office and ordinary discharge of it not oneâ—y 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 Go â—…ors 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 necessitâ— of making any large returnes to this last but not concisest part of his digressâ—on 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 â—…rinter â—e will meet with two Section and so on for the three subsequent Sections and to the Dissertationâ— themselves and that viâ—…ication of them I shall willingly referre this matter Yet shall I not oâ—…t to gather up whatsoever I shall here finde â—…ggested 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 saith 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 severaâ—l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 betwixt 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 tâ—ll all this of Episcopacie had been premised by me 5. The reason which he addâ—s 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 saith 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 presumâ—tion 6. To which I answer that the question lying as there it did betwixt 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 onely a mention of the account of what hath been offered by the Prefacer concerning the state of the Churches in those dayes 1. that account hath already been shewn to have no force in it 2. if it had it belongs not to the controversie as it lay betwixt me and Blondel but is as contrary to Blondelâ— 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he will have called Bishops onely 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 the antient Councels and Church-writings and from them and not from Scripture which useth no higher style for them than of
repeated or inlarged on 7. In the close he is pleased to adde that by this time i. e. in Ignatius's time who suffer'd in Trajan's time and survived St. Iohn 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 passe for prâ—ttie antient being scarce distinguishable from Apostolical and so if what was attempted were attain'd also 't will be very like the yielding that which I contended from that testimony Sect. 8. Alexandria a Patriarchate instituted by St. Mark This proved and vindicated The Essens in Alexandria Christians Bishops among them Num. 1. IN the next and last place he will passe his judgement on the evidence drawn from the storie of the Church of Alexandria thus 2. The exâ—mpâ—e of Alexandria is urged in the next place in these words idâ—â— de 〈◊〉 de qua Eusebius Marâ—um 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesias in plurali primum in Alexandriá instituisse Haâ— omnes ab eo sub nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 administrandas susâ—episse Anianum Neronis anno octavo idem Eusebius affiâ—…t quibus patâ—t primariam Alexandriae Patriarchalem Cathedâ—â—m fiâ—…sse ad quam reliquae Provinciae illâ—us Ecclesiae à Marco plantatae ut 〈◊〉 Met opâ—…ticaâ— suam pertinebant doubtlesse for 1. There is noâ— any passage iâ— any aâ—…ent Author more clearly discovering the uncertainty of many things in Antiquity than this pointed to by the Dâ—ctoâ— in Eusebius Fâ—… 〈◊〉 the sending of Mark the Evangelist into Aegypt and his pretching theâ—e at Alexandria what he had written in â—hâ— Gospel is but a Repâ—â—â— Men said so but what ground they had for their saying so hâ—…elatâ—s noâ— And yet we know what a foundation of many aâ—â—eâ—tions by following Wâ—…s his uâ—â—or oâ— report is made to be 2. In the very next woâ—â—â— the Author affiâ—mes and insists lâ—ng upon it in the next Chapâ—er that Phâ—lo's bâ—ok 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was written concerning the Câ—… convâ—râ—ed by Mark 's preaching at Alexandria when it is notoriously known that it treateth of the Essens a Sect among the Jew amongst whose observances many things were vain superstirious and foolish uâ—worthy to be oâ—ce appâ—â—uded as the practice of any Christian in those day s that 〈◊〉 Phâ—lo â—s far as can be gâ—thered living and dying in the Jewish Religion having been employed by them with an Apology to Rome in the dayes of Caligâ—lâ— But 3. supâ—â—se that Mark were at Alexandria and preached the Gospel there which is not improbable and â—…ed many Chuâ—ches in â—â—at great and populous City of Jewes and Gentiles and that as an Evangelist the care of those Churches was upon him in a â—eculiar manner â—ay and adde farther thâ—â— after his death as Hieromeâ—ssuâ—â—s â—ssuâ—â—s us the Elders â—nd Presbyters of those Churches câ—oâ—â—e ouâ—…ne among themselves to preside in their Convocations and meetings I I say â—l â—his be supposed what will ensue wâ—y then it is manifest thaâ— theâ— was fixed at Alexandria a Paâ—…chaâ— Chaiâ— and a Metropolitical Church according to the appointment of Jesus Christ by his Apostles Si hoâ— 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 seâ—s not that to be an Archbishops See The reason is as clear as his in the Comâ—… for the freedom of his Wife Sy Utinam Phrygiam â—xâ—râ—m mâ—am â—â—à mecum videam lâ—beran Dem. Optiâ—aâ— muliereâ— qui lem â—y Et quidem nepoti tuo hujus filiâ— hodiâ— primam mammam ded haec Dem. Hercle vero sâ—…ò siquidem prioâ—am dedit ba dâ—dubium quâ—â— emâ—â—i Aequum sâ—â—t Mâ—â— Ob eaâ—â— rem Dem. Ob â—am And there is amend of the contest The Doctor indeed hath sundâ—y other Sections added to â—hâ—se foregoing whâ—… as they concern times more remote from those who first received the Apostolicaâ— Institutions so I must ingeniously professe that I cannot see any thing whereon to fastâ—n a suâ—piâ—ion of a proof so â—a re as to call it into examination and therefore I shall absolve the Reader from the penaâ—ty of this Dâ—gression 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 aâ—â—sse 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 doe yet aâ—… of the Records of that Church that St. Markâ—oundâ—â— â—oundâ—◠〈◊〉 and left Ananias or Anianus Patriarch there Of this Eusâ—b us thus speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Mark first erected â—hurches in Alexandri◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anianus received and ruled under thâ—â— tâ—â—o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province of Alexandria adding that 〈◊〉 was such a multitude of them which upon St. Mark 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first onset received the Christian Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 most Philosophical or pious excellent mâ—â—ner 〈◊〉 living that Philo Judâ—us who lived at that time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—it to write a Book to describe their whole manner of 〈◊〉 5. That the same St. Mark constituted 〈◊〉 so in Pentapolis is affirmed by the Author of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accordingly the sixth Canon of the first 〈◊〉 Nâ—… appoints those Churches as also all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lybia to be subject to the Patriarch oâ— Alexandâ—◠〈◊〉 firming that so it was to be by the antient and primitive custome 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bishop of Alexandria shall administer onely the affairs of Aegypt and this in their care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to confound the Churches disturb the order antiently observed among them 7. The onely 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 onely at Alexandria But to this authority it was sufficient to oppose the farre greater of Eusebius who speaking of that Demetrius saith that after Julian he undertook 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the government of the Dioceses there in the plural which cannot be imagined to be without Bishops over them And the same is